Senator Jamie Eldridge shared a link.

Worst casino fears coming to fruition - 

CommonWealth Magazine

IT DIDN’T TAKE LONG for the powerful casino industry to muscle its way into…

COMMONWEALTHMAGAZINE.ORG

• 
  

  

  
  

  Jamie Eldridge

  The new law that allows casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. is a troubling example of the influence that corporate special interests wield on Beacon Hill. Concerned residents need to be more aware, and wary, of the next demands that are made from elected officials as the casinos in Everett and Springfield come closer to opening.

  
  

Worst casino fears coming to fruition

• Jamie Eldridge
 
•  1 day ago
 
•  Categories:Gambling
 
•  Tags:Casinos

IT DIDN’T TAKE LONG for the powerful casino industry to muscle its way into Massachusetts politics. Beginning in the early 2000s, corporate lobbyists began giving unprecedented amounts of money to elected officials on Beacon Hill to convince them to support expanded gambling. By 2009, leadership in the House, Senate, and the corner office all supported legalized casino gambling in Massachusetts. Back then, opponents of expanded gambling emphasized that casinos would hurt local communities and snatch customers away from small businesses. We also warned that powerful corporate interests would begin clawing away at the limited legal protections put in place for Massachusetts residents in the casino law.

Now, our worst fears about casinos are coming to fruition. The Wynn Casino hasn’t even opened, and yet it already managed to sneak a provision into the fiscal 2018 House budget that would allow casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. This provision became law when Gov. Charlie Baker failed to veto it by the end of July.

This exemption from our state’s alcohol laws is a danger to public safety and gives casinos an unfair advantage over local bars and restaurants. As opponents have argued for nearly a decade, casinos can have devastating impacts on the health and success of local economies.

When casinos arrive, existing businesses suffer. Local businesses see fewer profits and greater personnel costs as the result of increased drug and alcohol problems among employees after the introduction of gambling. Moreover, because of these costs, new businesses generally do not relocate to areas that already have casinos. In Atlantic City, the number of restaurants dropped from 311 to 66 in the 19 years following the introduction of casinos.

Casinos are especially dangerous to local communities because they differ from other forms of entertainment. Unlike sports stadiums or concert venues, casinos are designed to meet the customer’s every need. Casino patrons can access restaurants, shopping centers, lodging, and entertainment within the casino complex. This means that local businesses will not receive an increase in business from the traffic brought in by casinos. In fact, residents might relinquish local goods and services in favor of gambling. As more Massachusetts families spend money at casinos, less money will flow to small businesses, non-profits, municipal governments, and the arts.

Several studies have suggested that legalized gambling hurts the state lottery. A decrease in demand for the lottery could have a negative impact on small business owners. The lottery brings people into small, family-run convenience stores where they also make other purchases. When casinos intervene, this money is instead funneled to big corporations, almost entirely out of state.

Meet the Author

Jamie Eldridge

Senator from Acton, Massachusetts Senate

E-mail

Bio » Latest Stories »

The new law that allows casinos to serve alcohol until 4 a.m. is a troubling example of the influence that corporate special interests wield on Beacon Hill. Concerned residents need to be more aware, and wary, of the next demands that are made from elected officials as the casinos in Everett and Springfield come closer to opening.

Jamie Eldridge is a state senator from Acton.

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/gambling/worst-casino-fears-coming-fruition/amp/

Beacon Hill genuflects to more Drunks on the Road

Cordish Blindsided Boxborough

Cordish deliberately blindsided Boxborough and surrounding communities, knowing the time required to organize and educate opposition.

Boxborough

Vote may decide fate of slots bid

Board could sink it, or seek more details

By Ellen Ishkanian

| Globe Correspondent May 12, 2013

Boxborough’s selectmen are expected to consider Monday night whether to put a quick end to plans by the Cordish Cos. to bring a slot machine parlor and boutique hotel to town, or to allow the Maryland casino developer to draft a more detailed proposal before making a decision.

The company quietly “put its toes in the local water” at a Board of Selectmen’s meeting nearly three weeks ago, when it presented preliminary plans to turn the Holiday Inn on Interstate 495 into a boutique hotel, slots parlor with as many as 1,250 machines, and a restaurant and entertainment complex, according to chairman Leslie Fox.

“We asked people in town to let us know what they think, whether this should move forward,” Fox said.

Since then, the board’s e-mail box has been full, with Fox estimating that 90 to 95 percent of those writing are opposed to having slot machines in this quintessential New England small town.

“It’s ranged pretty much from ‘Are you out of your minds?’ to ‘Thank you for asking,’ ” he said.

