Column: On casinos and politics

Get the FACTS and join with others to protect ALL communities:

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL


Column: On casinos and politics

By Rick Holmes
MassPoliticalNews.com Posted Jul. 3, 2014 @ 9:37 am

BROOKLINE


A campaign that had been looking for a theme found one last week, with a little help from the Supreme Judicial Court. Now casinos will be on the ballot, and on them minds of voters, as commercials pro and con crowd out candidate pitches in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

The political establishment had hoped it wouldn’t come to this. After years of intense lobbying, the Legislature three years ago agreed, by large, bipartisan majorities, on a modest plan for up to three resort-style casinos and one slots parlor, with voters given a veto of any casino proposed for their community. Licenses have already been granted for a casino in Springfield and a slots operation in Plainville.

Whether Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office tried to keep the casino repeal initiative off the ballot for legitimate legal or purely political reasons no longer matters. The SJC wasn’t buying the constitutional arguments. Coakley is embarrassed either way, and the one thing all candidates for governor seem to agree on is that the voters should have a say.

But which voters? As is often the case in public policy, the question comes down to, "Who decides?" Does the elected state Legislature get to decide how to legalize and regulate casino gambling? Should the voters get to reverse course three years into the process? Do the elected officials and voters of Springfield get to decide whether MGM’s casino proposal fits into their community, or should voters in Hopkinton and Williamstown and Boston’s Back Bay be able to veto that plan?

The difference between policy and politics is that the emotion behind issues like gambling can drown out all nuance, scramble partisan alignments and shape attitudes about candidates in unpredictable ways.

Gambling is a rare issue that pulls from both extremes. Cultural conservatives and nanny state liberals may use different language, but they agree gambling is so bad for people that the government is justified in limiting it.

Then there are the moderates. They may be concerned about the downside of gambling, but they’ve been to a casino or two without being transformed into slot machine zombies. They may not want a casino down the street, but they aren’t offended by one in Springfield, Everett or New Bedford.

Moderates care about economic development as well, and they’ll welcome whatever jobs three casinos and a slots parlor create. Polls show support for casinos on economic grounds has weakened as the economy has improved. Tell that to Springfield, which has an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the state as a whole. There, MGM’s $800 million investment in a struggling downtown is seen as an opportunity, not a curse.

The casino question is already fueling primary battles in both parties. Democratic governor candidate Don Berwick is appealing to eat-your-vegetable liberals with his strong opposition to casinos in any form, while opponents Coakley and Steve Grossman oppose repeal, though without enthusiasm.

Republican Charlie Baker also says he’ll vote against repeal, though he’s happy to see it on the ballot. His nuanced position — he’d prefer one casino to three — won’t spur enthusiasm in the anti-gambling crowd. Mark Fisher, Baker’s tea party challenger, supports repeal, but on practical, not ideological grounds. He says private casinos will undermine the state’s own highly profitable Lottery operations.


Three independents running for governor are also split, with Evan Falchuk opposing repeal, Jeff McCormick favoring repeal on economic grounds, and Scott Lively opposed to all gambling on moral grounds.

In a hotly contested Democratic race for attorney general, Maura Healey is staunchly in favor of repeal, while Warren Tolman, with strong labor backing, shows more enthusiasm for casinos than any other candidate.

There’s no federal issue involved here, but that won’t stop Republican Brian Herr, who is challenging Sen. Ed Markey, from bringing it up. As chairman of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen, Herr led efforts to stop a casino just over the town line in Milford.

How this will play out in individual races is anyone’s guess. The anti-casino crowd is louder than it is large. The moderates are O.K. with casinos, but not enthusiastic about them. The safest prediction comes from Secretary of State William Galvin, who said last week the ballot question should inspire "a very intensive turnout," — and a lot of money spent by companies that have already invested big bucks trying to bring casinos to Massachusetts.

Rick Holmes writes for MassPoliticalNews.com and the MetroWest Daily News. He can be reached at rholmes@wickedlocal.com. Visit MPN online or follow@masspolinews.

http://brookline.wickedlocal.com/article/20140703/OPINION/140708844#140708844/?Start=2&_suid=1404478159298036535225898877244

Democrat Maura Healey backs casino law repeal

By Matt Murphy
State House News Service

BOSTON — Democrat Maura Healey, a candidate for attorney general, came out in opposition to expanded gambling on Monday, throwing her support behind a proposed ballot question that would make casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts.

