Left In Lowell

To the Council: Vote No to Casino Resolution

21 Responses to “To the Council: Vote No to Casino Resolution”

1. Peter Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm

   This thing has gotten waaaaay to Polar. There are simple ways to make sure “Joe Six-pack” (And I hate categorizing like that because I AM Joe Six-pack!!!) doesn’t fall into this horrible gambling addicted, house-losing state you’re so worried about. (Though why wouldn’t he have already done that on scratch tickets? Nobody has responded to that one yet. What makes a Casino any different than the scratch tickets they have a freaking Cumberland Farms!!) Simply have minimums at the tables high enough so he won’t be tempted to play! Let the high-roller types who have lots of “expendable income” pay big bucks to play. It will keep the places clean, classy, and protect against the things you’re so worried about. I love casino gaming, but simply won’t do it if the tables have $25 minimums. Whether I’m on a cruise ship, Bermuda, Vegas, or Mohegan sun, guys like me simply don’t play games they can’t afford to. Have a couple (or I guess 3) first-class high-priced “exclusive” (though not technically) destination Casino resorts to drum up some revenue from this new generation of high-rollers blowing all their money on over-priced martini’s and fusion cuisine in Boston.

2. Mimi Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 5:01 pm

   Lynne:

   As you know, I am not against the Patrick Casino plan; not yet. With your help, I am still “studying it.”

   But I remember when this motion was introduced on the CC floor, I thought the intent was to show “support to the State Delegation.” And at the time, the City Council did not know if the three reps and the State Senator were on the same page.

   The full motion reads “Request Council Discuss if Casino Gambling in Mass is Appropriate; if so, for a resolution supporting house delegation.

   I have only heard Senator Panagiatakos voice his support for this measure; I have not heard the other three. I have not heard them oppose it either.

   It would not make sense that the Lowell City Council would pass a motion supporting the Patrick Casino plan when our own local representatives are against it. If the CC wanted to show support for a Patrick proposal, they should have done it on the local meal tax proposal that was highly promoted by the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

   Also, as I recall I thought the City Manager and/or Solicitor were asked to find out what other municipalities have drafted a similar resolution. It does not appear that anyone but Middleborough has. The town of Palmer, where one of the three casinos may be located, is still studying the proposal. So I am not sure why this whole thing with the Massachusetts Coalition for Jobs Growth came from.

   My advice to the CC is table this motion.

3. Lynne Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

   I’m not saying that everyone does, Peter. What I’m saying is that within a 50 mile radius, you WILL create new addicts out of some portion of the casino-goers that the state will have to deal with (either counseling, arresting, or dealing with them in court), bankruptcy, problems with jobs, marriages, etc. All that fallout does cost the state. Takes away from the revenues you think you’re going to get.

   On top of that, entertainment dollars are finite in an area. We are NOT going to attract people who would otherwise go to Vegas. They would go to Vegas. Most of a casino’s customers are local. Those people might otherwise spend money on other taxable revenues like restaurants. It is a known fact that often in the vicinity of a casino, restaurants and other businesses close. It happens all the time. We will lose those jobs and that revenue as we “gain” the other jobs and revenue from the casinos. Again, is that a net gain of revenue and jobs? Maybe, maybe not, we haven’t studied it objectively enough.

   Put all of that with the fact that in other states, casino lobbyists (flush with MUCHO dollars) will put downward pressure on the promised 27% tax rate, and trust me, they will likely succeed. Especially with threats of starting federally-approved casinos which give NO state tax revenue. So two, three, ten years down the line we might end up with 20%, 15%, maybe even only 10% of that original revenue. $600 million/year will go down real fast.

   Couple that with the fact that once you legalize Class III gambling, you can’t stop any tribe from going through the federal route. Three casinos might end up being five. Six. Whatever. How many is too many? We don’t know, but we have NO control over it. Once we go that route.

   The scratch ticket argument is such bullshit. I do happen to think the lottery is a regressive tax selling false hope to the least able to afford it, but at least it’s by small amounts, a dollar or two or five. We’re talking about people losing thousands of dollars in an hour with casinos. And casinos know how to make you more likely to get addicted or do something stupid - free drinks, rigged slot machines with fast reset times, etc.

   But even if the scratch ticket or lottery system were completely corrupt and immoral (and let’s face it, the state gets the majority of the revenue from the lottery, instead of only 27%), we’ll never get rid of it, will we? We’re attached to the revenue like gambling addicts in front of a slot machine. So why should we go even further down that path? What makes this such a great deal for the state? I argue, it’s likely NOT a good deal. Not for revenues, not for (good, blue & white collar) jobs, not for our social environment, not for our businesses. But it’s great if you’re the huge casino corporation making money hand over fist. Which is why they want it so bad. But only with slots - no slots, no casinos. The slots are the easiest way to get addicted, and the quickest way for nubes to get started, and the most rigged payoff in the place. That’s why they want them - they are the real money makers. A hundred times over. It’s not about the high rollers or the blackjack table. It’s about the Class III slots.

