Atkins Votes for Casinos, Slots, Unenthusiastically

Support for legalized Casino gambling was not universally in the cards among people in downtown Concord with many concerned about the social cost the casinos would have on Massachusetts and skepticism about the actual boost in revenue it would give to the state.

That is not to say people did not support bringing Las Vegas to the Bay State.
While he supported the Casinos, Walden Street gallery owner Bill Montegue was concerned how it would affect poor people.

"One bad part about it is it's a tax on the poor people," said Montague. "Because you know it's a reverse tax on them because they don't have much money so they like to gamble it because there's a slim chance that they might get a lot of money so more poor people will go for it," he said.

At the same time he thought that since people gambled anyway that the state might as well be getting some tax money out of it.

But others thought that what happens in Vegas should stay in Vegas.

"I personally think that it [casinos] shouldn't be in Massachusetts just because it sort of takes away from the culture that we have in our state," said Jackie Malis from neighboring Carlisle.

Likewise Concord resident Jim Catterton was against the idea of legalizing three resort-style casinos.

"I don't think we should have [legalized] gambling in Massachusetts," said Catterton. "People can go to Connecticut if they want to gamble," he said. "It's the state preying on people with the proclivity to gamble...it's hard to say exactly but of course there'd be some problems. People get wiped out."

However State Rep. Cory Atkins said the casino and slot parlor bill would create 15,000 jobs in the building trades sector and bring tax revenue into the state, although she said that the estimated amount of tax revenue that would be brought in is probably overstated.

"This was the only major job creation proposal on the table," said Atkins, "therefore, I held my nose and supported it," she said.

Atkins said  she has helped amend the final bill to mitigate some of the social costs the casinos would create. She said with unemployment (especially in the construction industry)  so high the state legislator had to do something to correct the situation.

Atkins said "hundreds" of proponents of the bill had visited her office over the last couple of months to ask for her to press the legislator for approval of the casino bill.

The bill is stuck in limbo for now. Gov. Deval Patrick said he does not support the slot parlors included in with the three resort-style casinos, and took the slots out of the bill sent to him from the legislature. Patrick sent it back to the legislature to either remove the slot parlors or return it for his veto.

He said his reasoning for removing slot parlors from the gambling bill is that there would be no competitive bidding for slot parlors; they would be at the existing dog tracks, a huge windfall for track owners.

The state senate does not have the votes to override Patrick's veto, Sen. President Therese Murray has said.

If no one did anything, the bill would die with no action.