Unwilling to say "NO!" to the Gambling Industry and oppose FREE ALCOHOL, Senators added "Happy Hours" to the legislation that makes each of us innocent targets.
Massachusetts is unable to address, correct and eliminate the problem now, yet Beacon Hill seeks to increase the problem.
The Gambling Industry knows that drunks continue to Gamble.
Examples, such as the one below should serve to awaken us.
Taunton man faces 7th drunk driving charge
The Patriot Ledger
FOXBORO — A Taunton man faces his seventh drunk driving charge after allegedly being involved in a car accident on Route 495 and trying to make a run for it.
State Police found Howard Stockbridge, 50, walking through a parking lot at 5:32 p.m. Friday after searching for him for nearly 40 minutes.
When a trooper asked where he was going, Stockbridge allegedly said “that gym” and pointed to a nearby fitness center.
Stockbridge’s driver’s license was revoked for 10 years after his last drunken driving conviction.
The search began after a call from a 30-year-old Rhode Island man whose 2011 Kia Sorrento had been struck by a pickup truck. After the crash, the driver of the truck drove away, but not before witnesses got the license plate number.
The plate is registered to a Taunton woman with whom Stockbridge lives, State Police said.
Another caller told police that the truck had broken down on a highway overpass at Route 106 and that the driver had run into the woods.
The crash victim identified Stockbridge as the man who had struck his car.
Inside the truck, police found four empty beer bottles on ice in a cooler on the passenger-side floor and a cold but empty beer bottle on the passenger seat.
Bail was set at $5,000 and Stockbridge was scheduled to be arraigned Monday in Wrentham District Court.
Showing posts with label Senate votes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate votes. Show all posts
Monday, November 7, 2011
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Silly Season on Beacon Hill Continues: Happy hour coming back?
Not all Slot Barns offer FREE ALCOHOL.
Those that do cause increased DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS and ACCIDENTS.
Genuflecting before the Gambling Industry, Senators defend the indefensible, using silly Industry rhetoric.
The solution of course, would have been to remove the possibility of serving FREE ALCOHOL.
That's not what the Gambling Industry wants.
Why?
DRUNKS gamble. DRUNKS willingly sign for loans to gamble beyond the money in their pocket.
A pathetic commentary on the sanity of Beacon Hill.
Happy hour coming back?
Casino amendment may be boon for local taverns
By Chris Camire
BOSTON -- Happy hour could be returning to Massachusetts.
The Senate approved an amendment yesterday that could once again allow bars and restaurants across the state to offer free drinks.
The amendment, which passed in a 25-13 vote, was attached to a bill that would legalize Las Vegas-style resort casinos
This description truly is one for the books! What Massachusetts will get are SLOT BARNS or as Senator Tucker described them "Slots in a Box."
in Massachusetts. Its supporters say it will put restaurants and bars on the same playing field as casinos by allowing them to offer free drinks if casinos are also allowed to do so.
"What I think we should allow is an equal playing field for restaurants around the state," said Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican who co-authored the amendment. "The introduction of casinos here in Massachusetts, as we've seen elsewhere, has a huge impact on existing businesses." [No kidding, Senator? Do you think just maybe the local impacts will exceed the overstated revenues?]
Massachusetts banned so-called "happy hours" at bars and restaurants in 1984 in hopes that drunken driving would be reduced by stopping establishments from offering special, low-priced alcoholic drinks during a specified time period. The law bans free drinks, discounted drinks or special "jumbo" drinks that cost as much as regular drinks.
The law would be overturned if the casino bill -- which includes language allowing casinos to offer patrons free drinks -- is signed into law in its current form.
The amendment divided area senators. Those supporting allowing bars and restaurants to offer free drinks include Eileen Donoghue of Lowell and Ken Donnelly of Arlington. Both Democrats also support expanded gaming. Senate casino opponents Susan Fargo of Lincoln, Barry Finegold of Andover and Jamie Eldridge of Acton -- all Democrats -- voted against the amendment.