4. Michael in Pawtucketville Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

   We stopped by Atlantic City a few years ago on our way back from the South.

   We ran into a number of elderly people with oxygen tanks on little wheeled stands. It seems to me that lots of elderly folks get bussed into casinos to fill the rooms during otherwise quiet times.

   People gambled on stocks in the late 1990s, houses the last few years and next on casinos. With the former, at least you own something. The latter, I’m not so sure.

   There were some really, really questionable areas in Atlantic City and it isn’t a place where I’d like to live.

5. kpem Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 5:44 pm

   Lynne,
   All we are doing with Casinos is moving money from CT to MA. People that like to gamble (and those of us just looking for dinner, a few slots, and some music on our aniversary) will continue our trip to Mohegan. Has anyone ever seen the busses coming in from all the Massachusetts Senior Centers at foxwoods? An addict is already down in Ct hoping to roll 7’s whether MA opens casinos or not.

6. Mimi Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 6:53 pm

   6:45 p.m. Resolution passes 8-0; 1 absent. Will the the Lowell City Council’s name now appear on the web site of the Massachusetts Coalition for Jobs Growth as a supporter?

   http://www.masscoalitionforjobsandgrowth.com/

   I am not sure what “supporting” this coalition means.

7. Lynne Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

   No, kpem. There’s some money moving to CT from Mass, sure. But you know how much money needs to be made by casinos in order to get even just $100M in revenues? Almost $400m. In order to get $600M we’d have to lose? $2.2B.

   How much money would we be getting if we, say, are losing $100M to CT? A mere $27M assuming the Governor’s tax rate. How much would that $27M costing us, or would cost us, if we had it here? I dunno, but you factor in 1) a new Gaming Department for the state of MA (cost a mere $1M? $2M? $10M?), 2) police and court costs for problem/addicted gamblers, 3) cost of programs to help addicted gamblers, 4) lost revenue from any of the problem gamblers that lose jobs/go bankrupt/neglect their kids, 5) lost revenue from the loss of money spent on other entertainment venues that we tax, 6) those lost jobs from those businesses closing, and even 7) the potential higher costs of education of new children of the immigrants that casinos will likely import to take the low-wage jobs that will be available at the new casinos. Ask CT about that last one.

   I dunno, the effects of gambling (even with just the subset of people who wind up addicted or problem gamblers, which WILL be higher than they are now) and the costs of gambling, I think I’d rather lose that money to CT than lose money bringing it here.

   The math just don’t add up in my opinion, at least the math I’ve been able to cobble together. Of course, there HAS been no study done in MA, and all we’re asking is that we do one, one that’s unbiased and not run by casino lobbyists.

8. Lynne Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

   See how nice that website is? That’s what we’re up against. A lot of money.

   Where else can you see unions getting along with Suffolk Downs…

   Unions are shooting themselves in the damn foot with this one. The likelihood that these casinos will wind up unionized is 50/50, and what’s more, casinos will fight like hell to keep them out.

9. kpem Says:
   February 26th, 2008 at 8:20 pm

   We also have the gamblers from NH and Vt that would probably come to mass instead of Ct and all of the Japanese (who are the ones that own the high roller tables) that Massachusetts would be getting income from and not providing services. I guess the truth is in the numbers and I will wait to make my decision on this at a later time.

10. Christopher Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

    Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, there are two sides to this issue? Lynne, you have a way sometimes of drawing whatever conclusion you draw then arguing in a way that makes it sound like those who don’t agree are either too stupid to understand the issue and/or have less-than-noble motives. Any lobbyist who cares about his reputation is going to have some basis for the evidence he presents. Obviously it’s going to be spun and it won’t be the whole story, but I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand. Most policy debates such as this one revolve largely around predictions regarding consequences. I wish I had a crystal ball as clear as you apparently think yours is.

11. K-R-S Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 8:30 pm

    Chris writes “Any lobbyist who cares about his reputation is going to have some basis for the evidence he presents”.
    Really, lobbyists are paid to do a job, irrespective of their own personal belief system…just like attys., they are paid to defend one ’s stance regardless of guilt or innocence.

    Personally, I don’t know where I stand on this, but don’t try to tell me that lobbyists lobby for the “good” of the people or even for their own conscience.

    The topic of lobbyists really needs to be a whole sep. topic of discussion.

12. waittilnextyr Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 9:03 pm

    “Any lobbyist who cares about his reputation is going to have some basis for the evidence he presents.”