‘This is an emotional issue for a lot of people. But the question at this point is not, “Should we build this?’’ — the question is, “Should we investigate this?” ’

And, while residents and officials in Boxborough and surrounding towns have voiced grave doubts about the proposal, one Boxborough selectman, Frank Powers, though still undecided, wonders whether it might be worth learning more about what the developer is offering.

“This is an emotional issue for a lot of people,” he said. “But the question at this point is not, ‘Should we build this?’ — the question is, ‘Should we investigate this and listen to what they have to say?’ ”

Powers said he has done his own research and found that property values don’t necessarily drop around these kinds of developments, and crime doesn’t always go up.

“I’m not arguing the case for why we should’’ proceed with the project, he said, “I’m not arguing that at all, but personally, at this point I’m leaning toward getting more information.”

Joe Weinberg, managing partner at Cordish, wrote in an e-mail to the Globe that the company believes a majority of residents support exploring the redevelopment project’s benefits, which he said include a “significant increase in revenues to the town,” and the addition of 1,500 construction jobs and 750 permanent job to the local economy.

“We’ve heard repeatedly from town residents they believe, at a minimum, the town should conduct a thorough review of the project, negotiate a formal host community agreement, then allow all of the citizens to exercise their right to make the final decision in the state mandated local referendum,” he wrote.

In addition, Weinberg wrote, the company has committed to hosting several open houses at the property over the next several months, following up on one that was held at the property last week.
“We received a very positive reception from a majority of town residents who visited our open house,” he wrote.

At the same time, while some residents are e-mailing selectmen, others are e-mailing each other in an effort to get organized in case they need to mobilize in opposition should the plans be allowed to move forward.

“We just don’t want the town to get into this kind of business,” said Hugh Fortmil­ler, who is among the group of opponents. Casino developers “have no models of a small town like ours taking on this kind of venture. . . It would change the whole character of our town.”

The 2011 law creating the Massachusetts Gaming Commission allows the agency to award up to three regional casino licenses and one slots-only license statewide. Cordish is one of four companies competing for the slots parlor license.

Before the gaming licenses are approved, however, there is a lengthy process that gives local executive boards the authority to reject proposals outright, or enter into a negotiated agreement with developers that would likely include paying for any negative impacts. If an agreement is reached, the community’s residents would then have to endorse it in a general election before the developer’s application would be considered by the state commission.

While the law gives host communities the power to say no, surrounding communities that would be affected could receive some compensation, but have no say in whether it is built.

And in Boxborough’s case, officials in the bordering towns of Acton, Harvard, and Stow said they had no idea this plan was even being proposed.


“I’m feeling a little blind­sided,” said Harvard’s Board of Selectmen chairwoman, Lucy B. Wallace, who like many of the other officials contacted first heard of the proposal by reading about it in the Globe.

“The news has just started bubbling up around town, but I can’t imagine it is something the town would embrace,” she said, adding that she had already received one call in opposition to allowing slot machines so close to Harvard.

She said among her concerns would be “drunk drivers leaving there and driving on our winding little roads.”

In Acton, Board of Selectmen chairwoman Janet K. Adachi was also surprised by the news, and while she hadn’t had time to confer with her board, she said she was personally opposed to putting this type of development at the Holiday Inn site.

Aside from an array of other issues that would have to be studied, Adachi said, traffic along already busy Massachusetts Avenue (Route 111) would pose an obvious stumbling block to a proposal of this size.

“I’m not going to opine about what Boxborough should do, but I don’t think we would want to have this kind of a business or operation in our town,” she said.

Even state Senator Jamie ­Eldridge, an Democrat from Acton who also represents

Boxborough, said he had known nothing about Cordish’s plans before reading the news reports.
While stressing the decision about whether to move forward rests with the people of Boxborough, Eldridge said he would oppose the plans.

“At the state level I led the fight in the Senate against the casino bill,” he said. “This is a poor form of economic development.”

Eldridge said traffic, crime, low-paying jobs, the toll that casino developments take on small businesses in the area, and the drain that gambling takes on social programs are all things Boxborough would need to consider.

“While the developer paints a rosy picture of what benefits the project could bring, I can talk about the opposite side,” he said. “I think that is the most critical role I could play.”

The Board of Selectmen is expected to discuss the issue during a meeting starting at 6 p.m. Monday in the Blanchard Memorial School gymnasium . The meeting will adjourn no later than 6:45 p.m., officials said, in order not to conflict with the start of annual Town Meeting, which begins at 7 p.m. in the school gym.
Ellen Ishkanian can be reached at ishdell@aol.com.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2013/05/11/boxborough-selectmen-decide-slots-proposal/qjZweDEgTs3A29MJXJKTeP/story.html

 

Bill would bar any casino bailout

Bill would bar any casino bailout
By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

BOSTON — A bipartisan group of Central Massachusetts lawmakers has launched a legislative drive to protect taxpayers from having to bail out casinos and to prohibit local and state elected officials from taking jobs at casinos for five years after leaving office.