Finegold said he is concerned that bringing "happy hour" back could reverse much of the progress Massachusetts has made over the past few decades to curb drunken driving.
"Part of the problem is, once a few bars and restaurants start doing it, everyone is going to think they have to do it," Finegold said. "The days of two drinks for one will have to come back, and I'm not sure if that's good for the restaurants, the bars, or anybody."
Donoghue said the amendment will have no impact on laws regulating the serving of alcohol that are designed to protect the public. She said bartenders will still need to be certified, and establishments will still be penalized if they over-serve patrons.
"As far as the enforcement of existing laws goes, no way do I see this changing that at all," Donoghue said. "Right now, if an establishment over-serves, they are going to be subject to losing their license."
Patty Stella, owner of Centro, a restaurant and bar in downtown Lowell, said although customers would like discount-drink deals to come back, it might not be in the best interest of restaurants or public safety.
"I think the way it is now is better," Stella said. "Money is tight right now for everybody, but doing the two-for-one deal means business owners would take a hit. I'd be shocked if they passed something like that. The liability is huge. Insurance would go up. You're just asking for more trouble."
Chris Bujold, owner of the Boulder Cafe in Fitchburg, was also cool to the idea. Bujold said he saw the positives and negatives associated with "happy hours" when he went to school in Connecticut.
"There is a binge (drinking) component that could come into play, but it also gives people an opportunity to experience a cheaper night out," he said. "I think any incentive we can put out there to remain competitive is something we always want, but liability is something we are always aware of."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a national lobbying organization that supported the initial happy-hour ban, is not opposed to re-instituting discount-drink deals. A spokesman for the organization said there are tougher laws in place today to discourage people from getting behind the wheel while drunk.
"Generally, as long as establishments are serving alcohol to people who are of age and in a responsible fashion, we wouldn't be opposed to it," MADD spokesman David DeIulis said.
The Restaurant and Business Alliance, a statewide trade organization, sent out a statement last night applauding the Senate for passing the amendment.
"I would like to thank the members of the state Senate for providing an equal playing field for all restaurants in Massachusetts, regardless of location or affiliation," said Dave Andelman, president of the alliance.
The amendment was approved after the Senate voted to preserve a portion of the casino bill allowing casinos to offer free drinks to patrons. The Senate also rejected an amendment that would have lowered the minimum gambling age in casinos from 21 to 18.
The Senate is expected to continue debating the bill tomorrow.
Those that do cause increased DRUNK DRIVING ARRESTS and ACCIDENTS.
Genuflecting before the Gambling Industry, Senators defend the indefensible, using silly Industry rhetoric.
The solution of course, would have been to remove the possibility of serving FREE ALCOHOL.
That's not what the Gambling Industry wants.
Why?
DRUNKS gamble. DRUNKS willingly sign for loans to gamble beyond the money in their pocket.
A pathetic commentary on the sanity of Beacon Hill.
Happy hour coming back?
Casino amendment may be boon for local taverns
By Chris Camire
BOSTON -- Happy hour could be returning to Massachusetts.
The Senate approved an amendment yesterday that could once again allow bars and restaurants across the state to offer free drinks.
The amendment, which passed in a 25-13 vote, was attached to a bill that would legalize Las Vegas-style resort casinos
This description truly is one for the books! What Massachusetts will get are SLOT BARNS or as Senator Tucker described them "Slots in a Box."
in Massachusetts. Its supporters say it will put restaurants and bars on the same playing field as casinos by allowing them to offer free drinks if casinos are also allowed to do so.
"What I think we should allow is an equal playing field for restaurants around the state," said Sen. Robert Hedlund, a Weymouth Republican who co-authored the amendment. "The introduction of casinos here in Massachusetts, as we've seen elsewhere, has a huge impact on existing businesses." [No kidding, Senator? Do you think just maybe the local impacts will exceed the overstated revenues?]