    That means he has to have some supporting information for his argument, rather than just rail for his client’s position.

    On Lynne’s example of “losing” $2.2B to realize $600M for the State, is that 27% of losses, or 27% of “sales”. I thought it was the latter, and if so, the actual loss is a smaller amount.

13. Mr. Lynne Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 9:04 pm

    Do good lobbying and good evidence correlate? I doubt it. If so university scientists would make the best lobbyists.

14. Peter Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    To call the scratch ticket point “bull$h!t” is simply ridiculous. EVERY time I’m in a gas station etc. I see some person who obviously shouldn’t be gambling buying several of these things at $5 and even $10 a pop! Seriously! If I count the number of times I see such a person in a classy high-stakes casino it comes to, well, zero. You seem way way way to convinced by the harpies over at LOWV. I’m not sure what kind of Casino the Governor exvisions but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt it’s not going to be a dive with penny slots!

15. kpem Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Lynne,
    I think the numbers are much higher than you estimated at 100 mil with 27 mil in taxes for Massachusetts.
    “Massachusetts residents now spend an estimated $876 million at Connecticut’s two casinos, with $122 million of that going to Connecticut’s state treasury, according to a study conducted last year by Clyde W. Barrow, director of the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.
    That does not include the countless amounts of people that have said they will go to Mass casinos from Maine and New Hampshire.
    Here’s the Times Story
    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/21casinosct.html

16. Michael in Pawtucketville Says:
    February 26th, 2008 at 11:43 pm

    I think that New Hampshire is happy to have Casino-goers head down to CT or MA to do their gambling.

    “Unless I am absolutely convinced it wouldn’t have an effect on our quality of life, I wouldn’t even entertain a discussion about supporting it,” said Lynch.

    http://www.casinogamblingweb.com/gambling-news/casino-gambling/lynch_needs_convincing_before_entertaining_gambling_expansion_in_nh_48052.html
    (Lynch is the Governor of New Hampshire)

17. Lynne Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    Clive Barrow’s research is highly dispute, kpem. Not only is he linked heavily with casino money, BUT his methods are seriously in question.

    Outside of Barrow’s papers and studies that casinos have funded (some of which rely on Barrow’s research), hard numbers for casinos’ economic benefits, by and large, don’t exist. And if it’s problematic that Patrick built a major policy decision on one man’s research, it’s doubly so that that research comes with a warning from the governor’s own staff.

    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.

    Peter, we don’t have a choice whether it’s a dive or not. Once you legalize it, there are multiple ways to get a casino approved and some of them do NOT include the state’s input at ALL! You can go around the state process and get federal approval, the state gets NOTHING.

    Not to mention, these casinos don’t START OUT as dives, but wind up there anyway. Ask Detroit, or any number of other cities that have had one for 10 or 20 years.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that, we don’t control it. Not by a long shot. Not the current consequences, not the future ones. Better not to allow Class III gambling in your state at all in the first place.

18. Lynne Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Michael: The fact that NH is not welcoming the idea should really give us pause. If there’s any state that wants easy money without taxing income or sales, it’s the Live Free or Die state.

19. Christopher Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    RE: lobbyists (comments 11 and 12)

    To #11 - You are right that they are paid to represent interests like attorneys, but both need to have good faith basis for their claims. I did not say every lobbyist was looking out for the public good. What I am saying is that if a lobbyist either wants to be hired by another interest in the future or wants to be taken seriously by legislators he needs come in with a well-reasoned argument based on some evidence.

    To #12 - When you say, “That means he has to have some supporting information for his argument, rather than just rail for his client’s position,” I say you are absolutely correct. My argument is that despite the sinister connotations the word “lobbyist” conjures up, the vast majority of them do exactly that.

20. Fred Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    Seriously, what are you people thinking, three casinos is definitely not a way to start something as big as this.My god,does not anybody realize that these (casinos) could create an epidemic, not just for the gamblers but for the state.Like Lynne says,there are many factors that come into play and not a lot of them are benificial, is it all about the $?, if it is is it guarenteed for the life of the casinos, or is it short term just so we can get them approved? people will bet their paychecks, welfare checks, or even their social security checks before anyone in their house realizes that the money is gone. BE CAREFUL! The governer will not be here forever, he is another short term elected official that wants to make himself look good, balancing a budget and such, he needs to tone down the idea of three casinos, and at best say Let’s try one and see if it is beneficial fot the commonwealth, and not just his resume’

21. Lynne Says:
    February 27th, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    Can’t just try one…that’s the point…legalizing them means there’s a federal route we can’t as a state control. The tribes can go over our head, and we all remember the corruption and stupidity with Jack Abramoff, right?

Leave a Reply