State Reps. Matthew Beaton, R-Shrewsbury, and Kimberly Ferguson, R-Holden, are co-sponsoring the legislation, billed as a taxpayer protection bill.

They have gotten support in the Senate from James B. Eldridge, D-Acton, who tried to attach the five-year cooling-off period in an amendment to last year’s legislation that legalized casinos.

Mr. Beaton pointed to financial problems that have beset casinos in Rhode Island and Connecticut as evidence that the state needs to avoid a situation in which taxpayers would pay if casinos fail to be profitable.

“It’s vital that as Massachusetts begins to expand its gaming industry, it establishes a firm set of rules and not allow a dime of public money to be spent bailing out Massachusetts casino investors who made a bad gamble,” Mr. Beaton said.

The five-year job ban, he said, is also needed.

“It would ensure the public that we are operating on the merits for what is best for the commonwealth and not for future employment for legislators or their families,” he said. “It would remove all doubt in the public’s eye of the intent of legislative actions,” Mr. Beaton added.

The bill would do three things:

•Increase the cooling-off period preventing elected officials from working in the industry to five years instead of the one year provided for in the casino bill adopted last year.

•Prohibit casino operators from renegotiating to decrease the state’s share of gaming revenues.

•Prohibit taxpayer-funded bailouts of struggling or failing casinos.

When the casino legislation was debated last year, Mr. Eldridge filed an amendment in the Senate to impose the five-year cooling-off period, triggering what became the most heated portion of the Senate’s casino debate.

When some members appeared offended by the idea that anyone would see the need for a ban on former lawmakers holding casino jobs, Senate President Therese Murray abruptly halted debate on the amendment. She then recessed the Senate to caucus behind closed doors, and called it back into session a short while later to approve a different version.

That version, limiting the cooling-off period to only one year, was adopted with no debate.

The five-year cooling-off period was also originally in the House version of the bill, but was scaled back to one year by the time the House adopted the legislation.

Mr. Beaton said he believed the five-year period was the right way to go, specifically to eliminate the possibility or perception that state lawmakers or local selectmen, mayors or councilors who are involved in casino siting decisions could take jobs in exchange for favorable treatment of casinos.

Unlike other industries, “It’s an industry that is going to be controlled by the Legislature,” he said, and he wants to remove any perception that influence could be traded for future employment.

Mr. Beaton said he also has serious concerns that taxpayers would be on the hook to reduce tax rates on casino revenues or bail them out with public money if they were to run into financial trouble.

In 2010, he said, the state of Rhode Island put up $3.7 million in new annual marketing subsidies for the gaming operation to keep the Twin Rivers casino operating under new ownership. The bailout legislation obligated taxpayers to reimburse the owners for any losses incurred from other competitors in the state.

“They went bankrupt, and debtors assumed ownership, and some were large banks, including Bank of America,” Mr. Beaton said.

He said taxpayers also need to be protected from future efforts to reduce the share of gross gaming revenues that will go to the state. The current law calls for casinos to pay a 25 percent tax on gambling revenue, while the single slot parlor authorized by the law will pay 40 percent.

He said that since the bill was filed last week, he and Ms. Ferguson have seen lawmakers from both parties voicing support.

“We have largely gotten bipartisan support from supporters and opponents of casinos,” he said.

Mr. Eldridge said he doubts the legislation will come up for a vote in either the House or Senate this year because it was filed late in the session. The Legislature is scheduled to end its formal session for the year on July 31. But he said the legislation is needed.

Meanwhile, Mr. Eldridge, who supports a constitutional amendment to curb new rights of corporations to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns granted by the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case, said he remains concerned about the ability of casino backers to influence local officials and local elections where casinos are proposed.

He said the new ability of corporations to spend unlimited amounts to influence local elections could play out even in local development controversies. For example, a developer may advertise against the election of a local planning board member who may not favor a particular development they want to build.

Cash-Strapped States Bet On Gambling

Cash-Strapped States Bet On Gambling

Gambling is on a roll. Faced with mounting budget deficits, more states are expanding gambling options and loosening restrictions in a grab for revenue. Critics warn that the winnings are fool's gold, not worth the potential social and financial ills. But that's not stopping many states from getting a piece of the action.

