Urban or suburban casinos?
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission believes that locale may be the key to a successful gaming operation for casinos in Massachusetts. To this end, the commission is exploring whether or not the three casinos it will ultimately sanction in Massachusetts should be located or rather, be hidden away in heavy woods out of reach of urban life or should locate in the heart of bustling cities like Boston.
"Mind boggling" is how this decision, among many, many others, was termed the commission must make in a Boston Globe article published over the weekend. It is hardly mind boggling.
The idea that casino location in cities or in the woods could be key to their ultimate success, are questions that were answered decades ago by casino operations that flourished then and which flourish now all over Europe. In nearly all the great and many minor cities of Europe, and in former castles hidden away in the European countryside, casinos exist and they flourish. They offer jobs and a flow of enormous tax revenues almost wherever they are in operation.
On the storied French Riviera or in London and Paris there are dozens of casinos operating as adjuncts to the tourist industry in those places and in many, many others. On the Riviera, for instance, on the famous walkway along the Mediterranean in Cannes, nearly every major hotel - from one corner to the next - hosts a casino operation that enhances the tourist experience. In London and in Paris the same is true. In Europe, the casino experience is the same as it will be here - no one is handcuffed and forced to enter a casino. It is there if you want to go. If its presence reviles you, you stay away.
Only in America is the debate over location considered significant enough to cause applications and licensing for casinos to take up to three to four years or to face discussion endlessly for decades. But then, here in Massachusetts, casino applicants applying for licenses in Boston - EastBoston/Revere, Everett and in the woods in Milford 25 miles away -must contend with the reality of communities in which opponents of casino gambling power opposition that is woven into the fabric of American culture. Ergo - the lengthy and vituperative debates about where to locate casinos or to allow them at all in Massachusetts.
There is not a hint of doubt that the Gaming Commission is internally and externally discussing and exploring which venue will be more compatible with creating jobs, new taxes, and entertainment and gambling venues that work without further clogging up urban areas with added traffic, more tourists, visitors and gamblers as well as crime and social dysfunction and everything else that comes with casino development. This is a given expressed privately and more so publicly lately by the commission.
Nearly every lobbyist working for casino development understands this is a factor in the commission's application process - woods versus cities - which is better?
To a greater extent, in the eastern gaming region set up by the legislature, the question is whether or not the people of East Boston/Revere, Everett and Milford, will vote to allow casino gaming in their respective locations. Right now, the opposition to casino gambling in those communities is galvanizing. To date, opposition to casino gambling has not been so forceful or public as the business efforts as well as government to get the industry going in order to create jobs and new taxes, profits and investment wealth. The expectation is that referendums ordered by gaming laws will partly determine where casinos can be located and then it is up to the commission to make final determinations as to which place is best.
Again, it is mind boggling to deal with a reality like the Massachusetts Lottery, with 7400 locations which earned $1 billion last year in net profits redistributed to the cities and towns of Massachusetts without little more than a blink of the eye from gambling opponents. Gambling opponents in East Boston/Revere, Everett and in Milford are now attempting to gain traction with the rank and file residents of those places who feel gambling is a detriment to their communities. Will opponents create enough opposition, or does enough opposition to casino gambling already exist in these places to sink a referendum allowing them? Frankly, it appears unlikely but anything can happen as it did in Foxboro, where residents there sent Steve Wynn and Robert Kraft packing.
In the meantime, the commission is pulling its hair out wondering whether or not a casino in a city or a rural area will do while in most other places on this earth, casinos live side by side with lotteries and other forms of gambling without much interest or care - except for jobs and revenues, investment wealth and expanded tourist value.
Comments
Adam, I don't get it... is
Adam, I don't get it... is this a paid advertisement badly disguised as an opinion piece?
An opinion piece
I'm not getting paid to run this. I agreed to let Josh write about casinos. Yes, the No Eastie Casino folks will get space as well.
You're not getting paid
Josh is.
Is this Heaven?
Having grown up in a gambling state I can tell you that casinos are depressing places, full of desperate overweight people slamming money they can't afford to lose into the shiny ringing casino machinery. If you spend more than 15 minutes in a casino and are not depressed, you are the owner.
The only sense a casino makes is to fleece the suckers from other states into dropping their cash into your state's till so you don't have a state income tax. If the customers of the casino are mostly from your state you are doing it wrong.
Monte Carlo
In Monte Carlo, residents are not allowed to gamble; only tourists.
[I'm in favor of casinos, by the way, but if you're worried about the effect on the local populace, that's a solution. Of course, MA legislators aren't particular about where the money comes from, just so long as it comes.]
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Yes, iirc that's true of the
Yes, iirc that's true of the Bahamas as well, and in Singapore it is allowed, but locals have to pay a substantial fee to be allowed to play.
Legalized gambling institutions such as casinos and lotteries are bad with no redeeming features and should not be allowed. Informal betting amongst friends, private card games, etc. are at least too small to make enforcement worthwhile. I suppose that I could put up with casinos if they merely provided a venue but only charged a flat fee for the use of a table, and did not get a share of the winnings. Or I suppose that they could offer games provided that the odds were strictly even (after all, if they think gambling is so good, why should they get preferential treatment?)
None of this is because I think gambling is immoral. I couldn't care less about whether it is or not. It's that governments should not permit their citizens to be taken advantage of in such a way.
"Taken advantage of?"
You're full of (expletive.) I'm a grown man. I will decide whether or not I wish to gamble.
Great! You're a grown man --
Great!
You're a grown man -- how dare the FDA regulate pharmaceuticals for safety and efficacy! You'll take whatever medicines you want!
You're a grown man -- how dare the state have a lemon law! You'll buy whatever car you're gulled into buying and be stuck with it!
You're a grown man -- how dare Congress and the states have ratified the 13th amendment! You'll irrevocably sell yourself into slavery if you want to, and you'll like it!
Look man, paternalism is annoying, but one of the purposes of government is to help us to collectively look after ourselves. If you want to gamble in a casino, fine -- I only ask that you enjoy even odds or that the casino not get a share of the wager. It is not too much to ask, IMO.
A "Resort" Casino Can't Be Woven into the Urban Fabric
Your opinion piece fails to recognize or deliberately ignores one incredibly important fact.
We are not in discussion to create the kind of urban gambling parlor you would find on the French Riviera. When Massachusetts talks about building a casino, they are not talking about a building with gambling that might fit seamlessly into an entertainment district.
The word "casino" as it applies to this discussion exclusively refers to "resort" casinos. Huge, sprawling megaplexes, with X hotels and Y restaurants and a variety pack of miscellaneous attractions on top of the building that happens to house all the casino games. We're not even talking about your average Vegas casino, where the hotel and the restaurants and the casino itself are all occupying one building. We're talking about a Foxwoods, or a Mohegan Sun. Establishments like that don't "mesh" with their surroundings. There will be no "blending," no enhancement of the urban fabric. At best, the ultimate net effect of the casino would be an outward sprawl that eventually takes up the same relative amount of space as a district - the Casino District.
At worst, there will be a very real blighting effect on the city, completely independent of what you may or may not choose to associate with a casino - the lands immediately surrounding a casino will become undevelopable, or be underdeveloped, as a consequence of the fact that integration with the surrounding city is impossible for an establishment that has everything to gain from keeping its patrons inside the facility and everything to lose if they venture outwards into the city beyond.
This is the reality of the establishments that will inevitably be built in Massachusetts, and because of that reality, no casino should be approved in any of our cities. We cannot, should not, must not allow the Massachusetts answer to Foxwoods to be built and to blight Boston, nor Revere, nor Everett, nor anywhere.
Did you fail geography class?
This is not the middle of Montana, where if you make a law, the residents are stuck. This is Massachusetts. I can jump in my car and be in any of five other states within the hour. We have competitors for revenue. Losing gaming revenues to CT, ME, and RI (soon to have table games) is simply not a pliable option.
We have onerous pensions to pay and children to educate. These things are not cheap. Either we're going to pay for it in a tax increase or a voluntary blackjack/poker/slots player is going to pay for it. I prefer the latter.
Did you fail vocabulary class?
"Pliable"? [snicker]
No, I did not
Second word in the definition is "flexible." That's a suitable word choice when referring to a budget, no?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pliable
Nice try
Nice try.
You're right, it is a nice try
I succeeded.
We have onerous pensions to
We have onerous pensions to pay and children to educate. These things are not cheap. Either we're going to pay for it in a tax increase or a voluntary blackjack/poker/slots player is going to pay for it. I prefer the latter.
I prefer the former. First, it's more egalitarian. Second, it is more likely to actually work -- the revenues from gambling cannot be assured, but taxes can be set with more assurance that the money will be collected. Third, gambling preys on stupid people; it is basically a tax on bad math skills. It is not in the interests of the gambling lobby to actually have a well educated populace.
