| |||
| |||
|
Showing posts with label casino cost/benefit analysis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label casino cost/benefit analysis. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2015
New Hampshire Alert!
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Massachusetts MAGICAL THINKING! State to study impact of new casinos
The 'STUDY' was created as a phony salve to pretend the CREATION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ADDICTION was palatable.
Pity some folks didn't get the joke!
(Oh, this is too funny for words! I put out this post headed, "More Massachusetts Magical Thinking" earlier after reading the Boston Globe article.
Then when I visted the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's web site and found out they call their research project, "MAGIC" !!! (Massachusetts Gambling Impact Cohort (MAGIC))
MORE MASSACHUSETTS MAGICAL THINKING - So now we are supposed to be very excited because MA is going to conduct a supposed thorough research project on the negatives of casinos and gambling because we are so fortunate to be able to start this "investigation" before the casinos come and compare that to after they are here? Isn't that a little like taking a clean, pure water resource, allowing a corporation to dump known toxins in it, so we can have a "controlled" study of the effects of toxins on nearby communities? Then we can be proud that we have used MA residents as guinea pigs to prove what we already know. I'm so proud. And this all by the same Gaming Commission and other state administrators that brought us casinos in the first place...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/…/ZImlmIZvv1S1Qa7BPF…/story.html
Then when I visted the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's web site and found out they call their research project, "MAGIC" !!! (Massachusetts Gambling Impact Cohort (MAGIC))
MORE MASSACHUSETTS MAGICAL THINKING - So now we are supposed to be very excited because MA is going to conduct a supposed thorough research project on the negatives of casinos and gambling because we are so fortunate to be able to start this "investigation" before the casinos come and compare that to after they are here? Isn't that a little like taking a clean, pure water resource, allowing a corporation to dump known toxins in it, so we can have a "controlled" study of the effects of toxins on nearby communities? Then we can be proud that we have used MA residents as guinea pigs to prove what we already know. I'm so proud. And this all by the same Gaming Commission and other state administrators that brought us casinos in the first place...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/…/ZImlmIZvv1S1Qa7BPF…/story.html
State to study impact of new casinos
Jonathan Wiggs/Globe Staff
The studies will attempt to measure the local effects of casinos, including the slots parlor at Plainridge Park.By Mark ArsenaultGlobe Staff
Massachusetts will not get its first slot machines until the summer, but the state is already becoming a laboratory for gambling research, which may someday help answer some of the longstanding public policy questions about the casino industry.
The state gambling commission has sponsored two scientific studies that will test how new casinos affect the level of problem gambling in the population, and whether new casinos lead to broader societal woes, such as increases in crime, more domestic violence, and lower home values.
What makes the studies special is that they are beginning before casinos open in Massachusetts. The studies will measure the prevalence of problem gambling now, so researchers will have a baseline against which to compare the levels of problem gambling later, after as many as three resort casinos and one slot parlor open for business around the state.
“The mission is to substantiate with data — not anecdotes or myths — what the impacts of casino gambling are in Massachusetts,” said Stephen Crosby, chairman of the gambling commission. “It never has been done like this anywhere else and it will create a database of information that will be valuable worldwide. This will be a phenomenal resource.”
The initial phases of the two studies will cost more than $4 million, which comes from taxes and fees on the casino industry, according to the gambling commission. The studies are being conducted by University of Massachusetts-Amherst researchers, led by principal investigator Rachel Volberg, who has studied problem gambling for about 30 years, according to UMass.
The first research project, known as the Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Massachusetts study, has been underway since 2013. The plan calls for massive surveys of thousands of Massachusetts residents.
“We are doing this very large survey before any casinos become operational and then waiting,” Volberg said. “We will go out into the field with an identical survey a year after all of the casinos have opened — which gives us a snapshot before and a snapshot after, on problem gambling prevalence and gambling participation.”
The survey will measure, among other things, public attitudes toward gambling; the gambling behaviors of Massachusetts residents, most of whom already live within a few hours of casinos in Rhode Island or Connecticut; motivations for gambling and what casino customers perceive as the recreational value of gambling; as well as the number of people who may be problem gamblers.
Another round of the survey will be performed around 2018, depending on how quickly the state’s casinos industry gets up and running, Volberg said.
The state’s first slot machines are due to start spinning in June, at a Penn National Gaming slot parlor in Plainville, which is under construction.
