Massachusetts: Coming to a neighborhood near you: DRUNKS

Casino bill would end state ban on free drinks
By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

BOSTON — The Senate yesterday voted to repeal a 1984 statewide ban on happy hours with free or discounted drinks at restaurants and bars and rejected an amendment that would stop casinos and slot parlors from serving free alcohol.

The two actions came as the Senate worked through scores of proposed amendments to legislation to license three casinos and a slot parlor.

Free drink advocates said a ban on free alcohol in casinos would make the state’s casino licenses less valuable to bidders and result in lower state revenues from gambling taxes.

Repeal of the state’s happy hour ban was not included in a House version of the casino bill, and is worded in the Senate adopted amendment to only allow new rules for restaurants and bars if the casino bill is adopted.

Sen. Robert L. Hedlund, R-Weymouth, said allowing happy hours and free drinks at all bars and restaurants would put casinos and existing bars and restaurants on “an equal playing field.”

“This is an amendment that really does help out local restaurants,” said Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, as he argued to roll back the ban on happy hours adopted in 1984.

Sen. Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester, echoed that sentiment, saying, “It does exactly what needs to be done. It provides a very level playing field which needs to be done. The last thing we want to do is see any of our small businesses that we love and are important to the economies of our local communities go out of business because of the presence of a gaming establishment.”

The amendment to allow restaurants and bars to serve free drinks passed on a 25-13 vote. The House version allowed free and discount drinks at gambling facilities while not addressing the state happy hour ban.

State Sen. Susan C. Fargo, D-Lincoln, said she proposed the ban on free drinks in casinos to avoid a sudden increase in the number of accidents and fatalities on highways around casinos if they open here. She said there was a substantial increase in accidents and highway deaths around casinos in Connecticut after they opened offering free drinks.

She argued that casinos should have to comply with the state ban on happy hour drink discounts and free drinks, which she said has proven to be a sensible provision in the state for decades.

Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, D-Somerville, said allowing free drinks at casinos would put thousands of bars and restaurants at a competitive disadvantage, and that the amendment to ban free drinks was backed by the Massachusetts Restaurant Association.

After the ban on free casino drinks failed on a 26-12 vote, the Senate took up the separate amendment to overturn the state’s happy hour law and allow bars and restaurants to resume offering free and discount drinks.

Also approved was a bill that would prohibit anyone with a felony conviction or conviction for fraud, theft or perjury to be given a gambling license.

Another provision in the proposed bill that was hotly debated would require host community approval by a binding referendum before a casino or slot parlor could be located in any city or town, except in cities with more than 125,000 population. In those cities — Worcester, Boston and Springfield — only voters in the ward in which the facility would be built would get to vote on a referendum to approve the facility. The Senate rejected an amendment to require communitywide votes in every host city and town.

The provisions in the Senate bill, also included in the House bill, are aimed at making it easier to site a casino or slot parlor in Boston, at a site such as Suffolk Downs. The wording is designed to allow an exception for Boston, without violating state constitutional standards that would prohibit an exception just for Boston.

Gambling opponents yesterday released a new analysis calling job growth and increased local aid claims by casino backers “wildly optimistic.”

“The public is being sold a bill of goods and our new analysis should blow the rose-colored glasses off proponents and force them to rethink this poor excuse for economic development and local aid,” said Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts President Scott L. Harshbarger.

Backers of the bill to license three casinos and a slot machine parlor have claimed the gaming facilities will create up to 15,000 new jobs, but the study by the gambling critics estimated that thousands of other existing jobs will be killed by the casinos.

By diverting $700 million to $1.3 billion annually in household spending into lost bets at casinos and new state gambling taxes, the group said, the expanded gambling operations will kill off between 5,700 and 10,600 existing jobs in the state.

Moreover, they said, a number of studies of the impact on local aid to cities and towns indicate a 5 to 10 percent decline in state lottery sales will occur. That, they said, would result in a loss of about $90 million annually in lottery funding for local communities and schools.

The group also said claims by proponents that the legislation will generate $1.2 billion to $1.8 billion in annual revenues for the casinos is based on “pre-recession” estimates that are no longer valid.

While Gov. Deval L. Patrick has said that state residents spend $1.5 billion annually at Connecticut casinos, the organization said those figures are based on outdated information. They said the most recent study by the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth completed this year found Massachusetts residents spent only $486 million in the Connecticut casinos and a total of $613 million in all out-of-state gambling trips. They said that would result in only $30 million in new revenues to cities and towns.

The legislation cleared the House and is in a third week of debate in the Senate with further debate on proposed amendments to the bill scheduled today.

Mr. Brewer, Ways and Means chairman, said he will vote in favor of the bill even though he agrees that some of the studies are outdated and exaggerated.

Criticism from opponents that current estimates are based on data collected before the 2008 recession, he said, are legitimate. “There is probably some logic to that,” Mr. Brewer said. Still, he said, some jobs and revenue is better than none.

“If we are going to get $1.4 billion in gross revenues instead of $1.8 billion, isn’t that a significant amount that we can carve out of for the state coffers and programs we agree with?” he argued. “If it isn’t 15,000 jobs, is it going to be 10,000 jobs? And if it is — that is 10,000 jobs we don’t have now,” Mr. Brewer said.