These folks worked hard to protect their communities and spread the TRUTH and the FACTS about Predatory Gambling......I can't be more proud and more impressed with all they accomplished!
Folks don't want Predatory Gambling to destroy their communities, increase CRIME, increase DUIs, destroy local businesses.....
In one swift stunning blow, East Boston voters rejected casino dreams years in the making, defeating a $1 billion Suffolk Downs gambling resort project, a shocking turn for the state’s nascent casino industry and a prominent casino proposal once widely considered a lock to win the state’s most lucrative gambling license.
With the project winning a majority of support in Revere, however, Suffolk Downs will explore moving the entire development onto the Revere side of the city line, Chip Tuttle, the track’s chief operating officer, told the Globe.
In an official statement, Tuttle thanked the people of Revere “for their overwhelming vote of confidence in our project” and the people of East Boston “for allowing us to state our case for thousands of jobs for local residents.”
In Eastie, voters proved to be unmoved by big promises, pro-casino endorsements from powerful politicians — including Mayor Thomas M. Menino — and nearly $2 million in campaign spending by Suffolk Downs.
East Boston voter Krysten Hunt, 24, summed up the anti-casino position, saying she did not want more potential traffic, pollution, crime or gambling addiction in her neighborhood. “All that stuff? No, thanks,” she said. “It’s fine the way it is.”
The ballot box failure leaves the future of New England’s last thoroughbred racetrack in grave doubt. The 78-year-old track has been losing money for years, as its owners have pumped in money to keep the track afloat in anticipation of adding a profitable casino.
Mohegan Sun’s casino proposal for Palmer was also defeated Tuesday. Voters there defeated the referendum 2,657-2,564 with a staggering 66 percent turnout.
Like most Massachusetts newspapers, the Boston Globe has been a perennial cheerleader for Expanded Gambling, costs and impacts be damned.
Perhaps their endorsement is based on visions of future ad revenues or their failures to conduct the due diligence we would expect from a news outlet, yet even now the Editorial Board has come to recognize a few of the significant flaws in the current Behind Closed Doors Legislation.
There are many more flaws the Globe failed to address, like the can of worms of Tribal Slot Barns legalization of Slots will create.
We already know that Governor "Slot Barns" made other promises behind closed doors. What else has been promised?
AFTER YEARS of false starts, legislative leaders and Governor Patrick hammered out a new agreement behind closed doors last month to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts. It’s a deeply disappointing bill, full of just the kind of inside deals and special-interest giveaways that Patrick once vowed to fight. Now it’s up to rank-and-file lawmakers to reject the plan.
The proposal concocted by Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo would license three resort-style casinos in different regions of the state, along with a single slots parlor. The Commonwealth would pocket 25 percent of the revenues from the casinos, and 40 percent of revenues from slots. Under the right circumstances, carefully regulated casino gambling should have a place in Massachusetts, providing jobs and stemming the outflow of revenue to casinos in neighboring states. But this proposal falls far short of meeting that standard. The proposal’s greatest flaw is the inclusion of the slots parlor, which has long been a sticking point in negotiations. Slots would be lucrative for the state, but they create relatively few jobs and are one of the most addictive forms of gambling - which is why Patrick was right to oppose including slots in earlier gambling plans, and why he is wrong to give in now.
The bill also directs 9 percent of revenues from the slots parlor to subsidize purses at horse tracks, satisfying one of DeLeo’s demands. The speaker has been an unusually strong advocate for Suffolk Downs. It’s understandable that he would want to help an ailing business in his district, but such a set-aside is unwarranted. The horse-racing subsidy is not the only way the bill seems rigged to help Suffolk Downs, which spent $191,000 lobbying in the first six months of this year and hopes to host one of the three casinos. The track would be relieved of part of the approval process that applies elsewhere in the state. At the insistence of the governor and others, the bill gives towns where casinos want to operate the right to hold a referendum. But the legislation exempts communities with a population over 125,000; in those cities, only the ward where the casino is to be located will be allowed to vote. Only Boston, Worcester, and Springfield fit that definition. The effect of the provision would be to prevent the city from voting on gambling at Suffolk Downs. Boston residents need to make clear to their representatives that a vote for the casino bill is a vote against their own constituents. And Patrick needs to explain why his past support for giving residents a say apparently doesn’t extend to most people in Boston.