Healey, a former assistant attorney general under Attorney General Martha Coakley, also broke with her former boss in arguing the proposed ballot question that would, in essence, repeal the 2011 expanded gaming law should be allowed to proceed to the ballot. Coakley ruled it ineligible, but proponents are fighting her decision in court.

“I’m opposed to expanded casino gaming and I support the current effort to repeal of the gaming law. I do not believe a modern economy that is focused on creating opportunities for every person can be built on gambling,” Healey wrote on the liberal Democrat blog Blue Mass Group. “The few communities that have voted in favor of casinos are going through tough economic times and many see casinos as a much-needed boost. But evidence from across the country tells a different story. Casinos don’t lay a foundation for diverse economies, they take over.”

Healey is running for the Democratic nomination for attorney general against former state Sen. Warren Tolman. A spokesman for Tolman could not immediately be reached for comment, but Tolman has said previously he does not support repealing the casino law.

Healey said the experience of communities around the country where casinos have been located is that local restaurants and entertainment venues lose patrons, personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures jump and the cost for police and other services skyrocket.

Speaking to some areas beyond the reach of the attorney general’s office, she advocated instead for infrastructure development, investments in education and job training, a more “progressive tax structure,” an increase in the minimum wage and “unionizing our workforce” to help create jobs and prepare residents for the modern economy.

If casinos are allowed to be built, Healey said she would hire the “best lawyers” for a newly formed Gaming Division in the Attorney General’s office that the gaming industry should pay for. She also said she would create a team of investigators to be stationed full-time in casinos to monitor for abusive or predatory practices.

Coakley in September declined to certify the ballot proposal to prohibit casinos based on her determination that contract rights are considered property and may not be “taken” by an initiative petition. Her office contends that applicants for casino licenses have an “implied contractual right” and an expectation that the licensing process will play out as set forth in the expanded gaming law.

The organizers behind the ballot question argue that prospective casino developers entered the licensing process knowing that the law legalizing expanded gambling in Massachusetts could be changed at any time. The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to hear arguments in the case the first week in May.

http://taunton.wickedlocal.com/article/20140415/NEWS/140417396#140417396/?tag=1

Page 2 of 2 - “The opinion stated that it is improper to shut down the licensing process now that several casino operators have applied. But voters made a decision to shut down the greyhound tracks with a ballot question and that was an industry that had been running for years,” Healey wrote in her blog post. “I am not concerned about the well-being of casino operators. I am concerned about the well-being of the residents of Massachusetts. The final decision is up to the courts, but I believe on a matter of this magnitude, the voters should have a chance to be heard.”

Please support a candidate who has thoughtfully considered the experiences of others and has the courage to speak out....

In Good Conscience

AG candidate Maura Healey thinks Massachusetts should ditch its casino law.

By Maureen Turner
Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Like a number of political figures in the state, Maura Healey acknowledges that she wouldn’t want to see a casino built in her neighborhood in Charlestown.

 

But unlike most of her fellow candidates for state office, she opposes a casino’s being built anywhere in Massachusetts.

 

Last week, Healey, a Democratic candidate for attorney general, announced via an op-ed on the political website BlueMassGroup that she supports repealing the 2011 law that legalized casinos in the commonwealth. “I oppose casinos because I believe they hurt people and they hurt communities, and they don’t yield what they purport to promise in terms of economic gains, in terms of families and communities,” she said in an interview with the Advocate.

 

“We’ve seen the impact on communities that have welcomed in casinos. We’ve seen the lost jobs, the lost homes, the lost livelihoods, bankruptcies, foreclosures, addictions, crime,” Healey said. “As somebody who has stood up against these issues, I think it’s important to stand up to them here.”

Healey comes to the AG’s race after six years working in that office, including time as head of its Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau. “I spent many years in the Attorney General’s Office fighting for people who were disempowered, who were vulnerable, who could be taken advantage of. … I fought off predatory lenders, unfair debt collection, foreclosures,” she said. And those are the very sorts of problems (along with gambling addiction and public safety woes) that experience in other states shows increase with casino development, she said.

 

“I can’t in good conscience support gambling here in the state as a way out, a way to economic opportunity,” she said. “The casino industry business model is based on profits over people, on taking advantage of those who can least afford it.”

 

Healey said she’s sympathetic to the argument that casinos would bring much-needed jobs to Massachusetts, particularly in hard-hit cities like Springfield, where voters last year approved a proposed MGM casino. But there are better, more innovative ways to create jobs and boost the economy, like building on existing industries such a technology and healthcare and investing in infrastructure, she said: “Gambling just isn’t the way out.”

