Advocates are hoping
2003 will be a winning number for casino gambling in Massachusetts.
or
the better part of a decade, it lingered at the Massachusetts
State House like an old, lazy dog: always there, rarely moving
anyplace.
That’s not the case anymore.
With its loudest bark ever in this state, the debate
over casino gambling is back. A commission has been appointed.
Lobbyists are arm-twisting. Politicians are hedging. Dollar signs
are hovering.
The reality - even to those ready to fight the
prospect of slot machines and roulette wheels - is that the state’s
troubled revenue stream, coupled with the success of casinos in
a neighboring state, may be enough to tilt the issue during the
next year. While certainly not a sure bet, the odds have never
been this good for casino gambling in the home of the Puritans.
‘‘We’re cautiously optimistic,’’ said David Nunes,
the casino project manager for the Martha's Vineyard-based Wampanoag
Indian tribe, which has seen its efforts to open a gambling venue
in the state repeatedly foiled.
The Massachusetts Legislature holds the most-critical
key in the casino debate, although few officials are making any
firm predictions about the eventual outcome. Most, however, at
least agree that casino momentum has never been so strong.
With a budget deficit of up to $2 billion looming,
the common refrain heard on Beacon Hill of late is that all options
for new revenue need to be explored. It’s either big cuts or big
tax increases, neither of which appeal to the Democratic leadership.
And Republican Gov.-elect Mitt Romney has made it clear that he’ll
refuse tax hikes.
The argument has been used before. The difference
this time appears to be a considerably more-accommodating political
environment, said several officials and analysts.
An increasing number of lawmakers flatly support
casino gambling - especially for the hundreds of millions of dollars
in tax revenue they say it would bring. Some notable state leaders
are hedging on the issue for the time being, as Romney did during
his campaign for governor.
House Speaker Thomas Finneran, D-Boston, once called
casinos ‘‘fool’s gold.’’ He’s still fundamentally opposed to casinos,
but has said recently that a few well-placed casinos in Massachusetts
might be acceptable.
The new Massachusetts Senate president, Robert E.
Travaglini, D-Boston, doesn’t have any pronounced opposition to
casinos. Two of the possible benefactors of legalized slot machines
- Suffolk Downs and Wonderland racetracks - are in his district.
‘‘I’d agree that the wind is certainly blowing
in that direction,’’ said Sen. Robert Hedlund, R-Weymouth, adding
that the new momentum is increasing his skepticism.
He points to the 19-member commission recently
appointed by acting Gov. Jane Swift to study the potential costs
and benefits of casino gambling in Massachusetts. The commission
is expected to have its work done by the end of this year, leading
Hedlund to believe that ‘‘this is just sort of on the fast track
to approval.’’
The growing casino momentum is also drawing strong
words of caution from Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, the chairman
of the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
To Montigny, the state’s dire fiscal position leaves
it in a weak negotiating position with casino developers, who
could get a deal that “ends up not being profitable at all for
the state.”
Montigny supports allowing casinos in Massachusetts,
but said it is critical for State House leaders to negotiate for
the best deal possible and not for just the quickest influx of
cash. He said he fears the fiscal climate will prompt politicians
to accept an offer that’s big on upfront cash benefits, but short
on any long-term promises.
“The blood is in the water, and there are some
real crafty sharks out there,” he said. “We have to put up a fight
in negotiations. It’s disgusting that some of these big-money
special interests are picking a time of desperation and sending
in their best teams. This is what we should be avoiding.”
The issue for legislators in the new session will
be far from a simple yes or no vote. Lawmakers will have to resolve
numerous issues and satisfy a number of competing interests before
any law expanding gambling is approved.
Sen. Michael Morrissey, D-Quincy, will be responsible
for handling those issues as chairman of the joint Committee on
Government Regulations. And the South Shore will be further represented
on the committee by Hedlund and Rep. Garrett Bradley, D-Hingham.
Lawmakers will be bombarded with information for
and against casinos. Most of it will be nothing new, Morrissey
said, proving only ‘‘that you can have a study say anything you
want.’’
Opponents will produce studies highlighting problems
associated with casinos, such as crime, increased traffic and
other social ills. Supporters will brandish economic studies showing
influxes of cash and jobs.
‘‘You can say a casino is going to do this or it’s
going to do that or cause these problems or provide this much
revenue,’’ Morrissey said. ‘‘But nobody really knows until they
try it.’’
A complex set of issues will cast the debate well
beyond the typical social-costs-versus-economic-benefits arguments,
as legislators try to negotiate a broad range of logistical issues
on top of the traditional debates.
Involved for years in the casino debate, Morrissey
quickly ticked off a list of potential issues:
How many casino licenses should the state issue?
What are the criteria for granting the licenses?
Who will regulate the casinos?
How much authority will local officials have
in determining where casinos can be built?
How should tax money raised by the gambling
be allocated?
On top of those issues, officials must deal with
varying casino interests potentially competing for the same piece
of the pie. The most prominent forces still appear to be the Wampanoags
and the owners of the state’s four racetracks.
Under one scenario - considered by some officials
the most likely first step - in which dog and horse tracks are
granted licenses to operate slot machines, the Wampanoags would
begin negotiating with state leaders for the same rights. The
federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act says any federally recognized
tribe must be granted the same gambling rights as any other group
in a state.
Both racetrack and American Indian officials point
to the experience of Rhode Island, which has slot machines at
its dog racing track and a jai alai fronton, as evidence to support
their cause. The owners of the two establishments contend that
allowing slot machines at them is the quickest and soundest way
toward automatic tax revenue. But Nunes, the Wampanoags’ casino
project manager, says that most gamblers simply bypass the Rhode
Island establishments on their way to casinos in Connecticut.
Gary Temple, assistant general manager of Raynham-Taunton
Greyhound Park, said, “We already have everything in place, so
it really wouldn’t take much. We already have the gambling, so
I don’t how they could bypass us.”
The Wampanoags have fought unsuccessfully to build
a casino in Massachusetts for several years, including attempts
in the 1990s in New Bedford and Fall River. The tribe has since
moved away from the urban casino model, favoring a more rural
avenue consistent with the Connecticut casinos.
Nunes said the tribe plans to unveil its latest
proposed location early -next year, about the same time the Legislature
is expected to take up casino gambling. Among the possibilities
floated so far are several sites in Southeastern Massachusetts,
including Plymouth, Wareham and Carver.
The tribe is committed to finding a location that
would have the least local impact in terms of traffic and other
issues, Nunes said.
‘‘We don’t want to go any place that doesn’t want
us. We’re not an obstinate force the state or anyone has to deal
with,’’ Nunes said.
The Wampanoags hopes to build a casino with a gaming
floor 60 percent the size of Foxwoods’, a 1,200-room hotel and
plenty of retail shops and restaurants.
The difference this time around, Nunes said, is
twofold: firm figures that suggest Massachusetts residents spend
upward of $240 million a year at the two Connecticut casinos and
a development team that knows the Massachusetts political landscape.
But the tribe is not the only interested party
in the casino saga.
New Bedford officials still hope to attract a casino
developer to that city, with proponents there suggesting that
major casino developers already have options to buy land in the
city. One State House source also said a casino developer has
a similar option for land off the Massachusetts Turnpike in Palmer.
And, voters in Holyoke this year reaffirmed that
city’s support for casinos.
or
the better part of a decade, it lingered at the Massachusetts
State House like an old, lazy dog: always there, rarely moving
anyplace.