Beacon Hill: Thorny Questions ????

Thorny Questions??

How about the COSTS??

How about CRIME?

What will the Regulatory structure cost?

Unanswered Questions In Mass. Casino Gambling Push
STEVE LeBLANC, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON (AP) ― Massachusetts lawmakers are scrambling to fill in the thorny details of a bill designed to throw open the state's doors to casino gambling.

[Oh? You mean the silly little things that Slap Dash Legislation creates like giving the State Police Exclusivity???

Chief Sampson and his Panelists, Chiefs of Police, seemed mighty peeved about that oversight.

They seemed to indicate that were the State Police granted EXCLUSIVITY, the local police couldn't respond even if called for assistance or backup. That's mighty comforting to a taxpayer embroiled in a major emergency!]

With just seven weeks left until their formal session ends,


[Whose fault is that? Wasn't that their plan?]

there are many unanswered questions: How many casinos will be built?

[Can we just toss a coin for this? After all, look at how successful Las Vegas and Atlantic City have been. And we all know they'll return next year for more.]

Where they will be located?

[Get out that dart board, will ya?]

How much revenue will they generate?

[Let's just take the Spectrum Gaming numbers that we know are overstated because they calculate a drive time of 2 hours, even though we know folks don't drive that long. After all, who can blame legislators for accepting bogus numbers?]

How many jobs will be created?

[We know it won't be what they claim, so add some manure.]

And will the state's existing racetracks will be allowed to install slot machines?

[Sure! We need Convenience Gambling like Parx that sucks every last dollar from the local economy and destroy local businesses!]

The state will get a little closer to answering those questions when the Senate releases its version of the bill on Friday.

[Sure! Let's release it just before a weekend, when no one has time to review the Slap Dash version and pretend it's adequately vetted. We know how wildly credible that was!]

Senate President [Cha Ching] Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, said debate on the bill should [?] begin on June 22 or 23, once senators have been given a chance to read the legislation and file amendments.

[Oh? You mean like over the weekend? Isn't that Father's Day?]

Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, one of those writing the legislation, said the final bill will be posted on the Senate's website before the debate [Oh? WHEN?] , along with a report detailing [INFLATED] anticipated revenues and [OVERSTATED] job estimates. Senate Ways and Means Chairman Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell, said the job estimates could be released as early as this week.

[Oh? Whose estimates? The wildly inflated estimates we heard last week??? There were a few Senators who should be embarrassed by their comments during the Hearing.]

The Senate is sensitive to criticism leveled at the Massachusetts House, which did not hold a public hearing on their casino bill before debating and voting on it. The Senate held a packed public hearing this week after releasing a draft version of their bill.

[That was a Hearing? The Sham Committee allowed the Cheerleaders to speak endlessly to get on the 6 O'Clock News, but stifled opponents who presented information the Sham Committee didn't want to hear. They allowed a casino developer to speak for more than 20 minutes. God! What happened to Democracy? It died on Beacon Hill!]

There are key differences between the two bills.

[There are other KEY differences, but no one seems to have completed a comparison. I know. I asked.]

While the House would allow two casinos and 750 slot machines at each of the state's four racetracks, the Senate bill would license three casinos with no racetrack slots.

[750 slots? Let's be honest. We know they'll return next year for an increase because they can't make enough money.]


One of the biggest questions in the Senate bill is where to locate the casinos.

Rosenberg said the final bill would create three geographic zones and allow one casino in each. The final lines of those zones have yet to be drawn, although most assume they would allow a western Massachusetts casino and another on the state's south coast.


[Wouldn't you think that should be included in the proposed Slap Dash legislation? Just asking!]

Rosenberg said the final zones will be dictated by market forces.

"What's got to drive it is the market, not politics and traditional geography," Rosenberg said. "It's about the market."

[About the market? Oh? You mean like the historically high unemployment in Atlantic City that predates the current recession? You mean like the high crime that accompanies slots? You mean like the low wage dead end jobs they promise? Senator "Lap Dog" Rosenberg prides himself on all the great research he's endured, traveling as a VIP Massachusetts Senator to visit all those casinos, but where has he presented the hard evidence of the failure of casinos to create PROSPERITY? How come poverty, unemployment, crime, high dropout rates, low college graduation rates were ignored?]

Another unresolved question is how much the state will charge casino operators for a license.

[This is simple. Just give them away as you are to the wealthy Malaysian investors in Fall River!]

The House bill requires a $500 million private investment from each of the resort casinos and $75 million from each of the race tracks. It would also deliver $260 million in upfront licensing fees.

The Senate hasn't yet identified a minimum license fee, but Senate leaders say two of the casinos would be competitively bid, with the third going to an Indian tribe.

That raises another question: Which tribe?


[How should the Commonwealth account for the legal fees to fight this in Federal Court for years because of their failure to research IGRA? Should those legal fees come out of the over-inflated gambling revenues?]

The state's two federally recognized tribes — the Mashpee Wampanoags and the Aquinnah Wampanoags — both say they want to build a casino in Fall River.

The Mashpees already have reached a deal with the city to develop a casino, hotels, a shopping mall and convention center on a 300-acre parcel along Route 24.

The Aquinnahs say they want to build a casino on a 240-acre parcel near Route 195. They say their plan would let Fall River build a biotechnology park on the land sought by the Mashpees.

The Patrick administration has cast doubt on the Aquinnah proposal, saying that when the Aquinnah received federal recognition in 1987, they agreed any land they acquired would be subject to state and local laws, meaning they couldn't create a casino without state approval.

The Aquinnah already have land on Martha's Vineyard, which is not seen as a practical location for a casino.

There are some questions that won't be answered until after a bill becomes law.

[Just maybe those questions should be answered BEFORE the bill is voted.]

Among those is who will be appointed to a newly created five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Under the draft version of the Senate bill, the governor gets to appoint three of the commissioners, including the chairman, while the attorney general and state treasurer each appoint one.

[Now, we know this really isn't a dilemma after the Probation Hack-O-Rama you should be addressing. Most of us could think of a few names that bubble to the top of the manure pile.]

The biggest unanswered question of all, of course, is whether a final version of the casino bill will be passed by lawmakers.

Even Rosenberg isn't sure how he'll vote.

"I will not decide and say I'm going to vote on a bill on casinos until I actually see the final bill," he said. "I'm neither morally opposed to gaming but I understand the significant social and economic impacts of it."

[Now that's a Spineless Non-Answer!]