What’s the big hurry?

What’s the big hurry?
By Scott Harshbarger and Michael Dukakis

WHEN PEOPLE on Beacon Hill are in a hurry to get something done, watch out! This is what is happening now, as the state House of Representatives careens toward approving expanded casino and slots gambling.


Opponents like us — while at a distinct disadvantage against well-heeled lobbyists for the gambling industry — are willing to accept a loss after legitimate debate on the merits. Unfortunately, casino backers have chosen to take the path of secrecy, silence, and expedience. The complex, 172-page bill released last week has seen two committee votes with no public hearing or debate. Legislators, 108 of whom voted down a similar bill in the last session, now face a choice.

What’s the big hurry?

All the major warning signs that persuaded the Legislature to defeat casino and slot bills in 2002, 2003, and 2006, each year by a larger margin, still exist.

First, we are told that this is a jobs bill. But the facts tell a different story.

The three states with the highest unemployment rates in the nation are Michigan, Nevada, and Rhode Island, all home to casinos or racinos. With decreased earnings, fewer gamblers, and limited casino borrowing, layoffs are hitting their casinos.

The number of jobs the proposed legislation would create has been wildly exaggerated. We are told that two casinos and four racinos will net about 16,000 construction and permanent jobs. But in Indiana it takes 10 riverboats, one casino and two racinos to generate 16,000 current jobs and Louisiana requires 18 casinos to employ 17,268, according to the American Gaming Association.

The states that most closely mirror the current legislation suggest that the real results will be but a fraction of the job estimates we have been hearing. Michigan’s three casinos net 8,568 permanent jobs and New Mexico’s five racinos employ less than 2,000 people.

After jobs, the argument for casinos is that they provide a new state revenue stream. But the numbers don’t add up.

Commonwealth Magazine reported that in order to reach the revenue estimates when the bill was unveiled — of between $1.4 billion and $1.9 billion — somewhere between $5.6 billion and $7.2 billion must be bet and lost at the two proposed casinos every year.

In Las Vegas, it takes 266 casinos to bring in $11.6 billion in gross revenue, which translates into $924 million in tax revenue. Even the $300 million to $600 million now estimated here is a stretch based on that data.

The list of questions based on the experience of other states about the costs — fiscal, economic, social, and human — only grows from there.

That is why we and others have argued for a full cost-benefit analysis before the House votes. That seems like a common sense thing to do on an issue this important and the governor agrees.

Let’s hope this cost-benefit analysis includes a detailed study of the millions of dollars in Lottery revenue that will be lost to casinos, all of which now goes to the cities and towns to try to keep property taxes under control; the significant, unmeasured law enforcement and public protection costs involved; and the estimated 100,000 gambling addicts that will emerge and the appalling costs to families and communities that they will bring with them.

It may be that gambling proponents have the votes. But if we are to make the mistake to usher in the casino culture in the Commonwealth, let’s at least do it openly, with a sound, independent analysis of its true costs, thorough public hearings, and an informed debate in the full light of day.

Scott Harshbarger, former attorney general of Massachusetts, is senior counsel at Proskauer. Michael Dukakis, former governor of Massachusetts, is a professor at Northeastern University.