Even once-reluctant Massachusetts recently approved the construction of three casinos and a slots parlor after 20 years of debate. Clyde Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, predicts the casinos will collect $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year. Legislators said they anticipate receiving $300 to $400 million in tax revenue to chip away at the state's projected $1.8 billion 2012 deficit.

Casinos and lotteries make up at least 2 percent of revenue in states that have them, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government recently reported, and have provided steady returns after a brief recession dip. That revenue has proven irresistible at a time when 46 cash-strapped states have made cuts in programs for health care, the elderly, the disabled, or in education since 2008, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Massachusetts trimmed all of the above.

Massachusetts State Sen. Jamie Eldridge (D) fears the gambling push will come up snake eyes in the long run. He worries that patrons' discretionary income would go to casinos instead of local businesses, bleeding communities dry.

"It's a very flawed economic model," Eldridge said. "This is one of the worst decisions when the economy is bad."

Gambling usually provokes passionate debate on both sides, but few could dispute that the industry is on a winning streak. In 2009 and 2010 alone, 37 states pushed for increased gambling outlets, according to Sam Skolnik, the author of "High Stakes: The Rising Cost of America's Gambling Addiction." Meanwhile, casinos have stepped up their promotions to attract groups that tend to gamble more.

"One of the tragedies is that many of the gamblers enticed by this marketing ... can ill-afford to lose the money," Skolnik said.

Gambling advocates have marshaled their lobbying power and the promise of jobs and a quick profit stream to make giant inroads. In a wheezing economy, the conditions are ripe. While the federal government chokes on $972 billion of debt, states face a combined $95 billion deficit for 2012.

Revenue from Nevada's brick-and-mortar casinos has not stopped the state from sinking into 13 percent unemployment and a debt of $1.2 billion that is 37.4 percent of its operating budget. Still, the state's looking to beef up gaming, recently accepting applications from five firms to implement online poker for state residents. Nevada's move comes with supporters' hope that a federal ban against interstate gambling on the Internet will eventually be lifted. Jon Porter, a three-term former Republican congressman from Nevada, said tight regulations to weed out the under-aged and addicted can make Internet play work.

"I don't think gaming targets anyone," said Porter, an adviser for the Poker Players Alliance. "Whether you're gambling in a casino online or on Wall Street, certainly there are people who have a weakness and we try to prevent that from happening."

Many states are rolling the dice: New Jersey is mounting a constitutional challenge to a near-total federal ban on sports-betting. On the lottery front, Minnesota is allowing patrons to play online.

Missouri last week rolled out the welcome mat again for admitted problem gamblers. Gamblers who had voluntarily asked to be expelled from the state's casinos -- previously a life-long ban -- now may return after five years. Compulsive gamblers cost the country $6.7 billion a year, according to The National Council on Problem Gambling.

Yet, it's not as if gambling suddenly appeared. Forty-one states have casinos, according to the "American Casino Guide," and 43 have lotteries. But the urgency created by joblessness and foreclosure has made consumers more susceptible. Lotteries dangle the carrot of instant riches. Casinos offer the potential of a quick buck on the pull of a slot machine. Skolnik estimated that in 2007 alone, at the start of the recession, Americans gambled away $92 billion.

At the manufacturing end of the gambling industry, companies such as Bally Technologies and IGT are creating more slot attractions to entice patrons. Bally paid an undisclosed amount for the rights to create a Michael Jackson slot machine that is expected to draw huge lines when it debuts next summer. But the biggest potential moneymaker is the server-based slot machine. If a machine loses patrons at a certain time of day, casinos can change the machine's theme, value and payout at the push of a button. IGT operates server-driven slots in 50 casinos. Through anecdotal information, IGT estimated that the casinos are seeing an 18 percent increase in daily take after making the switch. Older casinos will have a tough time retrofitting the technology, but most of the new casinos will be buying in, said Steve Bourie, author of the "American Casino Guide."

All the bells and whistles aside, Barrow, the UMass-Dartmouth researcher, sees a lasting future for a casino-enhanced Massachusetts. The lottery will suffer temporarily but will bounce back, he predicted. Gambling-related crime will be less of an issue because theft and other crimes tend to happen on casino grounds and not in the surrounding neighborhoods, he said. As for assertions that casinos take money from the disadvantaged, Barrow answered that the lottery was already doing that at the state's 11,000 convenience stores. Casinos draw more customers above the median income, he said.

Barrow, who has been criticized for being a paid consultant for a New Hampshire golf course's casino study, said Massachusetts' plan will include hotel and entertainment venues to attract non-gamblers as well. He said that 20 percent of New Englanders who visit casinos do not place any bets.