In about three years, MGM is expected to open an $800 million casino and entertainment complex in downtown Springfield, and Wynn Resorts is due to open a $1.6 billion casino hotel on the Mystic River waterfront in Everett.
The gambling commission is soliciting bids for the final resort casino license it controls, for Southeastern Massachusetts. Separately, the Mashpee Wampanoag are trying to overcome legal hurdles in pursuit of a tribal casino in the southeast.
As part of the study, researchers are also gathering community statistics, covering areas such as employment and business payrolls, household income, sales taxes, lottery sales, tourism visits, and many other categories, to track any measurable changes over time after casinos open.
The second research project, known as the Massachusetts Gambling Impact Cohort study, will follow about 2,600 individual people for the next five years — or longer — as the casino industry moves into Massachusetts and matures, to see what happens to the individuals over time.
“It’s truly remarkable that we’re going to be able to start this study in advance of any of the casinos being operational,” Volberg said. “That’s something that hasn’t been done before.” The cohort study “focuses on getting a better understanding about how problem gambling starts, develops, and resolves over time. To do that you really need to follow individuals, rather than taking a population snapshot.”
In addition to legalizing Las Vegas-style casino gambling, the 2011 state casino law requires the gambling commission to study the effects of casinos in Massachusetts.
The commission anticipates that the results of the studies will help the panel design policies to combat problem gambling.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/11/29/state-study-impact-new-casinos/ZImlmIZvv1S1Qa7BPFQseO/story.html
Monday, July 21, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Palmer Voters Have Sense!
Early in the process, Palmer appointed a Citizens Task Force to consider the costs of hosting Mohegan Sun's Mega-Monster.
When the Citizens determined conservatively that the ANNUAL cost would be $16 MILLION to $19 MILLION, not including the estimated $50 MILLION to bring water from the Quabbin, Paul Burns refused to make that information publicly available.
Supporting a project that had the potential of bankrupting a small community is one thing, but to deny reality is yet another.
Paul Burns, in his blind support failed to insist upon answers, such as access.
Sadly, blind support isn't leadership.
Paul Burns reflects on Palmer Town Council defeat
By Lori Stabile | Special to The Republican
on June 18, 2014
Paul Burns campaigns for Town Council in Palmer in this 2007 file photo.
PALMER - Paul E. Burns is taking his Town Council loss in stride, saying he is not "terribly disappointed" that he was ousted from the council last week.
"I served for seven years and was somewhat on the fence about running. Certainly you want to leave on your own terms, but this is a democracy and voters chose not to send me back and that's fine," Burns said recently.
"I thought I'd be a lot more upset if I lost, but now it's like the weight of the world is off my shoulders," he added. "It can be someone else's turn."
Burns lost his at-large position to newcomer Robert B. Lavoie, who received 715 votes to Burns' 431 in the June 10 election. Lavoie beat Burns in all four precincts for the three-year position.
"Voters certainly deserve to have people in place that represent their views. I wish Mr. Lavoie the best of luck the next three years and I'm going to enjoy having the summer off. I haven't seen my kids the way I should for seven years, but I certainly wanted my kids to understand the value of public service," Burns said.
Burns, 53, said he has no plans to run again. He said he enjoyed his time on the council, calling it "an honor and a privilege to serve the people of Palmer."
Burns thinks the same anti-casino sentiment that sank Mohegan Sun's plan for a resort casino off Route 32 last year contributed to his loss - that along with voters wanting a change. While Burns was at times critical of Mohegan Sun, he was an outspoken proponent of a casino coming to Palmer.
"I put the bull's-eye on my back . . . It certainly may have been an anti-casino campaign, but I'm not sure I blame it on any one of those things. Ultimately l did what I thought was right . . . I don't ever want to be one of those politicians who goes with the breeze," Burns said.
"I'm not blaming anybody for anything here, except for me. I was vocal and I did what I thought was right and if I lose based upon my stands on issues then so be it," Burns said.
When he first ran for council, he said there were concerns about the form of government. Burns said one of the things he is most proud of is being able to solidify this form of government, and praised Town Manager Charles T. Blanchard's leadership.
"It took a few years to work the kinks out," Burns said.
Town Council President Philip J. Hebert said that one has to respect that Burns gave seven years of his time to serve on the council.
Hebert said he could not begin to speculate if Burns' casino stance contributed to his loss. The casino vote was close, and Burns was defeated by a large margin, Hebert said.