 

As for people who say efforts to overturn the law come too late, Healey said, “I don’t come at this believing that it’s all a done deal. … We’re still at a point where the people can make a decision.”

In point of fact, it remains to be seen whether the people of Massachusetts will be able to make that decision. While casino opponents have worked to get a casino-repeal ballot initiative before voters this November, that effort was halted last fall when incumbent Attorney General Martha Coakley—Healey’s former boss and now a candidate for governor—ruled the question unconstitutional (“Do You Want Casinos?” Oct. 8, 2013, www.valleyadvocate.com). The repeal backers have appealed that decision; the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court is due to take up the case this spring.

 

That matter, Healey said, “will be up to the court to decide.”

 

For her part, she continued, “I wanted to be out front on this issue, because whether gambling comes into the state or not, the attorney general will have a big role. … A core part of your job is to protect consumers [from] predatory practices.” If she’s elected, Healey said, that work would start with putting together a strong state Gaming Division focused on “mak[ing] sure that we are taking actions to protect against predatory lending, loan sharking, unfair debt collection, that we’re fighting gambling addiction and organized crime.”

 

Healey’s rival for the Democratic nomination for AG, former state senator Warren Tolman, does not support repealing the casino law. In a statement sent by his campaign to the Advocate, Tolman noted that the fate of the proposed ballot question will be determined by the SJC, not the next attorney general.

 

“But if it is on the ballot I will vote against repeal,” Tolman said. “I support the Legislature’s decision to allow individual towns and cities like Springfield and Plainville to decide if they want a casino in their back yard. The people in these communities want the jobs and economic development that will be created.

 

“If casinos go forward in Massachusetts, the real issues for the next Attorney General are to enforce casino agreements and to be an advocate for consumers and taxpayers,” Tolman continued. “I will ensure that agreements with host communities and surrounding communities are strictly enforced. I will be the leader on whom Massachusetts residents can depend so that casino operators are adhering to their agreements with regards to traffic mitigation, compulsive gambling, work rules, the impact on local economies, consumer bankruptcy and other issues. Finally, I will continue to be a watchdog on ethics and political corruption.”•

http://www.valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=17818

In AG race, a clear choice on casinos

By Scot Lehigh

| Globe Columnist April 18, 2014

 

CASINO GAMBLING is an issue that cleaves communities, splits Democrats, and muddies alliances. And now it’s becoming an important divide in the Democratic race for attorney general.

This week, Maura Healey, the underdog, declared that she favored repeal of the 2011 law legalizing casinos in Massachusetts. She said her experience as the former chief of the Public Protection and Advocacy Bureau in the state attorney general’s office has led her to that position. Wherever there are casinos, “you see an uptick in personal bankruptcy, in predatory lending, in organized crime, in money laundering,” she said in an interview, echoing arguments she first made in a post on Blue Mass Group, a liberal website.

 

Warren Tolman, the front-runner, took a pro-casino position, saying in a statement that people in towns that approve casinos “want the jobs and economic development that will be created.”
Now brace yourself for the cross-currents and complications.

Healey says that a proposed ballot question asking voters to repeal the casino gambling law should go before voters this fall. That’s a break with her former boss, Attorney General Martha Coakley, whose office is charged with deciding which questions qualify for the ballot under the state constitution.

Coakley has rejected the casino-repeal initiative, saying it would infringe on implied contract rights because gaming companies have paid substantial fees as part of the application process.
Healey disagrees, saying that if voters can close down dog-racing tracks via a ballot question, as happened in 2008, they can surely repeal legislation authorizing casinos that have yet to be built.

“That [dog racing] was an industry that had been in place for decades and had ongoing business concerns,” she notes. Further, she says the casino companies went into this process knowing a ballot question was a possibility.

 

Tolman’s statement avoided that issue, saying that “the decision of whether the question will be on the ballot is in the hands of the SJC [Supreme Judicial Court] and the next attorney general has no role in this decision.” When I talked to him on Thursday, Tolman repeated that formulation, saying he wasn’t going to second-guess the legal analysis by AG’s office.

OK, but let’s be clear: Candidates routinely comment on issues they won’t actually decide. It’s a way of conveying their philosophy to voters.

Why the caution? Tolman certainly faces political complications here. Casino gambling is anathema to many liberals, who worry people will squander money they can’t afford to lose; that nearby hospitality businesses will suffer; and that corruption may rear its head.