Massachusetts banned so-called "happy hours" at bars and restaurants in 1984 in hopes that drunken driving would be reduced by stopping establishments from offering special, low-priced alcoholic drinks during a specified time period. The law bans free drinks, discounted drinks or special "jumbo" drinks that cost as much as regular drinks.
The law would be overturned if the casino bill -- which includes language allowing casinos to offer patrons free drinks -- is signed into law in its current form.
The amendment divided area senators. Those supporting allowing bars and restaurants to offer free drinks include Eileen Donoghue of Lowell and Ken Donnelly of Arlington. Both Democrats also support expanded gaming. Senate casino opponents Susan Fargo of Lincoln, Barry Finegold of Andover and Jamie Eldridge of Acton -- all Democrats -- voted against the amendment.
Finegold said he is concerned that bringing "happy hour" back could reverse much of the progress Massachusetts has made over the past few decades to curb drunken driving.
"Part of the problem is, once a few bars and restaurants start doing it, everyone is going to think they have to do it," Finegold said. "The days of two drinks for one will have to come back, and I'm not sure if that's good for the restaurants, the bars, or anybody."
Donoghue said the amendment will have no impact on laws regulating the serving of alcohol that are designed to protect the public. She said bartenders will still need to be certified, and establishments will still be penalized if they over-serve patrons.
"As far as the enforcement of existing laws goes, no way do I see this changing that at all," Donoghue said. "Right now, if an establishment over-serves, they are going to be subject to losing their license."
Patty Stella, owner of Centro, a restaurant and bar in downtown Lowell, said although customers would like discount-drink deals to come back, it might not be in the best interest of restaurants or public safety.
"I think the way it is now is better," Stella said. "Money is tight right now for everybody, but doing the two-for-one deal means business owners would take a hit. I'd be shocked if they passed something like that. The liability is huge. Insurance would go up. You're just asking for more trouble."
Chris Bujold, owner of the Boulder Cafe in Fitchburg, was also cool to the idea. Bujold said he saw the positives and negatives associated with "happy hours" when he went to school in Connecticut.
"There is a binge (drinking) component that could come into play, but it also gives people an opportunity to experience a cheaper night out," he said. "I think any incentive we can put out there to remain competitive is something we always want, but liability is something we are always aware of."
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a national lobbying organization that supported the initial happy-hour ban, is not opposed to re-instituting discount-drink deals. A spokesman for the organization said there are tougher laws in place today to discourage people from getting behind the wheel while drunk.
"Generally, as long as establishments are serving alcohol to people who are of age and in a responsible fashion, we wouldn't be opposed to it," MADD spokesman David DeIulis said.
The Restaurant and Business Alliance, a statewide trade organization, sent out a statement last night applauding the Senate for passing the amendment.
"I would like to thank the members of the state Senate for providing an equal playing field for all restaurants in Massachusetts, regardless of location or affiliation," said Dave Andelman, president of the alliance.
The amendment was approved after the Senate voted to preserve a portion of the casino bill allowing casinos to offer free drinks to patrons. The Senate also rejected an amendment that would have lowered the minimum gambling age in casinos from 21 to 18.
The Senate is expected to continue debating the bill tomorrow.
Casinos: Happy Hour for Hypocrites
While I don't fully agree with all of the comments contained in the blog below, it offers a different perspective:
Casinos: Happy Hour for Hypocrites
In my periodic screeds opposing the (probably inevitable) legalization of casino gaming in Massachusetts I try insofar as possible to stay away from the purely moralistic/nanny state argument. Yes, I think casinos prey on human weakness, depend for profitability on the assumption that individuals (and by extension, families) will be destroyed financially on a regular basis, and are a losing proposition for the vast majority of the people who walk through their doors. But whatever. People make their own decisions, and sometimes society doesn't even have to absorb a share of the consequences.