Lavoie officially replaces Burns on July 1. Burns said he will miss being on the council.
"I think I made a difference . . . When I first got on who thought we'd have a casino debate, a new police station. We got school roofs. We accomplished a lot in seven years," Burns said.
Burns said he has no regrets, but he said he did spend a lot of money to lose in the end - $2,500 for signs and mailings to 1,100 homes.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/paul_burns_reflects_on_palmer.html
Wednesday, December 25, 2013
Losing all common sense!
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/longmeadow_cites_independent_t.html
PVPC has studied the casino proposals for over six years and has expertise on the matter of impacts. Finally, an independent study is used vs. the bogus self-serving "studies" commissioned by the gambling industry to aid their biased proposals. Mohegan Sun's self-study of the Palmer proposal basically stated, "no impacts here!" Either way, taxpayers are paying for the industry that isn't even... operational in Massachusetts. Are you aware of the "studies" paid by taxpayers to gambling companies and proponents like the state university system to provide biased reports to the legislature and Governor Patrick? Are you aware of the taxpayer money spent by the Lege and the Governor to push the special interest/favored Wampanoag native American casino forward with a "compact" while using taxpayers funds to have the Attorney General sue the Aqquinah tribe to stop their pursuit of a casino on posh Martha's Vineyard? How about the costs of defending the MGC chairman from lawsuits regarding his role in the removal of Caesar's from the Suffolk Downs proposal? We pay for all of it. But you won't find all those hidden costs listed on any state budget line item or clearly accessible on the state's Open (bwaaaaah) Checkbook.
The MetroWest independent studies showed Foxwoods self-studies were fictitious. Milford had the good sense to vote, NO.
The legislature and Governor failed the people of the commonwealth by deliberately NOT commissioning independent cost:benefit impacts studies. Instead, they wasted taxpayer money on insider/industry "studies."
One might wonder why such a basic and critical analysis was avoided by lawmakers? Independent studies show that the net costs exceed potential benefits. And if they based their decisions on data......well, the insiders would not get a shot at corporate monopolies sucking the regional economies dry in order to for the billionaires to make more money. These are political and special interest proposals that will not improve or enhance the fiscal, employment, housing, environment or public health of the region. Only the developers and owners profit. The rest of us pay the price of the impacts.
Repeal it! repealthecasinodeal.org
PVPC has studied the casino proposals for over six years and has expertise on the matter of impacts. Finally, an independent study is used vs. the bogus self-serving "studies" commissioned by the gambling industry to aid their biased proposals. Mohegan Sun's self-study of the Palmer proposal basically stated, "no impacts here!" Either way, taxpayers are paying for the industry that isn't even... operational in Massachusetts. Are you aware of the "studies" paid by taxpayers to gambling companies and proponents like the state university system to provide biased reports to the legislature and Governor Patrick? Are you aware of the taxpayer money spent by the Lege and the Governor to push the special interest/favored Wampanoag native American casino forward with a "compact" while using taxpayers funds to have the Attorney General sue the Aqquinah tribe to stop their pursuit of a casino on posh Martha's Vineyard? How about the costs of defending the MGC chairman from lawsuits regarding his role in the removal of Caesar's from the Suffolk Downs proposal? We pay for all of it. But you won't find all those hidden costs listed on any state budget line item or clearly accessible on the state's Open (bwaaaaah) Checkbook.
The MetroWest independent studies showed Foxwoods self-studies were fictitious. Milford had the good sense to vote, NO.
The legislature and Governor failed the people of the commonwealth by deliberately NOT commissioning independent cost:benefit impacts studies. Instead, they wasted taxpayer money on insider/industry "studies."
One might wonder why such a basic and critical analysis was avoided by lawmakers? Independent studies show that the net costs exceed potential benefits. And if they based their decisions on data......well, the insiders would not get a shot at corporate monopolies sucking the regional economies dry in order to for the billionaires to make more money. These are political and special interest proposals that will not improve or enhance the fiscal, employment, housing, environment or public health of the region. Only the developers and owners profit. The rest of us pay the price of the impacts.
Repeal it! repealthecasinodeal.org
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Regressive Tax Policies Defended By Beacon Hill
The more voters learn about Predatory Gambling, the more they oppose it.
In Massachusetts, communities are educating themselves and opposing the destruction of their neighborhoods.
Beacon Hill refused to consider the evidence around the nation and around the globe of increased crime, increased personal bankruptcies, increased domestic violence caused by Gambling Addiction.
