Kathleen Norbut, President of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, wrote the letter below to the author of a recent article (printed with permission).
.
Ms. Norbut has raised several significant issues, one of the most important of which is MONEY. (emphasis mine)
.
Note that the proposal is now half the size --
Hi Lori,
I just read the article that you wrote yesterday
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/post_16.html
that states that Mohegan Sun plans to build a one billion dollar casino in Palmer. It was reported (Southbridge Evening News, September 23, 2009) that Mohegan Sun representatives spoke about building a casino that would cost more than $500 million dollars at the proposed Palmer site at the recent forum at the Council on Aging.
Half the value - same mitigation problems and costs.
Perhaps this detail should be clarified to the public?
Jennifer Lendler, casino and banking expert, testified at the Senate hearing at the end of June 2009 that casino revenues and the industry's ability to create large capital projects have dissipated. She also stated that the upfront licensing fees suggested by casino proponents have dwindled to half the figure projected by Governor Patrick and the AFL-CIO bill submitted by Sen. Menard, Reps. Walsh and Wallace.
The Menard, Walsh, Wallace bill calls for a "one-time ten year licensing fee" with automatic renewal and no fee at the time of renewal. How would the diminished projected revenues cover costly regional mitigation, reduce property taxes, ameliorate the state's ~4 billion dollar structural deficit, lottery losses for local aid, tourism and education among other expenses cited for gambling revenues?
Senate President Therese Murray speaks frequently about the "hundreds of millions of dollars" leaving Massachusetts for CT and RI gambling establishments. Interestingly, she omits the need to clarify to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth that only a percentage of the gambling portion that is taxed might be re-captured with legalizing slots.
She does not talk about the estimated $15,000 per year costs to the taxpayer for each gambling addict, which are projected to double with closer proximity to slot facilities or the enormous costs for developing a gambling regulatory control bureaucracy. AG Coakley stated in her testimony at the above senate hearing that NJ employs 500 state workers in their gambling control division. The Senate President is the AG's US Senate campaign finance committee honorary chairperson - certainly they are both knowledgeable about these costs. Should media not be pressing these elected officials to produce definitive costs and budgets to suppor their one-sided proposals?
Why are the costs not presented to the public by proponents of slots and the media?
It is also interesting to see that the Greater Springfield Convention &
Vistors Bureau board would like offset funding for the restaurants and tourism declines the city will experience should class III gambling be legalized.
"But Chiecko said the board would like funding for marketing to support arts and restaurants affected by a casino.'
How many times can the same dollar be spent? Perhaps the Greater Springfield Convention & Visitor's Bureau board members are not aware of the work of the Western MA Casino Task Force that articulates numerous costly fiscal impacts to the region?
I thought you would like to fact check these issues and present the larger issues to the region that should be driving the casino discussion such as, would taxpayers support public policy such as state sponsored gambling that derives ~80% of their profits from and depends on the destruction of ~10% of problem gamblers? Would taxpayers support an industry that uses predatory business practices and manipulation with slot machines to extract maximum revenues from players?
Would taxpayers with comprehensive information about costs to local economies not demand an independent cost-benefit analysis before any expansion of legalized gambling is considered in the Commonwealth?
An independent cost-benefit analysis of these proposals is the rational next step for the Commonwealth.
Thanks!
Kathleen Conley Norbut, M.Ed., LMHC
Hi Lori,
I just read the article that you wrote yesterday
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/09/post_16.html
that states that Mohegan Sun plans to build a one billion dollar casino in Palmer. It was reported (Southbridge Evening News, September 23, 2009) that Mohegan Sun representatives spoke about building a casino that would cost more than $500 million dollars at the proposed Palmer site at the recent forum at the Council on Aging.
Half the value - same mitigation problems and costs.
Perhaps this detail should be clarified to the public?
Jennifer Lendler, casino and banking expert, testified at the Senate hearing at the end of June 2009 that casino revenues and the industry's ability to create large capital projects have dissipated. She also stated that the upfront licensing fees suggested by casino proponents have dwindled to half the figure projected by Governor Patrick and the AFL-CIO bill submitted by Sen. Menard, Reps. Walsh and Wallace.
The Menard, Walsh, Wallace bill calls for a "one-time ten year licensing fee" with automatic renewal and no fee at the time of renewal. How would the diminished projected revenues cover costly regional mitigation, reduce property taxes, ameliorate the state's ~4 billion dollar structural deficit, lottery losses for local aid, tourism and education among other expenses cited for gambling revenues?
Senate President Therese Murray speaks frequently about the "hundreds of millions of dollars" leaving Massachusetts for CT and RI gambling establishments. Interestingly, she omits the need to clarify to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth that only a percentage of the gambling portion that is taxed might be re-captured with legalizing slots.
She does not talk about the estimated $15,000 per year costs to the taxpayer for each gambling addict, which are projected to double with closer proximity to slot facilities or the enormous costs for developing a gambling regulatory control bureaucracy. AG Coakley stated in her testimony at the above senate hearing that NJ employs 500 state workers in their gambling control division. The Senate President is the AG's US Senate campaign finance committee honorary chairperson - certainly they are both knowledgeable about these costs. Should media not be pressing these elected officials to produce definitive costs and budgets to suppor their one-sided proposals?
Why are the costs not presented to the public by proponents of slots and the media?
It is also interesting to see that the Greater Springfield Convention &
Vistors Bureau board would like offset funding for the restaurants and tourism declines the city will experience should class III gambling be legalized.
"But Chiecko said the board would like funding for marketing to support arts and restaurants affected by a casino.'
How many times can the same dollar be spent? Perhaps the Greater Springfield Convention & Visitor's Bureau board members are not aware of the work of the Western MA Casino Task Force that articulates numerous costly fiscal impacts to the region?
I thought you would like to fact check these issues and present the larger issues to the region that should be driving the casino discussion such as, would taxpayers support public policy such as state sponsored gambling that derives ~80% of their profits from and depends on the destruction of ~10% of problem gamblers? Would taxpayers support an industry that uses predatory business practices and manipulation with slot machines to extract maximum revenues from players?
Would taxpayers with comprehensive information about costs to local economies not demand an independent cost-benefit analysis before any expansion of legalized gambling is considered in the Commonwealth?
An independent cost-benefit analysis of these proposals is the rational next step for the Commonwealth.
Thanks!
Kathleen Conley Norbut, M.Ed., LMHC
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment