Lovers, Muggers, and Thieves

Ante Up: Casino Debate Stalls Beacon Hill

2010-07-21T20:41:00.000-04:00

Jon Keller reports on how the debate is going. SPOILERS: Not well!

Bob Oakes reports that there is a 50/50 chance that this thing will even pass.

The AP reports that there MAY be a bill.

Jim O'Sullivan shares the uncertainty, but reports that talks have not broken down between houses yet. Noah Bierman adds that the rhetoric on both side is toning down. Hillary Chabot reports that all sides are committed to producing a bill.

The Massachusetts Liberal analyzes everyone's agenda.

Blue Mass Group's Scout objects to a lame rebuttal to the "racinos are no-bid contracts" argument.

Andrew Ryan reports that several Massachusetts mayors are supporting the House's racino plan. Not Mayor Menino, however, who doesn't want to upset the process by supporting any particulars.

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me: The DeLeo Ultimatum

2010-07-09T08:44:00.000-04:00

Massachusetts Liberal reports (via State House News Service, hidden behind a paywall):

In a nutshell, DeLeo said that without race track slots as part of a final casino bill, the House will probably jam up every other piece of legislation pending between now and the session's close on July 31.

Like I said yesterday, DeLeo needs slots at Suffolk Downs because a full-on casino will hurt the community and he knows it. He wants to be responsible within his district for slots, and for casinos... as long as the casinos aren't in Suffolk 19. He doesn't want to be responsible for the Suffolk Downs Resort and Casino, which would hurt his reputation with smaller business owners within the Suffolk 19.

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me, Ctd.

2010-07-09T08:39:00.000-04:00

Middleboro Remembers writes:

When the Middleboro Casino reared its ugly head, many of us knew nothing about gambling or slots.

In the intervening + 3 years, many of us have researched, networked, read reports and books, considered the impacts on our communities.

The overwhelming majority of people, when asked if they want a casino/slot parlor in their community say NO by a wide margin.

A federal report determined that for every $1 in revenue 'casinos' provide, the cost to taxpayers is $3. A deal like that only Beacon Hill could support!

Last year, the Governor, AG, and others supported an Independent Cost Benefit Analysis that was never conducted.

Your tax dollars have paid for BENEFITS reports.

No one is considering the cost of the BLOATED REGULATORY BUREAUCRACY that can be filled with political hacks and relatives.

Money spent locally has a 'multiplier effect' - you go to a local restaurant, the waitress goes to a local hairdresser, who goes to a local mechanic, you get the point.

Not so with Slot Parlors (casinos) that suck discretionary spending out of the local economy. (For $500 million or $600 million, you get a Slot Parlor - Slots in a Box! Check out Sands Bethlehem.)

The costs for a new gambling regulatory commission in comparable states (there is no exact apples:apples) are between $20 million and $50 million per year. The Speaker's Special Interest Gambling Bill provides $5 Million.

The costs for expansion of the AG's department for surveillance, oversight, prosecution, equipment and personnel for an entirely new category of enterprise and organized crime statutes is - not included or considered in the bill.

The costs for expansion of the MA state police for a new department, equipment, personnel is -not included or considered in the bill.

The costs for expansion of the local/regional impacted law enforcement departments for equipment, personnel is - not included or considered in the bill.

The costs for district courts, DA departments, Sheriffs, Corrections - not included or considered in the bill.

The mitigation for directly impacted muncipalities is $15 Million in the Speaker's Special Interest Gambling Bill. The WMCAT that has studied these proposals extensively (ad nauseum) has identified a MINIMUM of $50 million needed PER impacted casino region.

The costs for gambling treatment articulated by the Mass Council on Compulsive Gambling was over $30 Million per year. The Speaker's Special Interest Gambling Bill provides $5 Million.

This is a net loser for the Commonwealth that will cost more than the overinflated revenues that have been presented.

Let's start a conversation about how these proposals benefit a select few and the taxpayers subsidize the long-term impacts and costs. Not one state with legalized slots and casinos is in better fiscal shape than the Commonwealth.

I always think that if slot machines paved the streets with gold, what happened to Atlantic City?

For additional information: www.uss-mass.org/

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me, Ctd.

