Showing posts with label market saturation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label market saturation. Show all posts
Monday, March 17, 2008
DOA - Why Governor Patrick’s Casino Bill Failed
The Legislature will hold public hearings on the casino bill submitted by Governor Patrick October 11, 2007 and others related to gambling this week. The DOA reality of the casino bill was obscured by months of media coverage of the endorsements of some unions, mayors and business associations. The suspense and drama of the casino proposal was fueled by the emerging dynamics between the Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi (D-Boston) and Governor Patrick. Regional groups of municipal leaders formed coalitions to map their concerns about the bill and statewide anti-casino groups cobbled together what has now become a strong movement to stop class III casinos in Massachusetts.
The bill was DOA because the Administration submitted a shoddy piece of legislation that lacked transparency, accountability and most importantly from the playbook, Politics 101, lacked inclusion of stakeholders. The people who live and work in the regions that would be impacted are the real stakeholders, not Sheldon Adelson, Donald Trump, Mohegan investors, or even union officials or mayors from distant cities. It was a big mistake on the part of the Administration to not do what they had done successfully as candidates, which was to connect with people, especially their base. Had they done so, they would have learned that time and energy placed in the direction of bringing class III casinos to Massachusetts would be wasted.
The bill was DOA because the numbers don’t work. The collapse of the Administration and AFL-CIO president Bob Haynes’ claims of 30,000 construction jobs was a stake in the coffin of the decomposing casino bill. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation’s report squarely refuted the Administration’s revenue projections and the venerable Boston Business Journal slammed the economic argument for casinos highlighting the negative impacts on local businesses. Local and regional task forces in the southeastern and western/central parts of the state near Middleborough and Palmer/Warren met to study the casino bill and found numerous problems with the language, proposed mitigation, structure and oversight of the Gaming Control Authority and the revenues.
The bill was DOA because Speaker DiMasi, Rep. Dan Bosley (D-North Adams) and the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee majority know the numbers don’t work. They are a rather serious bunch whose job is to study economic proposals and they are more seasoned with the Legislative process than the Administration.
The majority of the citizens of the Commonwealth are not casino gamblers. However, numerous polls have shown support for casinos provided they are not located near one’s community. With the national build-out of casinos reaching saturation, the insatiable casino industry has spent millions of dollars to get Massachusetts into the stable of states to offer 24/7 exploitive slot-based gambling. Despite the lobbying money and attempts to influence power by the casino corporate complex, an interesting phenomenon occurred. Citizens of Massachusetts are well educated and have a strong sense of civic engagement. We also recognize the unique history and character of the Commonwealth. We participated in forums, debates, blogs, research and discovery on the casino issue. We found like the Legislators who have actually read and vetted the casino bill, that it is a bad idea.
It was DOA because it is wrong for Massachusetts. People have done their homework to see past the promises of temporary economic boost to the net negative impacts to families, society, environment, infrastructure and the costs of mitigation. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts offers innovation, history, education and natural beauty in a dynamic and interesting mix. Mutual prosperity has and will be found in growing and preserving those unique and precious traits.
Kathleen Conley Norbut, Selectman
Chair, Local Casino Study Committee
Member, Western MA Casino Task Force
Open Letter to Governor Patrick from Patrick Coordinators
For Immediate Release
Open Letter to Deval Patrick on Casinos from Patrick Coordinators
Monday, March 17, 2008
Press Contact: Judith Seelig, 413-259-1268
Dear Governor Patrick:
We are Democrats who share a vision of a more equal, just, and democratic society. As Deval Patrick Volunteer Coordinators we supported your candidacy wholeheartedly and worked hard to help you secure the Democratic nomination and to put you in office.
Since becoming Governor you have undertaken many initiatives that make us proud to have been part of the Deval Patrick campaign. For example, we applaud the Municipal Partnership Act,and the proposal to require telephone companies to pay their fair share of property taxes.
But your proposal for resort casino gambling does not have our support. In fact, we are unequivocally opposed to it.
Early in the gubernatorial campaign you captured the essence of the argument for tax fairness. By reminding people that the discussion about“your money” is really a conversation about “your broken schools, your broken neighborhoods,” etc., you connected the dots. Many people (including those who had previously succumbed to the taxes-are-bad propaganda) listened and learned.
Eschewing the anti-tax rhetoric and providing instead a vision of a decent society, were hallmarks of our campaign; your message was authentic and honest. In addition, it was a major factor in persuading many of us to support and promote your candidacy.
Our campaign moved forward the debate about revenue sources and, perhaps more significantly, the wider debate about the common good. Victory in 2006 could have been the springboard into a meaningful statewide discussion about refashioning taxation so that it reflects and embodies our aspirations as a Commonwealth. For a brief moment,there was a chance to talk about restoring the income tax to its 2001 levels.There was even a chance to lead a conversation about establishing a progressive income tax. With the right leadership (including, but not necessarily limited to, your own) we may be able to revive that conversation.