Any casino legislation should also provide a level playing field for would-be operators. Instead, under the current proposal, Native American tribes would have a one-year head start for the license designated for Southeastern Massachusetts. It effectively amounts to a no-bid contract for the Mashpee Wampanoag, the only tribe likely to complete a proposal in that timeframe. Given the longstanding desire of the tribe to build a casino on its ancestral lands, the provision holds understandable appeal; better that some of the benefits from a casino go to a tribe with a long history in Massachusetts rather than out-of-state gambling operators. But carving out a special process for a group with strong lobbying muscle remains problematic. Patrick opposed no-bid contracts in negotiations last year - and shouldn’t have shifted now.
If Massachusetts is going to embrace an industry with a history of sparking public corruption and attracting organized crime, the state’s legal framework must be above reproach. It’s widely assumed that the Legislature will bow to the leadership and support the deal. But lawmakers need to stand up for the greater good.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long, proud history of patronage and sleazy deals, some merely smelling faintly rotten, others clearly so.
While the Boston Globe has accomplished a long overdue examination of the "Probation Dept.," was there ever an article about the closed door meetings with the Gambling Industry? For starters, House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo and Kathi-Anne Reinstein sleep with the Industry and the Globe doesn't notice?
Was there ever anything other than meager opposition comments from the Boston Globe Cheerleaders promoting the "Wonder of it All"?
Has the Boston Globe ever reported on the failure of Beacon Hill to conduct an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis on the costs and impacts of Gambling, as New Hampshire did?
In order to accomplish anything on Beacon Hill, it is necessary to stroke the ego of some ....sometimes less than the brightest...sometimes pretty dumb, if truth be told.
That's probably why the well paid LOBBYISTS are so well compensated - they can go home and gag on the requisite ego stroking - or maybe they lack the insight to recognize their folly. They adequately shovel the manure to feed over-inflated egos.
One wonders how some get into elected office without their districts being duly embarrassed.
In some cases, an electorate too lazy to follow the votes and performance of their officials explains all.
Clearly, the media is partially to blame for some pretty poor reporting.
In many cases, it's because qualified people simply don't run. (Take a hint!)
In many cases, some districts have pretty impressive elected officials who are willing to conduct their due diligence, arrive at informed decisions, make substantive comments and their election reflects a well informed and involved constituency.
When the scandal involving Matt Amorello made news, the Beacon Hill culture was conspicuously displayed for scrutiny.
Here was a Republican hack, under qualified for a bi-partisan mess, with an over-inflated ego that blinded him of reality his potential, appointed by an absentee Republican Governor who had to return to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts each time disaster struck.
That absentee Governor, running a Presidential campaign himself, mostly allowed state government to be run by mouthpieces, "Government by Press Release while out of state."
So the Commonwealth gets into one pickle after another by accepting sound bytes, political hacks, government determined by union support, government determined by special interests, government for sale to the highest bidder.
Then, the Boston Globe, sensing the blood in the water in an election year, does a little homework into a scandal they could have/should have highlighted in the intervening + 20 years, and scores a home run of sorts.
Gambling Industry? Where was the uproar from the Globe? Where were the editorials about taxpayer dollars spent on BENEFITS Reports, while leadership refused to conduct an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS? Did the Boston Globe ever comment on the Independent Report conducted in New Hampshire? Has the Boston Globe ever reported that the cost of each Gambling Addict created by Slot Barns in the Commonwealth exceeds $13,000 per year?
Gambling legislation paralyzed Beacon Hill for 18 months, while important legislation languished and the Globe became a cheerleader for the Industry.
I think it is wonderful that, in Joan Menard's last months in office, she finally concerned about getting people jobs, even though they aren't related to her:
Daughter: University of Massachusetts, Menard Jennifer J., Director of Economic Develop, 37.50 hours, 2008 -$67,291.40, 2009 - $73,348.77
Son-in-law Lottery Commission, Preble Sean S, Field Technician MSLC, 40.00 hours, 2008- $48,418.80, 2009 - $49,477.67
That in no way defends the current scandal, but highlights that the problems are far more widespread than the Globe has presented. It also highlights how the Boston Globe has failed to properly serve, until election year arrives.
Posts