2010-07-08T20:25:00.000-04:00

Suldog comments:

As someone very familiar with the mathematics of casino gambling, and also an ex-dealer/croupier, my concern isn't with casinos versus no casinos, but rather with the odds that gamblers will be given once the casinos and/or slot palaces are in place (which they will be, sooner or later.)

In locales where the public is not 'wised up' (the opposite of Las Vegas, for example, where lots of competition creates a need for casinos to compete for the gambling dollar) it is usually the case that casinos will offer hideous odds. Now, all slot players (and others who buck a minus game) will eventually lose if they keep playing. However, if the odds offered are nearer even, they won't go into debt as quickly, and those with a bit of self-control can even justify the hourly expense of playing as comparable to that which would be spent on other things, i.e., movies or dining out or an evening at a bar.

What I would prefer seeing would be some language in the final bill that would guarantee certain set payback percentages on video poker, slots, and other mechanized gaming devices. Nobody in Las Vegas is going broke paying back 99% on Jacks Or Better (or even when they throw in the rare over 100% payback, possible with certain video poker games when the player knows the optimum strategy for every possible situation - no easy feat to memorize, in some instances, but a real possibility if one wishes to put in the study time.) Unfortunately, I suspect that we'll be seeing paybacks in the 60 - 85% range on slots, and perhaps a max of 97.5% on poker (such as that offered by Twin Rivers with what is known as "8/5 Jacks Or Better" - estimates on the slot payouts is strictly my best guess, as nobody but the manufacturers, casino, and perhaps state licensing boards has any access to such info.)

Likewise, if table games (21, Craps, Roulette, and the like) are allowed, it would behoove the state to look out for the best interests of the patrons. Making it illegal to forbid card counters from playing, for instance, will, in the long run, provide MORE revenue for the state, not less. Those who can successfully count cards are few and far between. Those who THINK they can successfully count cards are legion.

Just my not-so-humble two cents.

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me: Massachusetts Casino Update

2010-07-08T08:25:00.000-04:00

Governor Deval Patrick is making waves in the casino debate by calling racinos "no-bid" contracts automatically awarded to the racetracks, according to the AP. Senate President Therese Murray agrees with Patrick's sentiment.

On the other side is House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has been pushing for slots at racetracks, especially Suffolk Downs in his district. DeLeo claims that the state will need the projected $100M in revenue, especially if the sales tax is rolled back to 3%.

And the three of them have some pull. While a majority of the conference committee supports racinos, Governor Patrick still has veto power, and Speaker DeLeo may or may not be able to overturn it. Senate President Therese Murray would be disinterested, as well, if the bill included racinos.

Casino opponent Dan Kennedy notes that while a resort casino at Suffolk Downs would destroy the small businesses of the surrounding area. In fact, I'd argue that DeLeo needs racinos to stop Suffolk Downs from hurting the small businesses in his district. Suffolk Downs might be satisfied with slots, instead of building a resort casino, but without slots, the Suffolk Downs area is going to hurt.

The Massachusetts Liberal also has his take.

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me

2010-07-07T08:12:00.000-04:00

So, the Senate passed their casino bill, which includes three resorts and no racinos. Now a panel of Senators and Representatives are ironing out the details. Then a final bill gets put before both houses and after it gets passed, the Governor will sign it. I'm putting it that way because I think casinos (and racinos, for that matter) are a foregone conclusion.

Thomas Grillo and Hillary Chabot report that a majority of the panel is in favor of racinos, so they're most likely going into the final bill.

George Russell reports that one of the companies interested in building a Mass-ino is the company who owns Hard Rock Hotels and Casinos.

And all that talk about racinos is for naught, as Vorrado Realty Trust, the owner of Suffolk Downs, wants to build a resort casino there anyways. Yeesh. The AP has the story. Thomas Grillo has more.

Jim notes that elderly women with oxygen are missing from the picture proposal (HT Adam Gaffin).

Thomas Grillo reports that no less than Mayor Menino is backing the East Boston casino site. But considering the DTX Blight that Vorrado Realty Trust owns, is anyone really optimistic about the Suffolk Downs Resort and Casino?

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me: Public Hearing on Casinos in Massachusetts

2010-06-08T08:22:00.000-04:00

Fox reminds us that there will be a public hearing in the debate over casinos in Massachusetts today at 1 PM.

The Senate bill, which is being debated, would open up three resort casinos, but doesn't make way for slots at racetracks.

Two casinos would be go to competitive bids, and the third to an Indian tribe. Which should be interesting, since the Globe's "New England in Brief" reports that the Aquinnah Wampanoags are proposing their own casino site near Fall River. The Mashpee Wampanoags also have plans to build a casino.

Steve LeBlanc reports that neither casino bill will strengthen money laundering laws in the Bay State, despite Attorney General Martha Coakley recommending this. Coakley is apparently harshing Mass's casino buzz, man.

The big thing about the Senate casino bill, though, is that Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth, Barnstable) is dragging her feet on a casino bill, as opposed to DeLeo, who knocked one out in record time. She's also holding out on racinos, which is the only real reason DeLeo is for casinos at all. Thomas Grillo argues that it's posturing over Murray's baby, health care reform. Her spokesman says it's ridiculous, but it sounds like exactly how laws are made and compromises brokered.

What do you think? Please feel free to comment!

Hit Me! (XVIII)

2010-04-22T16:31:00.000-04:00

A new poll reveals that a majority of ~~Massholes~~ uh... Massfolken? are in favor of casinos in Massachusetts.

The catch is that a majority of Americans don't want the casino in their community.

The Associated Press has the story. The State House News Service breaks down some more of the data.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XVII)

2010-04-16T17:17:00.001-04:00

Blue Mass Group's Marcus Graly analyzes where the Reps who voted against the DeLeo bill are coming from.

Graly notes the bill's steep opposition in vacation hotspots like the Berkshires and the Cape.

"Another region with a lot of opposition is the liberal middle class inner suburbs: Cambridge, Somerville, Belmont, Jamaica Plain, etc. are all largely represented by reps who voted no. It is again a testimony to the awesome power of the editors that every rep who represented even a sliver of Arlington voted against the bill. Clearly David is more feared than Deleo there. ;)

Minority neighborhoods of Boston also had considerable opposition. There was scattered opposition in some of the secondary cities of Massachusetts, such as Lawrence, Fall River and Springfield.

Lastly, Conservative opposition to the bill seemed to center around rural Central Mass. Republicans and Democrats opposed the bill in rough equal proportion to their numbers in the House, though presumably the GOP had less pressure from the leadership."

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XVI)

2010-04-16T09:45:00.000-04:00

The Senate is slowing down the casino debate, reports the Globe's Michael Levenson. There is no plan for debate or a vote until June. The Herald's Hillary Chabot notes that the Senate will start from scratch, not even using the House's bill as a template.

Senator Stanley Rosenberg is the point-man on the bill. Unlike DeLeo, he has no vested interest in casinos or the gaming industry.

According to Senate President Therese Murray, she wants a gambling bill on Governor Patrick's desk by July 31^st. Which, if everything's on schedule, leaves mid-to-late June and July to reconcile the Senate bill with the House bill.

The Globe's Casey Ross reports that casino developers are already angling to get licenses. George Brennan in the Cape Cod Times notes that the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe is also looking for a license.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Casino Bedfellows

2010-04-16T09:34:00.000-04:00

Speaker Robert DeLeo is receiving policy advice from the firm he hired with his own campaign money to provide estimates on casinos in Massachusetts, reports the Globe's Sean Murphy.

DeLeo’s campaign is paying $6,900 a month to Spectrum Gaming Group for the contract, which began last month as Spectrum was finalizing its public study for lawmakers.

The firm is providing advice to DeLeo, who pushed a bill licensing casinos and slot machines through the House Wednesday, on implementing expanded gambling, from setting up the proper regulatory framework to maximizing the state’s take from casino development.

The Outraged Liberal explains that they may have checked to see if this arrangement was legal, but it still doesn't look good.

You are still left with an undeniable fact: political fund-raising, cash from people with a potential stake in the outcome, helped push through a controversial piece of legislation while the public had no direct voice in the debate.

That's gamy, not gaming.

If DeLeo campaign treasurer David Martin is so certain of the rightness of his actions he should release the contract with Spectrum and the advisory opinions he claims to have received from the watchdog agencies.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XV)

2010-04-15T20:28:00.000-04:00

Fox reports that there will be public hearings on casinos. Senate President Therese Murray promises.

Well, the Senate is dragging this out, instead of pushing it through. Murray's been cool towards slots, which might explain why she's in no hurry.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XIV)

2010-04-15T10:25:00.000-04:00

“This is the bill [DeLeo] has cared about more than any other bill. My sense is that there may well be consequences for people voting against this bill — particularly people in his inner circle.” - Rep. Ellen Story (D-Hampshire 3), after voting for the bill.

The Herald's Hillary Chabot and Jessica van Slack report on the passage of the DeLeo plan. The Massachusetts Senate doesn't seem to have any immediate plans to rush casinos along. WBUR's Curt Nickisch has more, and so does Massachusetts Elections 2010 and the Metro-West Daily News's Laura Krantz.

WBUR's Bob Oakes and Lisa Tobin report on what Suffolk Downs plans to do once slots are legal.

The Outraged Liberal notes the difference in opinion on casinos, depending on whether or not it's the Speaker's bill.

Mass Independents' John Keith compares who voted to table casino discussion in 2008 and who voted to pass the DeLeo plan in 2010. He calls people who stayed principled on both sides of the issue heroes, and people who changed their vote (i.e. voted to table casino discussion two years ago and then voted for the casino bill) "feckless."

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XIII)

2010-04-14T21:20:00.000-04:00

The House voted to pass the DeLeo bill, 120-37. Speaker DeLeo got his veto-proof majority. The AP and the Herald's Hillary Chabot have more.

Blue Mass Group's David Kravitz is less than thrilled.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XII)

2010-04-14T15:16:00.000-04:00

The AP reports that while protesters gathered on the Commons, the House was busy continuing their debate on the DeLeo bill.

Thomas Grillo reports that potential casino owners are rubbing their hands in delight. They see a gold mine in Massachusetts.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (XI)

2010-04-14T09:53:00.000-04:00

The Herald's Hillary Chabot reports that the House stayed up most the night hashing through most of the amendments to the DeLeo bill. Chabot also covers what may happen when the Senate proposes its casino bill. And she mentions that it looks like DeLeo got his veto-proof majority. I still suspect he loses some if Patrick vetoes the bill, though.

Chabot reports that the House claims the DeLeo bill is not blocking the bully bill, because the bill is currently being ironed out in committee. It sounds like any vote on the bill will occur after the DeLeo bill is inevitably passed, though.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (X)

2010-04-13T14:19:00.000-04:00

The State House News Service reports that the DeLeo bill is moving forward. Votes to send it back to committee failed, and the House has scheduled three days to go through the 216 amendments to the bill.

I'm a little confused, and maybe the veto process is different in Massachusetts (they only teach federal vetos in schools...), but the SHNS says that DeLeo looks like he has the two-thirds vote to overcome a veto from the Governor. But Senate President Therese Murray is also not really a fan of slots. Wouldn't DeLeo also need two-thirds of the Senate to overcome a veto?

Not to mention that I stand by the belief that not everyone who votes for the House bill will vote to overturn a veto. That's unlikely. It's more likely that DeLeo's trying to show Patrick that he has the support to overturn a veto, because I think two-thirds of the House voting for the bill might make Patrick back down from the almost-threats.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (IX)

2010-04-13T12:51:00.000-04:00

The AP reports on the opening of debate for the DeLeo bill. Republican lawmakers were quickly drowned out after offering a measure that would open the four slots-only licenses to competitive bidding, as opposed to giving them to the racetracks immediately.

What the Speaker wants, the Speaker gets, guys.

Marjorie Arons-Barron criticizes an amendment from Rep. Balser (D-Middlesex 12) that would post the odds of winning on every slot machine. Arons-Barron thinks it's a reasonable amendment, but that it won't actually affect whether or not people play.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (VIII)

2010-04-13T09:28:00.000-04:00

The AP's Steve LeBlanc reports that today is the first day of debate on the DeLeo casino bill. WBUR's Steve Brown has more.

Perhaps in honor of that, casino opponent Dan Kennedy posts a story about how gambling destroyed a family, and criticizes an article I'll get to after the jump.

Here's the article. The Globe's Brian McQuarrie reports on a Massachusetts self-proclaimed "professional" poker player who claims to make at least $100 per day in poker. Kennedy's criticism is that the house always wins, and there's probably something the poker player didn't tell McQuarrie.

The Globe's Sean Murphy points out that, while studies show that casinos could be a lucrative new industry in Massachusetts, there's no reports on whether slots will be worth it. He also reports that the study claims gambling spending will rise by $90 per person once the state gets casinos.

The Herald's Hillary Chabot reports that the House of Representatives has set aside the bullying bill, which needs to be reconciled with the Senate bill, to begin the casino debate.

... Way to accomplish stuff, Law Guys.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (VII)

2010-04-12T21:34:00.000-04:00

The State House News Service's Jim O'Sullivan reports that Speaker DeLeo is approaching that veto-proof majority he wants in the House.

The AP's Steve LeBlanc reports on what casinos might mean to the theater industry in Massachusetts.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (VI)

2010-04-12T13:40:00.000-04:00

Media Nation's Dan Kennedy proposes a ballot question re: casinos:

“Would you support a gambling casino’s being built in your city or town?”

He suspects the referendum will fail because, while there is support for casinos in the state, frequently that doesn't mean people want a casino in their town.

State Senator Jamie Eldridge (D-Middlesex, Worcester) joins Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Middlesex 12) in writing op-eds stating their opposition to casinos in Massachusetts. Eldridge posts his op-ed on Blue Mass Group.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (V)

2010-04-12T07:26:00.000-04:00

The Globe's Brian Mooney reports on the gambling bill before the State Legislature.

Senate President Therese Murray favors a limited number of casinos but is cool to slots at the tracks, and there is discussion of a possible compromise version when the bill gets to the Senate.

...

Polls have shown public support for casinos but only limited enthusiasm for slots at the tracks, two of which are in DeLeo’s district. Nationally, 37 states have legalized slot machines. Of those, 12 have commercial casinos, 12 have so-called racinos at tracks, and 29 have Indian casinos or a combination of Indian and other casinos.

I expect that slots won't make it into the final bill. If there's a big slots fight between DeLeo and Patrick, though, slots may end up sinking the bill.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (IV)

2010-04-11T13:30:00.001-04:00

The AP's Steve LeBlanc reports that Speaker DeLeo is hard at work looking to get the votes for his casino bill. See, I'm used to "the Speaker gets what the Speaker wants" and deduced that DeLeo already had the votes because it was a bill sponsored by the Speaker.

That may still be true, but Governor Patrick's veto threats have moved the goalpost for DeLeo.

House leaders are now working to pass DeLeo's bill by a two-thirds majority to withstand a veto by Patrick, who opposes slots at race tracks. Two of the tracks are in DeLeo's district.

- the article

The debate is happening on the Hill on Tuesday, and I'm finally beginning to see why DeLeo didn't want public hearings. He already has to wrangle his House into line, and he cannot do that if he also has to deal with, horror of horrors, public opposition to Massachusetts casinos.

Also, I should point out that he'll need more than a two-thirds majority, because the bill is likely to lose support post-veto.

UPDATED: found out which AP writer wrote the report.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (III)

2010-04-10T17:28:00.000-04:00

Blue Mass Group's Amber Paw notes the amendments being proposed to DeLeo's casino plan.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!

Hit Me (II)

2010-04-09T12:18:00.000-04:00

Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Middlesex 12) tells Blue Mass Group that she will not vote for casinos in Massachusetts.

Just as with all gambling, where the House always wins..... I have no doubt that the Speaker of our House will win the votes he needs to bring slots to Massachusetts, just as the former Speaker was able to win the votes he needed to keep slots out of our state.

Balser also links to a recent op-ed she wrote for the Newton TAB, where she states that she opposes slots for health and safety concerns:

Proponents of expanded gambling acknowledge that gambling addiction is serious, but they assert that those who are addicted can already drive to Connecticut. Massachusetts may as well get the revenue, they argue. However, studies demonstrate that rates of gambling addiction increase with proximity.

...

Studies have shown that 80 percent of the profits from casinos come from slot machines. The studies further show that most of the profits from the slots come from problem gamblers.

...

Not all who gamble become addicted. But the profits depend on compulsive gambling.

Have something to say? Discuss this post in the forums!