But Eldridge isn't buying into the feel-good forecast. Since Gov. Deval Patrick (D) signed the casino construction bill on Nov. 22, promising that the commonwealth would not be compromised, Eldridge said he has refocused his efforts on ensuring that the legislation is not weakened to where it could further endanger community commerce and public safety.

A few states have bet against the gambling wave -- at least for the time being. Maine residents scrapped two casino-expansion referendums in November. The Illinois House also voted down an expansion bill, and New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) vowed last month to veto any measure aimed at adding casinos.

Eldridge has seen a different outcome in his own state of Masachussetts, however. He said fellow lawmakers wanted to be able to say they're creating jobs and income for the state. Eldridge's office pointed to a 2000 study covering 19 years that concluded casinos create crime instead of merely relocating it. It also reported that 8 percent of crimes in a casino county can be directly linked to the casino.

The legislator fears Massachusetts has struck a Faustian bargain that isn't worth the risk. Eldridge said, "We've living in desperate times."

Senator Eldridge Explains Opposition

Jamie Eldridge talks opposition to casino bill at Littleton Rotary Club
By Jim Barisano
Wicked Local Littleton


Littleton — State Sen. Jamie Eldridge was a recent guest of the Littleton Rotary Club where he spoke about the casino gambling bill that is currently moving through the state legislature. Eldridge has been a staunch opponent of bringing casinos and slot parlors to Massachusetts. He voted against the gambling bill, which passed in the Senate by a 24 to 14 vote.

“I strongly believe expanding gambling in Massachusetts will harm our local small businesses and our communities, and that’s why I voted no. We need revenues and jobs here in Massachusetts, but casinos aren’t the answer. There are better ways, less destructive ways, to solve our fiscal problems and make the Commonwealth a better place to live. When consumers spend more on casinos and less locally on clothing, sporting events, electronics, meals out or tickets to a show, small businesses suffer and jobs are cut,” Eldridge said. “People only have so much discretionary income. I am deeply concerned about the effect that sucking billions of dollars out of the local economy, and sending it out-of-state to wealthy casino developers, will have on our communities.”

During the debate prior to the vote, Eldridge proposed numerous amendments aimed at strengthening consumer protections. Successful amendments filed by Eldridge include:

·Banning campaign donations by casino executives to any municipal official with direct or indirect oversight of casino negotiations

·A one-year ban on legislators working in the casino industry after leaving office

·A requirement that casinos send monthly loss statements to customers

·A provision to allow community mitigation funding to go to regional, as well as municipal, entities.

Eldridge also proposed a number of additional amendments to increase protections for consumers and local communities, which were not passed. These amendments included:

·Eliminating cashless wagering systems at casinos, which he calls a predatory practice that encourages problem gambling

·Requiring casinos to provide healthcare for their workers

·Adding accountability measures to ensure casinos actually create the number of jobs they’ve promised to create.

Eldridge has received strong support from constituents who are also opposed to expanded gambling in the commonwealth.

“We fought hard, and did our best to make the case that bringing casinos to Massachusetts would do more harm than good. Given what a huge impact this will have on our state for decades to come, it was an uphill battle worth fighting,” Eldridge said.

The bill now moves to a conference committee to resolve differences between the state House and Senate. It is anticipated that Gov. Deval Patrick will sign the bill into law by the end of the year. During the question-and-answer session that followed Eldridge’s presentation to the Rotary, he explained that if the casino bill is finally approved, it will be four to five years before a casino actually opens for business in Massachusetts.

Top Robert DeLeo aide called casinos ‘fool’s gold’

Top Robert DeLeo aide called casinos ‘fool’s gold’
By Hillary Chabot And Chris Cassidy

A top staffer to House Speaker Robert DeLeo once warned that Bay State casino revenue would amount to “fool’s gold” that would cannibalize a successful state Lottery and would be an economic wash in which the commonwealth would “scarcely break even,” in a set of memos being circulated by critics of expanded gaming.

“It’s a great example of how, depending on who the speaker is, employees develop research that supports (the speaker’s) point of view,” said Tom Larkin, president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts.

James C. Kennedy — now DeLeo’s general counsel — blasted casino gambling in two memos while working for then-state Rep. Daniel Bosley, a high-ranking casino critic.

In the 21-page memo, which was written in 2004, Kennedy wrote: “In conclusion, the reemergence of the issue of expanded gambling can only be described as an unscrupulous move by the gaming industry toward exploiting our present fiscal vulnerability with the promise of ‘fool’s gold.’ ”

Despite the influx of gambling revenue, “we will, with a bit of luck, scarcely break even,” Kennedy wrote.

Another memo in 2006 claimed casino gambling would cripple the state Lottery in a chapter called “Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg” and goes on to run counter to DeLeo’s assertion that casinos will boost the state economy.