I just don't think the state should be putting its eggs in that basket and calling it "economic development." I am absolutely convinced that the predictions and promises being tossed around by supporters - both as to jobs and revenues - are complete nonsense. Utterly bogus, and very obviously so. Oh, and I don't want one anywhere near my house.
But it is hard to evaluate the latest bit of casino non-debate news without getting into the moral angle at least a little bit. In case you missed it, here's the Globe article today discussing an amendment passed yesterday by the Senate to allow casinos to give out free alcoholic beverages to patrons. An additional amendment was tacked on - a bone to the restaurant and bar lobby - that will resurrect "Happy Hour" in Massachusetts for the first time since 1984, allowing those establishments to offer free and discounted drinks as well. It's only fair.
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not going to lie: I expect I will enjoy a Happy Hour from time to time. But do you see how quickly the race to the bottom has started here, before so much as a single spade hits the dirt on a casino site?
And look at the paired acknowledgements implied in the Happy Hour move:
(1) Casinos are going to suck the life out of existing bars, restaurants and other entertainment venues in their respective geographic areas. Some of these will undoubtedly close, cutting further into the casino initiative's already inflated net jobs numbers. And
(2) The ability to offer "Happy Hour" incentives is a boon to restaurants and bars, a way to help them grow (or, as to the ones unlucky enough to find a Flamingo Northeast going up down the block, a flimsy lifeline offering at least the fragile hope of survival). If this is true, then presumably it was equally true in 1984, when that ability was stripped from our hospitality industry; and equally true in each of the years between then and now. But until now state government didn't care. Only when it can be used to smooth over one of the few significant speed bumps on the road to casinoville does the legislature suddenly take note of the economic upside to Happy Hour.
And what about the rationale for the Happy Hour ban in the first place? A quarter century after the Massachusetts Legislature decreed in its infinite wisdom that Happy Hours kill, the successors to that august group of Puritans decide abruptly that... what? Whoopsie! they were wrong?
Or that a few more roadway deaths are a reasonable trade for a less-than-one-percent uptick in jobs?
Of course none of this is actually part of the law yet. The House will have to agree. But it will. To have any chance of succeeding commercially, Massachusetts casinos - if we are to have them - must be able to give away free drinks. Free drinks - alternately watered down and/or caustic with rot-gut rail booze - are part of the casino experience, commonly understood. If we don't have them a significant percentage of 'our' target customer base will continue to do their gaming in Rhode Island. And if casinos can pour freely, then of course it makes sense to extend the same courtesy to restaurant and bar owners. So it's a fair bet (heh) that the final bill that hits Governor Patrick's desk later this month will feature the free liquor provisions.
And let's not forget why it is that casinos give out those free drinks. They aren't tokens of appreciation to their loyal customers. Nor liquid recognition of the fact that the folks eying the cards, rolling the dice, and pulling the levers of those one-armed bandits already spending a bunch of money to be there; else why not also afford the same inebriating courtesy to the over-charged patrons of Fenway? Or Gillette? Or the Garden? No, the casinos give out free drinks precisely because free drinks reduce inhibitions. Free drinks allow those patrons to rationalize behavior - gambling, specifically - more reckless than they would otherwise engage in. And if at the end of the night (or the day) that recklessness extends to an ill-advised decision to get behind the wheel?
Well, the jobs.
Maybe Not a Parody
Addendum: Speaking of those one-armed bandits, the Senate also approved an amendment requiring warning labels to be prominently displayed on slot machines in our future casinos. Providing the minuscule odds of winning. Including a warning about gambling addiction, and the phone number of an addiction hotline. Each time I think our legislators have gone beyond parody, they up the ante.
I wonder how long before someone comes up with the bright idea to include graphic photos, like the ones that now adorn cigarette cartons?