One prominent casino opponent is former attorney general Scott Harshbarger. When Harshbarger ran for governor in 1998, Tolman was his lieutenant gubernatorial ticketmate. Harshbarger has endorsed Tolman for AG, a nod that helps Tolman counter the notion that Healey is the choice of law-enforcement professionals while he is the favorite of political insiders. But Harshbarger (who didn’t return my phone calls) wants the repeal question on the ballot.

Contrariwise, unions are hungry for casino-construction jobs. Steven Tolman, Warren’s brother, is president of the state AFL-CIO. Inside the labor movement, it’s considered almost certain that the AFL-CIO will endorse Tolman.

Tolman rejected the notion that those complications have muted his voice. “I do what I think is best for the Commonwealth,” he said. In this case, that has apparently meant keeping his head down.
Tolman also aimed a little barb at Healey, noting that she had only recently adopted her anti-casino position. “If she felt so strongly, where was she two weeks ago?” he asked.

For her part, Healey had this to say about Tolman’s non-position on whether the repeal question belongs on the ballot: “From where I sit, if you are going to be a candidate for attorney general, you have to take on the issue.”

On this one, you can accuse either candidate of playing politics.

Still, Healey has taken a clearer, bolder stand. Further, her assertion that the casino-repeal question should be on the ballot strikes me as the kind of aggressively pro-voter perspective an AG should have. After all, there are good precedents for this.

Given that, voters deserve their chance to be heard.

Tolman seems more like a cagey politician trying to finesse a difficult issue.

Or, to put it another way, on this one, Healey stepped up. Tolman stepped sideways.



http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/17/tale-two-candidates-and-casinos/D36fR5f0NI0WVbzj2yZuiN/story.html

 

Why I'm for Repealing the Casino Law

Why I’m for Repealing the Casino Law

maurahealey | Mon, Apr 14, 2014 2:56 PM EST

Maura Healey is a Democratic candidate for Attorney General. For comparison's sake, we asked Warren Tolman his position on casinos. His bottom line: "I would vote against repeal." - promoted by david

The significant law enforcement, consumer protection, and public safety impacts of expanded casino gaming in Massachusetts make this a central issue for our next Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of our commonwealth.

Therefore, I believe you have a right to know exactly where I, and all the candidates for Attorney General, stand on casinos.

I’m opposed to expanded casino gaming and I support the current effort to repeal of the gaming law. I do not believe a modern economy that is focused on creating opportunities for every person can be built on gambling.

The few communities that have voted in favor of casinos are going through tough economic times and many see casinos as a much-needed boost. But evidence from across the country tells a different story. Casinos don’t lay a foundation for diverse economies, they take over. Local restaurants and entertainment venues lose patrons, other industries steer clear, personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures jump, and the costs for police and related services soar

I’ve asked people what local businesses they visited during trips to Mohegan Sun or Foxwoods and the answer I get back for the most part is, “the gas station.”

Some casino supporters act as if we’ve learned nothing in the years since passage of the gaming bill but the last three years have, in fact, taught us a lot. We’ve seen several cities and towns resoundingly vote down casinos after the industry operators had a chance to make their best pitch.

All of which begs the question: Are casinos really a good idea if they’re only good enough for certain cities? I live in Charlestown and I’m opposed to a casino there. The voters of East Boston agreed and voted No on casinos in Boston. Plenty of state leaders have said the same in their hometowns. I know we can do better for everyone.

There are stronger ways to grow our economy. Infrastructure redevelopment creates construction jobs and yields long-term benefits for residents and businesses. Investments in education and job training allow our state to compete for higher-paying and higher-skilled jobs over the long term. A more progressive tax structure, raising the minimum wage, fighting for pay equity, and unionizing our workforce will all do more to support working and middle class families than casino gambling will do.

Recent studies show that casinos may even widen the income gap because gambling proceeds are regressive taxes. They disproportionately affect poorer people who have little discretionary money to lose in the first place. No one wants the government to serve as big brother and tell people how to spend their money but casinos thrive on addictive behavior – just like tobacco companies – and are designed so that people lose. Given all of the evidence about the ills of gambling, I don’t believe in waiting for problems to develop. We need proactive leadership at all levels.

If casinos are built, then the decision about who will be our next Attorney General becomes even more important. It will be the duty of the Attorney General to help protect the public from the accompanying risks, including loan sharking, predatory debt collection, drug and gambling addiction and organized crime. I know some of these challenges well from my years running the Public Protection Bureau in the Attorney General’s Office. As your next AG, I will ensure that our newly-formed Gaming Division recruits the state’s best lawyers to combat these challenges. And I believe that gaming industry should pay for the division.