“The reality is that expanded gambling does not lead to economic development and any tax revenue generated by expanded gambling is regressive and unstable,” wrote Kennedy.

A spokesman for DeLeo’s office did not return requests for comment.

“When we look at the turnstile in Massachusetts politics, including the number of rank and file legislators that have flip-flopped on this issue, it’s clear that it’s more than a trend, it is a toxic pattern of behavior on Beacon Hill, and that’s why citizens are disgusted,” said Kathleen Conley Norbut, a member of the anti-expanded gaming group Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts.

Casino critics have dusted off and recirculated the memos in the weeks leading up to the debate in the state Senate, which wrapped up for a second day yesterday.

“I would just say that I think it’s important for all legislators to take a look at those memos,” said state Sen. Jamie Eldridge. “They’re still relevant today.”

More amendments added to casino bill

More amendments added to casino bill
By Krista Kano/DAILY NEWS CORRESPONDENT
The MetroWest Daily News


BOSTON — Three state senators from MetroWest have filed a pile of amendments to a bill that would allow three casinos and a slots parlor in the state, with the legislation expected on the Senate floor Monday.

Sen. Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, and Sen. James Eldridge, D-Acton, filed amendments that would increase how much say nearby cities and towns would have in planned casinos.

Sen. Susan Fargo, D-Lincoln, filed two amendments that would require casinos to hire Massachusetts residents exclusively.

"It's critical that residents across the state understand this casino bill," Spilka said yesterday. "I feel that there are some protections in the bill, but I would like to strengthen those safeholds."

Spilka filed 11 amendments that would increase community participation by including the host city or town, surrounding communities and "substantially impacted" communities, such as those with a major route running through them to a casino site.

Spilka's amendments would give such towns and cities a voice in a community mitigation commission, which would work directly with a gaming commission to determine community support or opposition to a planned casino.

The amendments would also give an automatic voice to cities and towns within a three-mile radius of a casino, while Eldridge's amendment increases that radius to five miles.

"That speaks to the fact that there are significant costs when a casino comes to a region - increased traffic," he said. "We want people to have an increased say in whether or not a casino comes to that region."

Eldridge also filed an amendment that would prohibit legislators from working for a casino within five years of leaving office.

"I think it's very important that when you are bringing an industry like casinos to a state, that it's being done for the right reasons," he said. "I wouldn't want the casino industry to be a reason for legislators to leave office and then get jobs there."

Another Eldridge amendment would require casinos to provide health insurance to their employees. Under Massachusetts law, any business that does not provide health insurance faces a $285 fine per employee. Eldridge is concerned that casinos would accept the fine and not provide insurance.

Fargo was more concerned with who the casinos would hire.

"Casino employees in other states are being laid off, and if they hear about job opportunities here in Massachusetts, they'll come here and try to get those jobs," she said. "The whole point of the casinos, according to its proponents, is to create jobs. We'd like to see those jobs reserved for Massachusetts residents."

Massachusetts: Critics blast casino proposal

Critics blast casino proposal
By John J. Monahan TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF

BOSTON — Social worker, church and civic organizations today unleashed a torrent of blistering criticisms and dire warnings over a controversial bill for three casinos and a slot machine resort that backers expect to be approved by the House this week.

Opponents rallied on the Statehouse steps in bright sunlight, warning over loudspeakers that the social ills and costs of expanded gambling will outweigh any benefits. They accused legislative supporters and Gov. Deval L. Patrick of gambling the wellbeing of future generations by opening the door to casinos.

“This is a bad decision on so many levels,” said Eva Valentine, president of the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.

“Casinos in any community cannibalize small business,” she said, arguing casinos would make it harder for small restaurants, clothing stores and other small businesses to prosper and create jobs in cities and towns near casinos. “I can't believe this is the most creative idea that has come up to solve our economic problems,” she said.

“Folks, gambling expansion on this scale is cruel, and it's expensive,” warned the Rev. Laura Everett from the State Council of Churches. She said casinos will double the number of problem and addicted gamblers in the state, now are estimated to number 250,000.

James Driscoll, executive director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference that represents the state's Roman Catholic bishops, said any short-term economic benefits are outweighed by the long-term pitfalls.

“We are talking about individuals with addictions, bankruptcies, breakup of marriages, breakup of families, alcoholism, drug abuse, the list goes on and on,” he said. “Casinos and slots in Massachusetts can and will cause a new set of social and economic problems.”

More crime, pensions for a new group of regulators, an increase in problem gamblers and in suicide rates are all problems the state can expect if the bill is approved, said Mary Tufts, founder of Casino Free Massachusetts.