The COSTS exceed the BENEFITS!
It's time to REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!
Published on Dec 23, 2012
Published on Aug 9, 2012
In Massachusetts, communities are educating themselves and opposing the destruction of their neighborhoods.
Beacon Hill refused to consider the evidence around the nation and around the globe of increased crime, increased personal bankruptcies, increased domestic violence caused by Gambling Addiction.
The COSTS exceed the BENEFITS!
It's time to REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!
Published on Dec 23, 2012
Politicians say that casinos create economic development. Here is the Revel Casino in Atlantic City, NJ. (Most media photos are from the interior of the casino looking out onto the beach and ocean.)
Published on Aug 9, 2012
Please click LIKE/SHARE. Venerable news anchorman Walter Cronkite hosts this in-depth look at the pervasiveness and effects of government's policy of promoting gambling on American culture. Broadcast in 1994 just as government began a massive expansion of gambling across the U.S, Cronkite explores questions like, is the lure of "easy money" replacing a strong work ethic in the attitudes of American youth, and is the funding of state and federal government through the proceeds of legal gambling a proper way of conducting government? Cronkite details the history of legalized gambling in America in an attempt to draw some conclusions about the impact gambling has had on the economic, moral, and social fabric of American society. The program features interviews with people from the average man on the street, to members of congress, to noted religious leaders.
****************************************
****************************************
Massachusetts faces $400 million fiscal hit if voters repeal casinos, automatic gas tax hikes
Outside the Statehouse in Boston in early October, Republican Rep. Geoffrey Diehl stood in the foreground, while Holly Robichaud, a Republican consultant, left, and Justin Thompson, a legislative aide, right, held a sign for repealing a law that automatically increases the gas tax to match inflation. A key lawmaker said that if voters approve the repeal, it would strip about $12 million a year that would be used on transportation improvements. (Dan Ring/The Republican)
BOSTON -- State government will have less money for local aid, transportation and other services if voters approve planned ballot questions next year to kill casinos and annual increases in the gas tax, legislators said.
Organizers have each submitted more than enough certified voter signatures to place seven statewide questions on the ballot in November of next year including measures to repeal laws that legalize casinos and that automatically hike the gas tax to account for inflation.
Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat, estimated that state government would face budget cuts if voters repeal the 2011 law that allows up to three casino resorts and a single slots facility.
Stanley Rosenberg
Rosenberg said transportation funding would be hurt if voters revoke the law to increase the gas tax in accord with inflation starting in 2015.
The casinos and slots facility together could eventually generate $2 billion in gross gaming revenues each year. With a 25 percent tax rate on two commercial casino resorts, a 17 percent tax on a proposed Mashpee Wampanoag casino in Taunton, and 40 percent tax on the slots parlor, the state might eventually raise $300 million to $500 million a year, according to Rosenberg.
"If that money disappears, then there will be cuts," said Rosenberg, a key author of the casino law.
Rosenberg, the Senate majority leader, said about half the new casino revenues would be local aid for cities and towns and a sizable portion of the rest would go to transportation.
Rosenberg said he would personally vote against the ballot questions but he never tells people how to vote on ballot questions.
Kathleen Norbut
Kathleen Norbut of Monson, an original signer of the petition to revoke the casino law, said the state coffers will never see $400 million a year from casinos. She said casinos will be hurt by expansion of online gambling and declining interest from the public.
She also said legislators are failing to account for the social and other costs of casinos. Mitigation money does not cover the damage caused by casinos, she said.
"Let's get an independent cost-benefit analysis," she said. "You talk about the revenues. What about the costs?"
Norbut is a leading member of Repeal the Casino Deal, a coalition that collected about 73,000 certified voter signatures to make the ballot.
In order to make the ballot, the group may also need to persuade the state Supreme Judicial Court to overturn the attorney general's decision to ban the casino repeal question.
Beacon Hill is also worried about losing expected transportation dollars if voters approve a Republican-backed question to rescind the automatic increases in the state's 26.5 cent-a-gallon gas tax. The annual increases would begin in January of 2015.
Democratic Gov. Deval L. Patrick told reporters that the proposed ballot question is a mistake.
"Everywhere around the commonwealth people understand that we have got to invest in our transportation system in order to sustain and indeed accelerate growth," Patrick said. "While it was not my first choice, the Legislature ... selected the gas tax and a way not to have to come back to it every 15 minutes. And it hasn't been updated in many, many years. So I think the indexing is wise. I think it is fair and I think it was done in the right way ..."