Amazingly Predictable
Revenues from gaming are amazingly predictable. There are licensing fees and annual fees set in stone. And the pc of the games, the overall % that will be kept from the pockets of the gamblers after they place wagers, is as steady an income, in the long run, as any legislator's salary.
I have no interest in arguing your other points, though that might be fun, but for you to say that there is less assurance of gaming revenues being collected is absurd.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Residential or Downtown?
Even if we convinced ourselves that urban casinos are a better idea than suburban destination casinos, there is still the question of where to put them in the city. If Mr. Resnek wants to duplicate the Riviera, you would think he'd be pushing for casinos in the new seaport district, downtown crossing, Kenmore, or maybe in a ring surrounding the Boston Common. Instead he is blinded by his allegiances to Suffolk Downs and his political connections. He imagines that Suffolk Downs is some kind of tourist mecca with people on guided tours of the oil tank farms just hoping for a place to gamble away their money. No, Suffolk Downs abuts a dense residential community and is less than half a mile from multiple elementary schools. It doesn't even have highway access.
I hope no one takes this guy seriously. He is in debt to Joe O'Donnell, an owner of Suffolk Downs, for getting his kid into Harvard. He is in the pocket of the local politicians and publishes this same biased "news" in the small newspapers he owns to tell his loyal readers what to think.
It's Cannes, not Canne.
It's Cannes, not Canne.
And he's wrong about Cannes
It's clear the writer has never been to Cannes. The famous walkway is there but there are only two major casinos on the walkway, one at the end. Almost all of the hotels do NOT have a casino.
What on earth...
...is a "rank and file" resident, please? That doesn't even make any sense, nor does comparing a casino with purchasing a scratch ticket at a 7-11, at least not without more information. A comparison of how Massachusetts plans to do (or not do) things with the way other states or countries already do them might be interesting, but arriving at the conclusion that another place does it better, without providing any support for that conclusion, doesn't actually help anyone understand this issue.
The first piece in this series was baffling because it was impossible to tell whether it was meant to introduce a long-form editorial or an in-depth examination of the law and the politics of the thing. This one is baffling because it's so badly written I can't even tell what the point is. I would almost prefer a clear, well-written advocacy piece to this kind of meandering, fact-free grammatical wasteland.
I give up
For some reason Adam has decided to give this Suffolk Downs shill a platform. He owes his life to O'Donnell or at least his son's and will stop at nothing to spread the word that Suffolk Downs is the only appropriate place for a casino, poor writing skills be damned.
Josh, do us a favor either let your kid start writing your Suffolk Downs puff pieces or go away.
Adam gives everybody a platform
Ever notice the "Post!" link when you log in? Hell, I could post a story if I had one.
Can we have the author's
Can we have the author's credentials please? If you are going to have opinion pieces on this page, there should be a short bio attached.
Also, This American Life did a great piece on the price of gambling. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/466/transcript
Bio
My apologies: I need to add this to these pages:
Joshua Resnek has been published in the New York Times, the Boston Globe, Boston Magazine and in newspapers and publications all over the world. He received an Emmy Award for investigative reporting in 1996. He is the former vice-president and editor of the Independent Newspaper Group, owners of the Revere Journal, the East Boston Times Free Press, the Everett Independent, North End Regional Review, Beacon Hill Times, Back Bay Sun, Charlestown Patriot-Bridge, Jamaica Plain Gazette, Mission Hill Gazette, Chelsea Record and Lynn Journal.
So he used to be a real journalist
before he sold his soul to the casino developers. How much are they paying him to write this stuff?
This doesn't belong on the UHub front page
It's obvious that the writer is being paid by one or more casino developers to publish this dreck.
Slots in Newport
All the arguments favoring gambling joints remind me of the slots building in Newport, RI. If I remember correctly it open as a jai alai operation. That didn't work and now it's a slots parlor.
Each room is themed. The Greek room has two plastic columns at the entrance. The Versailles room has mirrors. Less is more is the decorator's philosophy.
There was no glamour. No limos with fur coats. No jewels that sparkled as stars around the pure white necks of lovely women. It was raw gambling. People sitting in front of machines, not relating with anyone else. Mere appendages to devices designed to suck away their incomes to the pad the fatted incomes of the slots owners.
Massachusetts casinos may turn out to be glamourous establishments bringing in polished top shelf entertainment. Perhaps it will keep money in Massachusetts that otherwise will go to people in other states.
But there will come a point - if not already here - where there is not enough money to pay for all the glamour. Instead the gambling joints will be lowest common denominator joints that repeat the quiet desperation of the folks at the Newport slots parlor.