She used the retort Mr. Patrick relied on to rebuff his critics on the campaign trail when she said his support of casinos was in sharp contrast to the value he places on social justice and the “high, noble principles” he wrote about in his recent biography.

“Just words,” she said.

The criticisms piled up on the Statehouse steps while House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, D-Winthrop, worked inside the building to line up rank and file support for the bill in a closed-door caucus of House Democrats.

Debate on the bill and 159 proposed amendments are set to begin tomorrow with a final vote possible by late Thursday.

After blocking expanded gambling for decades, the House last year approved a casino and slot parlor bill on a 120-37 vote, only to see the bill rejected by Mr. Patrick, who opposed provisions for two slot parlors at race tracks.

The Senate last year approved the bill 25-15.

Mr. Patrick this year said he will go along with one competitively bid slot resort, in addition to three casinos.

Backers say the three, $500 million dollar casinos and a $125 million slot resort will create thousands of desperately needed jobs and create major new revenue source to help the state deal with its budget problems.

Three casinos would be licensed in three geographic regions of the state, one in Western Massachusetts, another in Central and Eastern Massachusetts and a third in Southeastern Massachusetts. A Native American tribe would be given preference to secure a license for the casino in Southeastern Massachusetts.

Opponents said despite last year's votes they are still hoping the legislation will be rejected.
“My hope is that a light will go on inside this building and people will look up and recognize what's happening here. This is a predatory industry that preys on people. Slot machines are the most addictive form of gambling on the face of the earth,” said Rebekah L. Gewirtz, of the Massachusetts Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.

She said casinos will not add jobs but merely displace jobs from existing small businesses.
Another longtime opponent, state Sen. James B. Eldridge, D-Acton, said he will again vote against the bill when it gets to the Senate. He said he is concerned about impacts on communities around casinos and the impact on local theater and entertainment venues.

“I'm giving my best efforts to highlight the reasons why it is a bad bill for Massachusetts,” Mr. Eldridge said. While most backers support expanded gambling to create jobs and revenues, he said many are basing that support on conditions in the industry from four years ago, before the recession greatly reduced casino revenues in other states.

Former state Sen. Susan C. Tucker, who led Senate opposition to the bill before retiring last year, lawmakers a vote for casinos may come back to haunt them.

She said politicians who believe the public wants casinos may see a different reaction among voters when casino sites are actually developed.

“Wait until one is proposed near your district. Three times more voters oppose casinos if they are anywhere near them than support them in the abstract,” she said.

“It can be a career-ending vote,” Ms. Tucker said, adding that developers will face local citizen protests and lawsuits over casinos.

She said casinos will mostly hurt lower-wage workers.

“Casinos are the best mechanisms ever invented to take money out of the pockets of low-income people and ship it to out-of-state to billionaires,” Ms. Tucker said.

State Senator Eldridge

Among the heroes in the Senate, Senator Eldridge was willing to conduct his own due diligence and oppose leadership for the good of the Common Wealth, and frankly, I find myself envious of the voters in his district to have a person of his character and common sense.

There are better options available than the "Something for Nothing Scheme" of SLOT BARNS.

State Sen. Eldridge backs tax changes over casinos

State Senator Jamie Eldridge speaks to editors at the MetroWest Daily News yesterday.

By Paul Crocetti/Daily News staff
The MetroWest Daily News
Posted Sep 23, 2010 @ 12:00 AM
MARLBOROUGH —
Massachusetts should stop gambling with casinos and start discussions on altering the income tax structure for revenue, state Sen. Jamie Eldridge said yesterday.

Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, is running against challenger Republican George Thompson in the Nov. 2 election for his second two-year term.

Eldridge is an advocate for a progressive income tax that would reduce payments for the middle class and increase taxes for the wealthy, possibly earners of at least $500,000 per year.

"It would be a long-term effort" requiring a constitutional amendment, Eldridge said in a Daily News editorial board meeting.

Legislators could discuss changes to the income tax if voters pass Question 3, which calls for decreasing the sales tax to 3 percent. But Eldridge said he opposes the question because cutting the sales tax from 6.25 to 3 percent could lead to a budget deficit of billions of dollars. Slashing education funding would drive down property values, while cuts to police and fire personnel would make communities less safe, he said.

If Question 3 passes, the state could also review how much it gives out in tax breaks, such as large incentives for film studios, Eldridge said.

Eldridge, who previously served three terms as a state representative, is also an opponent of any expanded gaming.

"The social costs often outweigh the revenues raised," he said. "I don't think it's good economic development. ... I don't think casinos would bring in that much revenue."