Casinos: Happy Hour for Hypocrites
In my periodic screeds opposing the (probably inevitable) legalization of casino gaming in Massachusetts I try insofar as possible to stay away from the purely moralistic/nanny state argument. Yes, I think casinos prey on human weakness, depend for profitability on the assumption that individuals (and by extension, families) will be destroyed financially on a regular basis, and are a losing proposition for the vast majority of the people who walk through their doors. But whatever. People make their own decisions, and sometimes society doesn't even have to absorb a share of the consequences.
I just don't think the state should be putting its eggs in that basket and calling it "economic development." I am absolutely convinced that the predictions and promises being tossed around by supporters - both as to jobs and revenues - are complete nonsense. Utterly bogus, and very obviously so. Oh, and I don't want one anywhere near my house.
But it is hard to evaluate the latest bit of casino non-debate news without getting into the moral angle at least a little bit. In case you missed it, here's the Globe article today discussing an amendment passed yesterday by the Senate to allow casinos to give out free alcoholic beverages to patrons. An additional amendment was tacked on - a bone to the restaurant and bar lobby - that will resurrect "Happy Hour" in Massachusetts for the first time since 1984, allowing those establishments to offer free and discounted drinks as well. It's only fair.
Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not going to lie: I expect I will enjoy a Happy Hour from time to time. But do you see how quickly the race to the bottom has started here, before so much as a single spade hits the dirt on a casino site?
And look at the paired acknowledgements implied in the Happy Hour move:
(1) Casinos are going to suck the life out of existing bars, restaurants and other entertainment venues in their respective geographic areas. Some of these will undoubtedly close, cutting further into the casino initiative's already inflated net jobs numbers. And
(2) The ability to offer "Happy Hour" incentives is a boon to restaurants and bars, a way to help them grow (or, as to the ones unlucky enough to find a Flamingo Northeast going up down the block, a flimsy lifeline offering at least the fragile hope of survival). If this is true, then presumably it was equally true in 1984, when that ability was stripped from our hospitality industry; and equally true in each of the years between then and now. But until now state government didn't care. Only when it can be used to smooth over one of the few significant speed bumps on the road to casinoville does the legislature suddenly take note of the economic upside to Happy Hour.
And what about the rationale for the Happy Hour ban in the first place? A quarter century after the Massachusetts Legislature decreed in its infinite wisdom that Happy Hours kill, the successors to that august group of Puritans decide abruptly that... what? Whoopsie! they were wrong?
Or that a few more roadway deaths are a reasonable trade for a less-than-one-percent uptick in jobs?
Of course none of this is actually part of the law yet. The House will have to agree. But it will. To have any chance of succeeding commercially, Massachusetts casinos - if we are to have them - must be able to give away free drinks. Free drinks - alternately watered down and/or caustic with rot-gut rail booze - are part of the casino experience, commonly understood. If we don't have them a significant percentage of 'our' target customer base will continue to do their gaming in Rhode Island. And if casinos can pour freely, then of course it makes sense to extend the same courtesy to restaurant and bar owners. So it's a fair bet (heh) that the final bill that hits Governor Patrick's desk later this month will feature the free liquor provisions.
And let's not forget why it is that casinos give out those free drinks. They aren't tokens of appreciation to their loyal customers. Nor liquid recognition of the fact that the folks eying the cards, rolling the dice, and pulling the levers of those one-armed bandits already spending a bunch of money to be there; else why not also afford the same inebriating courtesy to the over-charged patrons of Fenway? Or Gillette? Or the Garden? No, the casinos give out free drinks precisely because free drinks reduce inhibitions. Free drinks allow those patrons to rationalize behavior - gambling, specifically - more reckless than they would otherwise engage in. And if at the end of the night (or the day) that recklessness extends to an ill-advised decision to get behind the wheel?
Well, the jobs.
Maybe Not a Parody
Addendum: Speaking of those one-armed bandits, the Senate also approved an amendment requiring warning labels to be prominently displayed on slot machines in our future casinos. Providing the minuscule odds of winning. Including a warning about gambling addiction, and the phone number of an addiction hotline. Each time I think our legislators have gone beyond parody, they up the ante.
I wonder how long before someone comes up with the bright idea to include graphic photos, like the ones that now adorn cigarette cartons?
Friday, October 7, 2011
Massachusetts Senate Votes
Chandler Amendment Protecting Theatre, Amendments to Casino Gambling Bill
This week's Northborough Patch politics includes a Chandler amendment that works to protect nonprofit theatre.
By Charlene Arsenault
Supplemental Budget: The Senate voted unanimously Thursday to pass a spending bill that allocates $153 million for state budget accounts and adds $350 million into the rainy day fund.
Expanded Gambling: The Senate continued debate on the expanded gambling bill yesterday. Amendments voted on by the Senate include:
- AMENDMENT 102, ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY MITIGATION – This amendment, which was offered by Sen. Eldridge, would have raised the tax rate on casinos from 25 percent to 30 percent, and dedicated the extra funding to community mitigation. The amendment failed, 9-27. Sen. Eldridge voted YES.
- AMENDMENT 166 – CATEGORY 2 LICENSES: This would have removed the license for a slot parlor in the casino bill. The amendment failed, 12-24. Sen. Eldridge voted YES.
- AMENDMENT 37 – JOBS INCENTIVE TAX CREDIT: This amendment would create a tax credit for employers who have a net increase in jobs created over the course of a calendar year. Such employers are thus entitled to a deduction in liability otherwise imposed by Chapter 62B, Section 2. To defray the potential cost of the tax revenue not collected by the state, 10 percent of category 1 gaming revenue currently slated to be spent by the Economic Development Fund would be deposited in the General Fund. This amendment failed, 4-32. Sen. Eldridge voted NO.
- AMENDMENT 40 – STABILIZATION FUND: This amendment would delay the transfer of state revenues from category 1 gaming to the various funds provided for in Section 59. Rather than transfer the revenue to the funds immediately, as the bill does, this amendment provides that the funds go into the Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund) until all 4 of the gaming establishments have been in operation for 5 years. This amendment failed, 4-32. Senator Eldridge voted NO.
- AMENDMENT 87 – SALES TAX REDUCTION: The bill as being considered provides that a combined 12 percent of the state revenues from category 1 licenses shall be transferred to a newly created Economic Development Fund and the newly created Local Capital Projects Fund. That money instead will be placed in the General Fund, and used to help ensure revenue neutrality when reducing the state sales tax, currently at 6.25 percent, to 5 percent. This reduction will take place in a two-step process, with the first reduction cutting the sales tax to 5.625 percent, and then another reduction to 5 percent. This amendment failed, 9-27. Sen. Eldridge voted NO.
Theatre Bill: Sen. Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester, joined Sen. Michael O. Moore, D-Millbury, sponsored an amendment that was adopted by the Senate that is gaming legislation that ensures casino licensees must negotiate with a coalition of municipally-owned or not-for-profit performance venues located in the state to discuss and negotiate mitigation agreements.
Theaters such as the Hanover Theatre for the Performing Arts have expressed concern that resort casinos would provide unfair competition and "hinder their ability to recruit plays and performers."
“Resort casinos, with their ability to essentially use their entertainment venues as 'loss leaders,' said Chandler, "would potentially be able to negotiate exclusive arrangements with certain acts, preventing them from performing at our non-profit theaters. This amendment gives the theaters a voice at the table and requires the gaming commission ensure the resort casinos are operating in good faith.” said Chandler.
At the urging of Senators Chandler and Moore and many of their colleagues the bill already contains cultural mitigation funding for theaters, as well as seat restrictions on resort casinos in order to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace. The bipartisan amendment was cosponsored by Democratic Senators Harriette L. Chandler, Michael O. Moore, Eileen M. Donoghue, Daniel A. Wolf, Gale D. Candaras, Sal D. DiDimenico and Republican Leader Bruce E. Tarr and Asst. Minority Leader Robert L. Hedlund.
This week's Northborough Patch politics includes a Chandler amendment that works to protect nonprofit theatre.
By Charlene Arsenault
Supplemental Budget: The Senate voted unanimously Thursday to pass a spending bill that allocates $153 million for state budget accounts and adds $350 million into the rainy day fund.
Expanded Gambling: The Senate continued debate on the expanded gambling bill yesterday. Amendments voted on by the Senate include:
- AMENDMENT 102, ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR COMMUNITY MITIGATION – This amendment, which was offered by Sen. Eldridge, would have raised the tax rate on casinos from 25 percent to 30 percent, and dedicated the extra funding to community mitigation. The amendment failed, 9-27. Sen. Eldridge voted YES.
- AMENDMENT 166 – CATEGORY 2 LICENSES: This would have removed the license for a slot parlor in the casino bill. The amendment failed, 12-24. Sen. Eldridge voted YES.
- AMENDMENT 37 – JOBS INCENTIVE TAX CREDIT: This amendment would create a tax credit for employers who have a net increase in jobs created over the course of a calendar year. Such employers are thus entitled to a deduction in liability otherwise imposed by Chapter 62B, Section 2. To defray the potential cost of the tax revenue not collected by the state, 10 percent of category 1 gaming revenue currently slated to be spent by the Economic Development Fund would be deposited in the General Fund. This amendment failed, 4-32. Sen. Eldridge voted NO.
- AMENDMENT 40 – STABILIZATION FUND: This amendment would delay the transfer of state revenues from category 1 gaming to the various funds provided for in Section 59. Rather than transfer the revenue to the funds immediately, as the bill does, this amendment provides that the funds go into the Stabilization Fund (Rainy Day Fund) until all 4 of the gaming establishments have been in operation for 5 years. This amendment failed, 4-32. Senator Eldridge voted NO.
- AMENDMENT 87 – SALES TAX REDUCTION: The bill as being considered provides that a combined 12 percent of the state revenues from category 1 licenses shall be transferred to a newly created Economic Development Fund and the newly created Local Capital Projects Fund. That money instead will be placed in the General Fund, and used to help ensure revenue neutrality when reducing the state sales tax, currently at 6.25 percent, to 5 percent. This reduction will take place in a two-step process, with the first reduction cutting the sales tax to 5.625 percent, and then another reduction to 5 percent. This amendment failed, 9-27. Sen. Eldridge voted NO.
Theatre Bill: Sen. Harriette L. Chandler, D-Worcester, joined Sen. Michael O. Moore, D-Millbury, sponsored an amendment that was adopted by the Senate that is gaming legislation that ensures casino licensees must negotiate with a coalition of municipally-owned or not-for-profit performance venues located in the state to discuss and negotiate mitigation agreements.
Theaters such as the Hanover Theatre for the Performing Arts have expressed concern that resort casinos would provide unfair competition and "hinder their ability to recruit plays and performers."
“Resort casinos, with their ability to essentially use their entertainment venues as 'loss leaders,' said Chandler, "would potentially be able to negotiate exclusive arrangements with certain acts, preventing them from performing at our non-profit theaters. This amendment gives the theaters a voice at the table and requires the gaming commission ensure the resort casinos are operating in good faith.” said Chandler.
At the urging of Senators Chandler and Moore and many of their colleagues the bill already contains cultural mitigation funding for theaters, as well as seat restrictions on resort casinos in order to ensure a fair and competitive marketplace. The bipartisan amendment was cosponsored by Democratic Senators Harriette L. Chandler, Michael O. Moore, Eileen M. Donoghue, Daniel A. Wolf, Gale D. Candaras, Sal D. DiDimenico and Republican Leader Bruce E. Tarr and Asst. Minority Leader Robert L. Hedlund.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
