Perhaps MA has a restaurant to spare, rent permitting?
U.S. News
Massachusetts Reconsiders Bet on Legal Casinos
Voters to Decide Whether to Reverse Course Before the Gambling Begins
Oct. 30, 2014 10:14 p.m. ET
Everett, Mass., residents celebrated in September after a
state board voted to award a gaming license for a Wynn casino there.
Boston Globe/Getty Images
Three years after a state law paved
the way for legalized casino gambling in Massachusetts, voters are set
to decide next week whether New England’s largest state should reverse
course before the slot machine reels start spinning.
The
2011 law allowed for Las Vegas-style gambling on the promise of
thousands of new jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in state
revenue.
Two resort casinos and a slots
parlor have won licenses, but the issue remains contentious. Casino
opponents collected more than 116,000 signatures to land a November
ballot question that could overturn the law.
The
latest polling suggests a steep uphill climb, but if casino opponents
mount a late surge, Massachusetts would enter rarified territory by
bucking an expansion trend that has brought casinos to 39 other states,
according to industry data.
Experts note that there are no modern examples of U.S. voters ousting casinos at the ballot box.
“This
would be the first of its kind,” said Clyde Barrow, an industry
consultant who chairs the political science department at the University
of Texas-Pan American.
The opposition
is fueled by “Repeal the Casino Deal,” a group led by computer
programmer John Ribeiro. He got his start several years ago opposing a
casino plan at a foundering racetrack in his former Boston neighborhood
and rose to a leadership role in the anti-casino movement.
They
argue the economic benefits of casinos are overstated and will be
overshadowed by problems, such as degraded property values, higher crime
and traffic.
While casino backers note
that gamblers can visit nearby states that reap the financial benefits,
“all the problems that are attendant with casinos are outside our
borders now, too,” Mr. Ribeiro said.
The Northeast already is grappling with fallout from an increasingly congested casino market.
New Jersey, a former coastal monopoly now hemmed in by gambling in
neighboring states, has seen four Atlantic City casinos close this year.
Rhode Island and Connecticut are bracing for an economic hit if
Massachusetts casinos open.
The casino
opposition has some formidable allies, including Democratic Sen.
Elizabeth Warren and the state’s Roman Catholic bishops. The opposition
also has heavy hitters on their side, as well as considerably deeper
pockets.
The two major gubernatorial candidates on this year’s ballot—Democrat
Martha Coakley
and Republican Charlie Baker—oppose repealing the casino law.
The
most recent campaign-finance records show anti-repeal group “Coalition
to Protect Mass Jobs” has collected nearly $11.9 million this year,
about 24 times the 2014 tally for Mr. Ribeiro’s group. His side also
racked up significant debt mounting a legal fight to get on the ballot.
Nearly all the anti-repeal money has come from
MGM Resorts International,
MGM +1.17%
which plans an $800 million resort casino in the western city of Springfield, and Penn National Gaming Inc., which already is building a $225 million slots-only facility
at a harness racing track near the Rhode Island border; and Wynn
Resorts Ltd., which plans a $1.6 billion resort complex just outside
Boston.
The state law allows for a third
resort casino in the southeast part of the state, but that licensing
process has moved slowly amid the possibility there could be a competing
Native American casino there.
The
approved casinos say they will add at least 7,500 jobs in total, in
addition to construction work. This resonates in places such as
Springfield, the state’s third-largest city. Unemployment there tops
10%, and MGM is aiming to redevelop a part of downtown damaged by a 2011
tornado.
“This would give us a real shot in the arm,” said Mayor Domenic Sarno, a Democrat and casino backer.
Surveys
have shown the anti-repeal side with more than 50% support, and a
Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll on Thursday showed the gap
widening. Among 500 likely voters asked the ballot question, the
anti-repeal side had 59%, while the pro-repeal side garnered 34%, with a
4.4% margin of error.
Gambling
opponents will need a “pronounced and dramatic” surge to make up the
difference, said David Paleologos, who directs Suffolk’s Political
Research Center.
Mr. Ribeiro said he
expects strong turnout from gambling opponents, and noted that several
towns and cities around the state already have turned away individual
casinos.
“Our voters are certainly coming out on this,” he said.
Write to Jon Kamp at jon.kamp@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment