Massachusetts May Shut Down Casinos Before Even One Opens
From The New York Times:
BOSTON — With the casino industry showing signs of retrenchment, voters in Massachusetts may do something that voters nowhere else have done, at least in the last century: slam on the brakes on casino gambling.
Massachusetts was one of the last states to climb aboard the casino craze, approving legislation in 2011 to allow three casinos and a slots parlor. Now it may be the first to reverse itself, with voters deciding in November whether to repeal the law before a single casino has been built.
Their chief argument is that casinos will fuel an economic boon, providing 6,500 construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs, virtually all of them unionized, with benefits and an average yearly salary of about $45,000 (more with tips). The casinos have pledged millions of dollars annually to their host and surrounding communities, thanks to the “repatriating” of cash that Massachusetts residents will no longer be dropping in other states.
The campaign to repeal casinos maintains that the promise of jobs and prosperity is hollow. It says casinos will not bring a net gain of jobs but a net loss, that people will spend their discretionary income at the casinos and sap local businesses, forcing them to lay off workers.
What critics do believe is that casinos will destroy their communities with more crime, traffic and addiction and that Massachusetts should not rely on a predatory industry to improve its economy because it will only fail.
The anti-casino campaign, called Repeal the Casino Deal, acknowledges that it faces an uphill battle. It lacks the resources of the casinos. It lacks a simple, bumper-sticker message like “jobs” to appeal to voters.
BOSTON — With the casino industry showing signs of retrenchment, voters in Massachusetts may do something that voters nowhere else have done, at least in the last century: slam on the brakes on casino gambling.
Massachusetts was one of the last states to climb aboard the casino craze, approving legislation in 2011 to allow three casinos and a slots parlor. Now it may be the first to reverse itself, with voters deciding in November whether to repeal the law before a single casino has been built.
“No state has ever repealed expanded gaming legislation since the modern
industry of gambling started in 1931 with Nevada,” said Clyde W. Barrow, a
political scientist at the University of Texas-Pan American who studies
gambling.
Why is Massachusetts having second
thoughts?
When the legislature voted to allow casinos,
the state was limping through a nationwide recession. And Massachusetts gamblers
continued to plunk their money down in other states.
But since then, the economy has improved. Red
flags have been raised about the overall health of the casino industry. And the
tortuous process of awarding casino licenses here has dragged on for three
years, with no tangible benefits.
The debate has unfolded against a backdrop of
bleak forecasts for the industry. In July, Fitch Ratings said industry
weakness would persist, citing the saturation of regional markets, stagnant
wages among lower-income players and the growth of online gambling. The steady
drumbeat of bad news from Atlantic City has also caused concern here. Atlantic
City is plagued
with problems, many of them caused by competition from casinos in
neighboring states. Four
of its 12 casinos are shutting down this year, putting 8,000 people out of
work, even as casino fever intensifies
near New York City.
Despite this grim environment, casino
advocates here express confidence that they will prevail. They say Atlantic
City’s woes are not relevant because New Jersey put 12 casinos in one place;
Massachusetts has planned just three, in three separate regions.
Their chief argument is that casinos will fuel an economic boon, providing 6,500 construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs, virtually all of them unionized, with benefits and an average yearly salary of about $45,000 (more with tips). The casinos have pledged millions of dollars annually to their host and surrounding communities, thanks to the “repatriating” of cash that Massachusetts residents will no longer be dropping in other states.
The campaign to repeal casinos maintains that the promise of jobs and prosperity is hollow. It says casinos will not bring a net gain of jobs but a net loss, that people will spend their discretionary income at the casinos and sap local businesses, forcing them to lay off workers.
What critics do believe is that casinos will destroy their communities with more crime, traffic and addiction and that Massachusetts should not rely on a predatory industry to improve its economy because it will only fail.
The anti-casino campaign, called Repeal the Casino Deal, acknowledges that it faces an uphill battle. It lacks the resources of the casinos. It lacks a simple, bumper-sticker message like “jobs” to appeal to voters.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home