Left In Lowell

Was Governor Patrick’s plan produced on the back of another, flawed plan by a known shill for casinos?

That’s what this Weekly Dig article surmises, in large part because of the general sameness of both plans. The first, by Dr. Clyde Barrow, came out in March. The Gov’s plan came out, well, recently. (And seriously, read the whole article.)

Barrow’s blueprint called for “three commercial resort casinos,” to be situated in Suffolk Downs, southeastern Massachusetts and western Massachusetts. It promised that, collectively, the casinos would generate $1.5 billion in revenue and create 20,000 jobs. It recommended a 27 percent tax rate on gaming revenue, which would generate “over $400 million” in revenue for the state, half of which would be spent on local aid. It suggested that the state charge $600 million in casino licensing fees every 10 years. It also recommended that the casinos allocate 2 percent of their gross revenues to offset the costs of communities near the new casinos.

20,000 jobs…27%…$400 million…sounds familiar. Even exact.

Barrow’s numbers have been and are being called into question. One that really seems to evoke the ire of opponents (and possible allies like BMG’s David) is (bold mine):

Barrow, a highly public figure in the state’s casino debate and local journalists’ go-to person for gambling quotes, pioneered a controversial technique known as “patron origin” analysis. It consists of counting cars in casinos’ parking lots. Barrow estimates that the percentage of out-of-state license plates equals the percentages of out-of-state residents gambling at the casino, which, in turn, is equal to the percent of out-of-state money being spent there. Barrow’s research is the only apparent source for the widely-repeated statistic that Massachusetts residents spent $1.1 billion at out-of-state casinos last year, which is often used to point to more than a billion dollars of “untapped demand” for gambling in Massachusetts.

He counted cars? Even a rube like me knows there’s a whole lotta factors involved beyond that.

As much as I do like so many of this governor’s initiatives and support him on other things, I just can’t see my way to bailing him out of this one. Taking the numbers verbatim (it appears) from a single source who has been funded solely by casino proponents seems to be more than a rookie mistake to me. Sure, the numbers look great and we’d all want them to be correct, but is there any other evidence that they are? If something seems too good to be true…it probably pays to be very, very skeptical. The real question is, has Barrow realistically accounted for the costs associated with allowing casinos in MA? Even the chairman of a tribe, Donald Widdis of the Aquinnah Wampanoags, which contracted with Dr. Barrow said that “even he doesn’t trust Barrow’s methods. ‘I think his report was long on assumptions that weren’t really articulated,’ he says.” That’s from a guy who was interested in casinos.

I know being governor means having to make very big decisions (and it’s better to have someone doing that than, say, abdicating their role like past governors) but this decision appears flawed and very misinformed. Take it back. Take it all back. Let’s move on to the next battle, a more worthy one.