What do you care?
They're not hurting you, are they? Did a slots player attack you or break into your car or hurt a member of your family?
I am not the previous poster,
I am not the previous poster, but I care about the well-being of my fellow man, and the health of my community, and legalized commercial scale gambling is bad for both. Why don't you care about these things?
Because there's 7 billion of us
I don't care about the well-being of most people. People are dishonest and self-centered (and not wrongfully so.) Maybe that makes me a dirtbag, but I believe what I believe.
Health of my community, I'm interested in that. The well-being of my fellow man? If they bring their ill-being upon themselves, forget it.
Actually...
That's one reason why I'm against a casino in my neighborhood: burglaries, drunk driving, carjackings consistently increase in areas around casinos. I'd prefer to not be attacked, broken into, or run over by a drunk driver.
That's a good answer
No joke. In that case, we should allow people to openly carry firearms. Hey, I have a gun belt with a gun showing. Carjack me, (expletive.) I dare you.
Oh boy
More gambling, and more guns!! It's a win-win situation with no possible downside!!
The upside isn't any better
We need money to pay for things and guns already exist. Let's level the playing field for both already.
If you merely want more tax
If you merely want more tax revenues to pay for things, increase taxes. A casino is just a middleman tax collector in this regard, who by taking a piece of the action for its own benefit makes the tax increase that much higher on the people who gamble, while also not assuring that the overall amount of revenue needed will be raised.
in that case, why bother having laws?
Whoever can pull out their gun and get a shot out first wins. Whats the point of trials and laws when the people who can fire first and fastest will be the only ones who want to venture outside.
Will, you are making a great case against casinos if your advice to the people of East Boston is get armed or get out if casinos come.
Okay, don't put it in Eastie
I'll keep going to CT, where, by the way, I've been shot at 0 times. Look, if you don't want gaming in MA, then let's merge with the other New England states and then ban it across the board. Until that happens, geography demands that MA have gaming.
I mean, we could also ban pensions for public workers going forward with new hires, and we could pay people to get abortions, but neither of those ideas are going to get anybody elected. Term limits?
Look, if you don't want
Look, if you don't want gaming in MA, then let's merge with the other New England states and then ban it across the board. Until that happens, geography demands that MA have gaming.
So the argument you've decided to try is "Everyone else is jumping off of a cliff, so we should jump off too."
I've got to say, my mother taught me better than that, and I doubt I'm the only one.
Lol
One, the Connecticut casinos are in the middle of nowhere. A more apt comparison would be to Atlantic City, which is a crime ridden hellhole. Two, because Connecticut has such a great budget and has NO ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AT ALL!!!1 Oh wait, they TOTALLY DO. I'm not even against gambling, but I swear if you bring up your public worker pensions strawman one more time I'll lose it. Go back to Redstate troll.
Redstate?
I'm from Vermont, you anonymous tool.
EDIT: As for pensions being a "strawman," go talk to San Bernardino or Stockton or any number of municipalities in California. Go find out how guaranteeing pensions worked out for them.
If you're from Vermont, what
If you're from Vermont, what are you doing constantly commenting on a site about local Boston news??
Um, I've lived here for 10 years?
The way it works sometimes is that a person is born and raised in a smaller city or town (in my case, Burlington, VT.) Then that person grows up and is free to pursue a life living somewhere else, since they have a job (a work-at-home job, to boot) and make their own money (in my case, a job monitoring radio airplay at the time.)
Thus, they place their worldly possessions in a rented truck, hitch their car to the back of it, and find housing in a new city (in my case, Boston.) They then take an interest in their community, since they live in it and pay income taxes into it. That interest might extend to opining on public policy on news websites.
Thanks for the bio, but.. um,
Thanks for the bio, but.. um, you said yourself you were from Vermont. If you defined yourself as being from Boston because you've lived here for 10 years then you would have said that you were from Boston. Not too tricky, is it?
Well, no, because I'm not FROM Boston
Where a person is "from" = their birthplace
I'm only "from" Boston when I travel and I tell people where I live.
Actual Fronton History, As Opposed To Fanciful
It was a jai-alai fronton for 27 years. It obviously worked as such, at least for a couple of decades. That it has been changed to a slot parlor now is no reason to denigrate what it once was.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I think any business should
I think any business should be allowed to include a casino if it's under a certain size.
A few slot machines in the neighborhood bar will help the local economy. A giant development in the woods owned by a megacorporation won't.
Bingo
So to speak.
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com