Mass. Senate Takes Up Gaming Debate

The casino debate in the Mass. Legislature has taking a sharp turn since former Speaker of the House Sal DiMasi said the bill would never be passed two years ago. Now, with DiMasi sitting in in a state prison for the next eight years, the House passed the latest rendition of the gaming bill in September, which would license three resort-style casinos and one slots parlor. Today, the Senate took up the debate.

According to a Boston Globe article, The anti-casino group Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, led by former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, said estimates by supporters of how many new jobs would be created by expanded gambling were "wildly optimistic." They also predicted a possible loss of $90 million in local aid to cities and towns because of a decline in state lottery sales if casinos were legalized.

Backers of the bill, including Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, say gambling halls will bring in at least $300 million in new annual tax revenue and create an estimated 15,000 jobs, including 6,000 construction jobs.

Last week, Sen. Murray wrote in the Old Colony Memorial, "The bill will create thousands of short-term construction jobs and up to 15,000 long-term service jobs and bring hundreds of millions in revenues annually to Massachusetts. These are good jobs with good benefits, and this effort supports our on-going, multifaceted efforts to help create and retain jobs in the commonwealth."

Murray has also stated that Massachusetts residents spend over $1 billion annually on gaming outside of the state, and that the legislation would be a source of new revenue for the state and help the economy grow.

State Rep. Tom Calter, D-Kingston, supported the original bill and voted in favor of it's current form as well. In 2008, when Calter threw his support behind the bill, Middleborough, one of the towns in his district, was negotiating with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe to develop a resort casino in that town off Route 495. The deal fell through, however, when the tribe decided to look elsewhere. At the time, Calter said he never supported that deal, calling it poor negotiating on the town's part.

State Rep. Vinny deMacedo, R-Plymouth, has spoken out against the bill on both fiscal and moral grounds.

"My concern with the gaming bill legislation is that despite the fact that initially there would be a short-term gain in revenue to the Commonwealth, it would then create a long term problem that I don’t believe the Commonwealth is prepared to deal with," DeMacedo told Plymouth Patch. "I believe that once you open Pandora’s box of gaming, you can never close it."

He told the Bay State Banner that the bill would take jobs and tourist dollars away from local businesses:

“Ultimately they would be at the expense of jobs at restaurants, hotels and cinemas in our communities,” he told the Banner. “There’s a limited amount of disposable income in the state.”

DeMacedo sees the casinos as a threat to the economy of Plymouth, which relies heavily on tourism.

“If you’re going on vacation to Plymouth and you look on Expedia, you’ll see the Plymouth Sands Hotel and you’ll see a four-star hotel that’s subsidized by a casino....When you wake up in the hotel, you’re not going to eat at the Water Street Café, you’re eating a free buffet subsidized by the casino.”

Should Massachusetts legalize casino gaming? Take our .