Tolman Sees Casino Bill A Safe Bet For State

"I'm not a lucky gambler," said State Sen. Steven Tolman, Belmont's representative in the upper chamber, of himself. More of a nickels player when he places the rare bet, he added.

That could be the reason he's not a fan of the seductive siren call of slot machines and why he voted yesterday, July 1, to approve the historic Senate bill allowing three casinos to be built in Massachusetts.

The bill, which passed 25-15, now heads to a joint House of Representatives and Senate committee. There the two sides will hammer out an agreement between the senate proposal and the houses' that in April approved two casino resorts and placing 750 video slot machines at the state's dog and horse racing tracks.

Tolman doesn't believe his vote is responsible for bringing big time gambling to Massachusetts, pointing out that the state condones several forms of gaming.

"We already have legalized gambling with the lottery and horse racing so we should be able to allow another (to exist)," said Tolman.

Tolman added that the senate and house bills promotes "destination" gambling rather then allowing gaming halls to open.

"We are not just attracting gamblers but people who want to see shows, sports, go to restaurants and other activities," said Tolman.  

The two biggest factors Tolman gave for voting in favor of casinos were to stem the loss of an estimated $1 billion in revenue to nearby casinos in other states such as Foxwoods, and the promise of jobs; 9,000 in the construction phase and 15,000 in the casinos.

Tolman said a 25 percent daily tax rate on gross gaming revenues in the bills will generate an estimated $350 million annually from direct gambling activities. The tax proceeds will be heading into four areas:

• 30 percent toward state debt reduction;
• 30 percent to a Gaming Economic Development Fund for statewide economic development programs;
• 30 percent to the state's Lottery and Gaming Fund to protect lottery aid and supplement unrestricted local aid; and
• 10 percent to the Gaming Mitigation Fund for social, community, cultural and racetrack relief, directed at gambling addiction.

Tolman also said there would be $225 million in one-time gaming licensing fees with $105 million going to the state's stabilization fund; $85 million for local aid; $20 million for start-up costs; and $15 million for community mitigation.

"This is big. It will provide a steady source of revenue for state and local government," said Tolman.

Belmont's other representative on Beacon Hill, voted no in April and seriously questions the wisdom of placing casinos in the state.

"Either (the House and Senate bill) is bad for the state," said Brownsberger, pointing to its impact on politics, the stress to the environment of three large entertainment centers and what he believes are overstated amount of revenue the casinos will bring to the state.

"I can't imagine any circumstance in which I could support the (compromise) bill," said Brownsberger.

Tolman said he is not a fan of video slot machines as evidence presented in the Senate this session suggests they are designed "to be addictive to the user."

Tolman does not know what the compromise bill will look like when it goes back to the two chambers for a final vote.

Yet Tolman does know one thing concerning the subject of gaming in Massachusetts.

"People do like to gamble," he said.