I will also create a team of investigators stationed full time at the casinos to watch out for abuses just like the teams that Senator Elizabeth Warren successfully fought to put into the banks to watch out for abusive and deceptive practices.

Recently, the Attorney General declared that the current repeal petition was not valid to go to before the voters. The opinion stated that it is improper to shut down the licensing process now that several casino operators have applied. But voters made a decision to shut down the greyhound tracks with a ballot question and that was an industry that had been running for years. I am not concerned about the well-being of casino operators, I am concerned about the well-being of the residents of Massachusetts.

The final decision is up to the courts, but I believe on a matter of this magnitude, the voters should have a chance to be heard.

I also know that the worst reason to support casinos that haven’t been built is because we think we’re already stuck with them. If we have to refund the application fees, so be it.

I support repealing the gaming law and moving Massachusetts forward with smart, sustainable economic policies that help everyone.


http://bluemassgroup.com/2014/04/why-im-for-repealing-the-casino-law/

 

Democrat Maura Healey backs casino law repeal

By Matt Murphy
State House News Service
Posted Apr. 15, 2014 @ 6:51 pm
Updated at 6:53 PM



BOSTON — Democrat Maura Healey, a candidate for attorney general, came out in opposition to expanded gambling on Monday, throwing her support behind a proposed ballot question that would make casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts.

Healey, a former assistant attorney general under Attorney General Martha Coakley, also broke with her former boss in arguing the proposed ballot question that would, in essence, repeal the 2011 expanded gaming law should be allowed to proceed to the ballot. Coakley ruled it ineligible, but proponents are fighting her decision in court.

“I’m opposed to expanded casino gaming and I support the current effort to repeal of the gaming law. I do not believe a modern economy that is focused on creating opportunities for every person can be built on gambling,” Healey wrote on the liberal Democrat blog Blue Mass Group. “The few communities that have voted in favor of casinos are going through tough economic times and many see casinos as a much-needed boost. But evidence from across the country tells a different story. Casinos don’t lay a foundation for diverse economies, they take over.”

Healey is running for the Democratic nomination for attorney general against former state Sen. Warren Tolman. A spokesman for Tolman could not immediately be reached for comment, but Tolman has said previously he does not support repealing the casino law.

Healey said the experience of communities around the country where casinos have been located is that local restaurants and entertainment venues lose patrons, personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures jump and the cost for police and other services skyrocket.

Speaking to some areas beyond the reach of the attorney general’s office, she advocated instead for infrastructure development, investments in education and job training, a more “progressive tax structure,” an increase in the minimum wage and “unionizing our workforce” to help create jobs and prepare residents for the modern economy.

If casinos are allowed to be built, Healey said she would hire the “best lawyers” for a newly formed Gaming Division in the Attorney General’s office that the gaming industry should pay for. She also said she would create a team of investigators to be stationed full-time in casinos to monitor for abusive or predatory practices.

Coakley in September declined to certify the ballot proposal to prohibit casinos based on her determination that contract rights are considered property and may not be “taken” by an initiative petition. Her office contends that applicants for casino licenses have an “implied contractual right” and an expectation that the licensing process will play out as set forth in the expanded gaming law.

The organizers behind the ballot question argue that prospective casino developers entered the licensing process knowing that the law legalizing expanded gambling in Massachusetts could be changed at any time. The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to hear arguments in the case the first week in May.

Page 2 of 2 - “The opinion stated that it is improper to shut down the licensing process now that several casino operators have applied. But voters made a decision to shut down the greyhound tracks with a ballot question and that was an industry that had been running for years,” Healey wrote in her blog post. “I am not concerned about the well-being of casino operators. I am concerned about the well-being of the residents of Massachusetts. The final decision is up to the courts, but I believe on a matter of this magnitude, the voters should have a chance to be heard.”



http://taunton.wickedlocal.com/article/20140415/NEWS/140417396

Tolman = Just another NIMBY!

Healey backs repeal on casinos

Dem AG candidates choose sides on law

Photo by:

Patrick Whittemore

NO: Democratic attorney general candidate Maura Healey.

 

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

By: Matt Stout

Attorney general candidate Maura Healey is backing efforts to repeal the state casino law — a notable break from her former boss Martha Coakley, whose office has tried to keep it off November’s ballot — in what could prove a looming issue in the race and for Coakley’s successor.