Thompson, a Westborough selectman, endorsed Eldridge in 2008. But Thompson said on his campaign website that the senator has been "more passionate and interested in representing his political point of view, and blind to the real life consequences of his decision-making."

Eldridge shot back yesterday by saying he is concerned with the Middlesex & Worcester District's priorities, such as local aid. The senator said he has gone door-to-door and called voters during the campaign.

"I feel I have a good idea of the feelings of the people," he said.

Eldridge also talked about the need for transparency in state government spending. For example, he said the Legislature should make its budget public. The senator also supports successful legislation that will make business tax break figures public.

Gov. Deval Patrick recently appointed Eldridge as chairman of the Water Infrastructure Finance Commission. The commission, created by legislation that Eldridge sponsored, will analyze less expensive methods to treat sewage and ways residents can decrease waste.

The Middlesex & Worcester District includes Marlborough, Hudson, Maynard, Stow, Southborough and Westborough, as well as parts of Sudbury and Northborough.

(Paul Crocetti can be reached at 508-490-7453 or pcrocett@cnc.com.)

Copyright 2010 The MetroWest Daily News. Some rights reserved

A Bad Gamble for Massachusetts

Watching the flawed process on Beacon Hill and most Senators follow like sheep, failing to conduct their due diligence or even critically review the false information presented to them, there are some who stand out from the crowd and have the courage to Speak Truth to Power.

MetroWest Daily News: A Bad Gamble for Massachusetts

Proponents of expanded gambling in Massachusetts say it’s all about jobs for them — and I take them at their word. Indeed, there’s no doubt that bringing casinos to Massachusetts would create some new jobs.

But what gambling-supporters fail to mention is the jobs that will be lost as well as those that will be gained. They don’t mention the local businesses, especially restaurants and entertainment businesses, that will suffer when casinos come to town, nor do they mention the effect that sucking billions of dollars out of the local economy, and sending it out-of-state to wealthy casino developers, will have on our communities.

This is at the heart of why I will be voting against any proposal to bring casinos or slot machines to Massachusetts — because I believe they would be bad for small businesses, bad for families, and bad for our communities.

The fact is, people only have so much discretionary income, especially in a recession. This means that for casinos to make a profit, people either need to spend money they don’t have, or people need to spend money at the casino that they would otherwise spend somewhere else. When consumers spend less locally on clothing, sporting events, electronics, meals out or tickets to a show, small businesses suffer and jobs are cut. We’ve seen it happen in other states, and it will happen here in Massachusetts, too.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. According to a newspaper interview with casino owner Donald Trump, “People will spend a tremendous amount of money in casinos, money that they would normally spend on buying a refrigerator or a new car. Local businesses will suffer because they lose customer dollars to the casinos.”

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump clearly is a man who knows something about casinos, and something about business — and when even a casino owner acknowledges that local businesses will suffer, it’s worth paying attention to.

Small businesses aren’t the only ones that will suffer. Expanded gambling has been shown to cause increased crime rates, including embezzlement, robbery, aggravated assault, DUIs, and auto theft. Local crime victims, and municipalities facing increased public safety costs, pay the price. Despite the promises made in the House’s casino bill about funding local aid, these additional financial burdens are unlikely to be made up by projected casino revenues.

Increases in problem gambling leads to distressed families, child neglect, suicide and bankruptcy. Domestic violence rates go up, as do foreclosures. Families break apart, and thousands of people become addicted. Why would the Commonwealth, whose mission is “to promote the common good,” partner and promote a product that leads to such negative outcomes for thousands of its citizens? Given the financial strength that Massachusetts has due to the diversity of its economy, does it really make sense to bring in a product like casinos that damages so many parts of that economy?

Finally, there is the cost of missed opportunities. There are more effective ways we could be spending our money. Top economists, including Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Samuelson, agree money spent in casinos does not have nearly as much of a positive effect on the rest of the economy as spending and investment in other industries.

We need more jobs in Massachusetts, but expanding gambling is simply not an effective long-term economic development strategy. There are better strategies for creating jobs and promoting economic growth in the Commonwealth that don’t come with the significant downside that casinos bring.

I’m not insensitive to those who are currently unemployed, including many in the construction industry who are desperate for work. I understand that joblessness has social costs too, and it’s not easy to oppose a solution that would certainly help some families in my district.

But the job of the Legislature is to look at the bigger picture, and think about the impact the actions we take now will have on generations to come. Casinos might be an easy short-term fix, but we’ll have to live with the consequences for decades to come. I truly believe that bringing casinos and slot machines into our state is a bad gamble for Massachusetts, and that’s why I’ll be voting “no” on expanded gambling proposals this spring.

Sen. Jamie Eldridge is a Democrat representing the Worcester and Middlesex districts.