Massachusetts may have missed the bus on casinos

Connecting Point: Former Rep. Walsh talks casino gambling:
VIDEO


Former Rep. Michael Walsh: Opportunity for casinos in Mass. 'may have passed'


Former Agawam Rep. Michael P. Walsh said recently that the Commonwealth may have missed the shuttle bus on casinos.

"It may have been our opportunity to jump in four or five years ago, and that opportunity may have passed," Walsh said on WGBY's "Connecting Point."

Walsh left the state Legislature in 1995 after 12 years in the House to lobby for casinos on behalf of the Wampanoag Indian Tribe.

This highlights the "revolving door" policy so common elsewhere of legislators and those in important positions in state government becoming lobbyists.

Walsh said that if expanded gambling can do anything to jump-start the state's economy, it would likely be in the form of a single casino.

"I really worry that more than one casino in this state is going to oversaturate," he said. "I think there's room for one, maybe two, but that's going to be awfully hard to sustain."
He also said it would have to be a resort casino, like the one proposed in Palmer. But The Republican reported Wednesday that the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority has scaled back its plans for a Palmer facility:

But plans for that $600-million casino have shrunken over the past four years from 3,000 slot machines proposed four years ago to 2,500 slot machines in the plans today and from a 4,000- to 5,000-seat theater to a 1,000- to 1,500-square-foot multi-use ballroom, said Paul I. Brody, vice president of Mohegan Gaming Advisors. [What is currently being proposed in Palmer, MA is a SLOT BARN.]

“This isn’t a build-it-and-they-will-come business model anymore,” Brody said during a meeting Wednesday with The Republican’s editorial board. “It is a very tightly-margined business, and you have to watch how much you spend.”

Walsh said that after having worked on issues involving expanded gambling in the Commonwealth as a legislator and a lobbyist, he could see the merit in arguments for and against the proposed legislation:

If you take a look at those who are in favor of gambling, I think it will create jobs - in the short term, and to a certain extent in the long term. I think it will generate some revenue, and I also think it will keep in-state some of the revenue that's being exported primarily down to Connecticut. Having said that, I also do think that the opponents are correct, too. Will it increase compulsive gambling? Yes. Will it cannibalize the nearby economy? Probably. So I think all of those arguments, over the last 10 years, have been valid.


In the video, comments are made about how wildly successful both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun are, failing to include that financial facts: Foxwoods has defaulted and Mohegan Sun is financially insolvent and mired in debt.