Steven Aylward of Watertown, chairman of the Committee to Tank the Automatic Gas Tax Hikes, said history shows that legislators often divert tax dollars that are intended for a program such as transportation.
Aylward, a member of the Republican State Committee, said repeal of the law would put money where it belongs -- in the pockets of consumers.
Aylward said the "real issue" is that legislators should vote each year if they need revenues and want to raise the gas tax.
The provision for automatic increases is in a transportation financing law that raised the gas tax by three cents, starting July 31. The repeal effort received about 77,000 certified signatures.
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat and chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said the provision would raise about $10 to $12 million a year.
Brewer said legislators should support the wishes of voters if they vote to repeal the law to index the gas tax to inflation.
Another ballot question with fiscal implications for state government is a proposed expansion of the state's 5 cent bottle deposit law to include additional containers such as water, flavored water, coffee-based drinks, juices and sports drinks.
The governor proposed a similar expansion, partly because he said it would generate about $25 million a year for the state including $5 million for recycling initiatives. The state receives money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Christopher P. Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which includes supermarkets and grocery stores, said the state already raises about $35 million a year from distributors who pay the nickel for each unredeemed container. There's something wrong when the state financially benefits from a law that fails because people don't return containers, he said.
"This is nothing more than a money grab," he said.
Janet Domenitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Group, said advocates turned in about 106,000 certified signatures for the ballot question to expand the bottle deposit law.
If the law is approved, it would save about $6 million statewide for cities and towns, she said. The law would save on costs for litter and trash pickup, because it would increase redemptions, and therefore recycling, she said.
She said she is not using the argument that state government would get a boost from money from unclaimed deposits.
"I'm for this if 100 percent of nickels are redeemed," she said. "That's our goal."
Flynn said cities and towns would lose $15 million in annual payments for aluminum if the ballot question was approved. He said communities or their contractors are paid for the value of aluminum that is recycled.
Flynn said approval of the ballot question would require Massachusetts’ consumers and businesses to spend $58 million annually to operate an expanded redemption program.
Flynn said an expansion of the deposit law would be "counter productive." He said it costs three times as much to recycle bottles and cans by redemption than it does to recycle them by dropping them at municipal stations or by leaving them at the curbside for pickup.
"Folks are going to see through this," Flynn said of the proposed expansion of the bottle deposit law.
The secretary of state's office said backers of four other proposed statewide questions also collected more than the required 68,911 certified signatures to qualify for the 2014 ballot.
Two of those questions, if approved, would raise the minimum wage from $8 an hour to $10.50 an hour and would require that every worker in the state could earn up to 40 hours of sick time.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association also gathered more than enough voter signatures to put before voters two separate questions that would limit the number of patients who can be assigned to a nurse at one time and that would restrict CEO salaries and regulate the annual operating margins of hospitals.
Unless state lawmakers approve the proposed ballot questions by early May, supporters would need to gather an additional 11,485 signatures by early July to secure a spot on the ballot.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/massachusetts_faces_400_millio.html#incart_river_default
Organizers have each submitted more than enough certified voter signatures to place seven statewide questions on the ballot in November of next year including measures to repeal laws that legalize casinos and that automatically hike the gas tax to account for inflation.
Sen. Stanley C. Rosenberg, an Amherst Democrat, estimated that state government would face budget cuts if voters repeal the 2011 law that allows up to three casino resorts and a single slots facility.
Stanley RosenbergThe casinos and slots facility together could eventually generate $2 billion in gross gaming revenues each year. With a 25 percent tax rate on two commercial casino resorts, a 17 percent tax on a proposed Mashpee Wampanoag casino in Taunton, and 40 percent tax on the slots parlor, the state might eventually raise $300 million to $500 million a year, according to Rosenberg.
"If that money disappears, then there will be cuts," said Rosenberg, a key author of the casino law.
Rosenberg, the Senate majority leader, said about half the new casino revenues would be local aid for cities and towns and a sizable portion of the rest would go to transportation.
Rosenberg said he would personally vote against the ballot questions but he never tells people how to vote on ballot questions.
Kathleen NorbutKathleen Norbut of Monson, an original signer of the petition to revoke the casino law, said the state coffers will never see $400 million a year from casinos. She said casinos will be hurt by expansion of online gambling and declining interest from the public.