“I come down on the side of the voters here,” Healey told the Herald yesterday after first posting her position on the liberal blog Blue Mass Group. “I don’t discount the legal arguments. There are close calls and jump balls, and you do the best you can to make a thoughtful and informed decision. ... I would have come down on the side of letting this go forward on the ballot.”

Coakley’s office shot down a ballot initiative to repeal the state’s gaming law last September, arguing casino developers had paid millions in application fees and other costs. Repeal advocates have appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, which will hear arguments next month.

Healey, who oversaw two bureaus under Coakley when the AG’s office denied the ballot initiative, said she didn’t have a role in the decision. But she said she opposes gambling as an economic engine and warned of the social ills casinos could spur.

“I don’t want people to get hurt,” she said.

Former state Sen. Warren Tolman, who is running against Healey on the Democratic ticket, said he’s against repeal and noted he’s heard “a lot of support” for the economic development Springfield residents hope a casino would spur.

“It’s not a decision that I would make for my own hometown of Watertown but it’s one that a number of communities have made,” he said.


http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/04/healey_backs_repeal_on_casinos

AG Candidate Supports Repeal The Casino Deal!

Massachusetts attorney general candidate Maura Healey throws support behind proposed ballot question that would make casino gambling illegal

Democrat Maura Healey, a candidate for attorney general, came out in opposition to expanded gambling on Monday, throwing her support behind a proposed ballot question that would make casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts. (SHIRA SCHOENBERG / THE REPUBLICAN FILE)

 

By State House News Servicemasslive.com
on April 14, 2014 at 6:44 PM

By MATT MURPHY
BOSTON — Democrat Maura Healey, a candidate for attorney general, came out in opposition to expanded gambling on Monday, throwing her support behind a proposed ballot question that would make casino gambling illegal in Massachusetts.

Healey, a former assistant attorney general under Attorney General Martha Coakley, also broke with her former boss in arguing the proposed ballot question that would, in essence, repeal the 2011 expanded gaming law should be allowed to proceed to the ballot. Coakley ruled it ineligible, but proponents are fighting her decision in court.

“I’m opposed to expanded casino gaming and I support the current effort to repeal of the gaming law. I do not believe a modern economy that is focused on creating opportunities for every person can be built on gambling,” Healey wrote on the liberal Democrat blog Blue Mass Group. “The few communities that have voted in favor of casinos are going through tough economic times and many see casinos as a much-needed boost. But evidence from across the country tells a different story. Casinos don’t lay a foundation for diverse economies, they take over.”

Healey is running for the Democratic nomination for attorney general against former state Sen. Warren Tolman. A spokesman for Tolman could not immediately be reached for comment, but Tolman has said previously he does not support repealing the casino law.

Healey said the experience of communities around the country where casinos have been located is that local restaurants and entertainment venues lose patrons, personal bankruptcies and home foreclosures jump and the cost for police and other services skyrocket.

Speaking to some areas beyond the reach of the attorney general’s office, she advocated instead for infrastructure development, investments in education and job training, a more “progressive tax structure,” an increase in the minimum wage and “unionizing our workforce” to help create jobs and prepare residents for the modern economy.

If casinos are allowed to be built, Healey said she would hire the “best lawyers” for a newly formed Gaming Division in the Attorney General’s office that the gaming industry should pay for. She also said she would create a team of investigators to be stationed full-time in casinos to monitor for abusive or predatory practices.

Coakley in September declined to certify the ballot proposal to prohibit casinos based on her determination that contract rights are considered property and may not be "taken" by an initiative petition. Her office contends that applicants for casino licenses have an "implied contractual right" and an expectation that the licensing process will play out as set forth in the expanded gaming law.

The organizers behind the ballot question argue that prospective casino developers entered the licensing process knowing that the law legalizing expanded gambling in Massachusetts could be changed at any time. The Supreme Judicial Court is expected to hear arguments in the case the first week in May.

“The opinion stated that it is improper to shut down the licensing process now that several casino operators have applied. But voters made a decision to shut down the greyhound tracks with a ballot question and that was an industry that had been running for years,” Healey wrote in her blog post. “I am not concerned about the well-being of casino operators. I am concerned about the well-being of the residents of Massachusetts. The final decision is up to the courts, but I believe on a matter of this magnitude, the voters should have a chance to be heard.”



http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/04/massachusetts_attorney_general_9.html