She also said legislators are failing to account for the social and other costs of casinos. Mitigation money does not cover the damage caused by casinos, she said.
"Let's get an independent cost-benefit analysis," she said. "You talk about the revenues. What about the costs?"
Norbut is a leading member of Repeal the Casino Deal, a coalition that collected about 73,000 certified voter signatures to make the ballot.
In order to make the ballot, the group may also need to persuade the state Supreme Judicial Court to overturn the attorney general's decision to ban the casino repeal question.
Beacon Hill is also worried about losing expected transportation dollars if voters approve a Republican-backed question to rescind the automatic increases in the state's 26.5 cent-a-gallon gas tax. The annual increases would begin in January of 2015.
Democratic Gov. Deval L. Patrick told reporters that the proposed ballot question is a mistake.
"Everywhere around the commonwealth people understand that we have got to invest in our transportation system in order to sustain and indeed accelerate growth," Patrick said. "While it was not my first choice, the Legislature ... selected the gas tax and a way not to have to come back to it every 15 minutes. And it hasn't been updated in many, many years. So I think the indexing is wise. I think it is fair and I think it was done in the right way ..."
Steven Aylward of Watertown, chairman of the Committee to Tank the Automatic Gas Tax Hikes, said history shows that legislators often divert tax dollars that are intended for a program such as transportation.
Aylward, a member of the Republican State Committee, said repeal of the law would put money where it belongs -- in the pockets of consumers.
Aylward said the "real issue" is that legislators should vote each year if they need revenues and want to raise the gas tax.
The provision for automatic increases is in a transportation financing law that raised the gas tax by three cents, starting July 31. The repeal effort received about 77,000 certified signatures.
Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, a Barre Democrat and chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, said the provision would raise about $10 to $12 million a year.
Brewer said legislators should support the wishes of voters if they vote to repeal the law to index the gas tax to inflation.
Another ballot question with fiscal implications for state government is a proposed expansion of the state's 5 cent bottle deposit law to include additional containers such as water, flavored water, coffee-based drinks, juices and sports drinks.
The governor proposed a similar expansion, partly because he said it would generate about $25 million a year for the state including $5 million for recycling initiatives. The state receives money from unclaimed bottle and can deposits.
Christopher P. Flynn, president of the Massachusetts Food Association, which includes supermarkets and grocery stores, said the state already raises about $35 million a year from distributors who pay the nickel for each unredeemed container. There's something wrong when the state financially benefits from a law that fails because people don't return containers, he said.
"This is nothing more than a money grab," he said.
Janet Domenitz, executive director of the Massachusetts Public Interest Group, said advocates turned in about 106,000 certified signatures for the ballot question to expand the bottle deposit law.
If the law is approved, it would save about $6 million statewide for cities and towns, she said. The law would save on costs for litter and trash pickup, because it would increase redemptions, and therefore recycling, she said.
She said she is not using the argument that state government would get a boost from money from unclaimed deposits.
"I'm for this if 100 percent of nickels are redeemed," she said. "That's our goal."
Flynn said cities and towns would lose $15 million in annual payments for aluminum if the ballot question was approved. He said communities or their contractors are paid for the value of aluminum that is recycled.
Flynn said approval of the ballot question would require Massachusetts’ consumers and businesses to spend $58 million annually to operate an expanded redemption program.
Flynn said an expansion of the deposit law would be "counter productive." He said it costs three times as much to recycle bottles and cans by redemption than it does to recycle them by dropping them at municipal stations or by leaving them at the curbside for pickup.
"Folks are going to see through this," Flynn said of the proposed expansion of the bottle deposit law.
The secretary of state's office said backers of four other proposed statewide questions also collected more than the required 68,911 certified signatures to qualify for the 2014 ballot.
Two of those questions, if approved, would raise the minimum wage from $8 an hour to $10.50 an hour and would require that every worker in the state could earn up to 40 hours of sick time.
The Massachusetts Nurses Association also gathered more than enough voter signatures to put before voters two separate questions that would limit the number of patients who can be assigned to a nurse at one time and that would restrict CEO salaries and regulate the annual operating margins of hospitals.
Unless state lawmakers approve the proposed ballot questions by early May, supporters would need to gather an additional 11,485 signatures by early July to secure a spot on the ballot.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/12/massachusetts_faces_400_millio.html#incart_river_default
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