The debate regarding casino gambling represents an opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system. After suffering a clear defeat in 2002, the opponents of the income tax have reemerged, putting their question back on the ballot. So, once again, those of us who share your vision are onthe defensive, fighting a rearguard action to defend the very existence of the income tax. Instead wecould have been taking the initiative and shaping the discourse.
Given our desire to see realistic levels of public funding, why do we oppose resort casino gambling?Because we are Democrats. The platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party commits the party to tax equity and responsible budgeting, special support for small businesses, sustainable development practices to foster economic stability for both urban and rural cities and towns, and the provision of a sustainable revenue source to finance state government that supports a healthy economy.
From what we observe in other states, casino gambling would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source,and likely would damage small businesses in Massachusetts. In short, it flies in the face of our party’s principles.
Resort casinos are a mechanism for transferring money from poor and middle class people to wealthy corporations. Any revenue that leaks out to the state via taxation along the way is far short of the amount necessary to ameliorate the social and economic damage that the industry causes.
Resort casino gambling would involve our state government in condoning and encouraging behavior that has led in far too many cases to personal financial ruin, the breakup of families, domestic violence, and child neglect. In addition to these social costs, resort casinos draw money away from local restaurants, stores, and farms, compounding the injury. So presenting resort casino gambling as a source of revenue that would benefit our communities is misleading. The academically documented experiences of other states suggest that resort casinos damage, rather than boost, local economies.
We remain committed to showing leadership in our communities and in our Democratic town, ward, and city committees. Day after day, week after week, month after month, we make the case for tax equity. We are asking you to show leadership as well, by abandoning the resort-casino proposal and focusing instead on a cause that is both more ambitious and more promising–fair and progressive taxation.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Seelig, Pelham
Pat Fiero, Leverett
Tom Hollocher, Sudbury
Jeanne Maloney, Sudbury
Kathleen Norbut, Monson
Carl Offner, Sudbury
Sharon Raymond, Shutesbury
Susan Triolo, Sunderland
Maxine Yarbrough, Sudbury
-- 30 --
Open Letter to Deval Patrick on Casinos from Patrick Coordinators
Monday, March 17, 2008
Press Contact: Judith Seelig, 413-259-1268
Dear Governor Patrick:
We are Democrats who share a vision of a more equal, just, and democratic society. As Deval Patrick Volunteer Coordinators we supported your candidacy wholeheartedly and worked hard to help you secure the Democratic nomination and to put you in office.
Since becoming Governor you have undertaken many initiatives that make us proud to have been part of the Deval Patrick campaign. For example, we applaud the Municipal Partnership Act,and the proposal to require telephone companies to pay their fair share of property taxes.
But your proposal for resort casino gambling does not have our support. In fact, we are unequivocally opposed to it.
Early in the gubernatorial campaign you captured the essence of the argument for tax fairness. By reminding people that the discussion about“your money” is really a conversation about “your broken schools, your broken neighborhoods,” etc., you connected the dots. Many people (including those who had previously succumbed to the taxes-are-bad propaganda) listened and learned.
Eschewing the anti-tax rhetoric and providing instead a vision of a decent society, were hallmarks of our campaign; your message was authentic and honest. In addition, it was a major factor in persuading many of us to support and promote your candidacy.
Our campaign moved forward the debate about revenue sources and, perhaps more significantly, the wider debate about the common good. Victory in 2006 could have been the springboard into a meaningful statewide discussion about refashioning taxation so that it reflects and embodies our aspirations as a Commonwealth. For a brief moment,there was a chance to talk about restoring the income tax to its 2001 levels.There was even a chance to lead a conversation about establishing a progressive income tax. With the right leadership (including, but not necessarily limited to, your own) we may be able to revive that conversation.
The debate regarding casino gambling represents an opportunity to advocate for a more equitable tax system. After suffering a clear defeat in 2002, the opponents of the income tax have reemerged, putting their question back on the ballot. So, once again, those of us who share your vision are onthe defensive, fighting a rearguard action to defend the very existence of the income tax. Instead wecould have been taking the initiative and shaping the discourse.
Given our desire to see realistic levels of public funding, why do we oppose resort casino gambling?Because we are Democrats. The platform of the Massachusetts Democratic Party commits the party to tax equity and responsible budgeting, special support for small businesses, sustainable development practices to foster economic stability for both urban and rural cities and towns, and the provision of a sustainable revenue source to finance state government that supports a healthy economy.
From what we observe in other states, casino gambling would not promote tax equity, responsible budgeting, sustainable development practices, or a sustainable revenue source,and likely would damage small businesses in Massachusetts. In short, it flies in the face of our party’s principles.
Resort casinos are a mechanism for transferring money from poor and middle class people to wealthy corporations. Any revenue that leaks out to the state via taxation along the way is far short of the amount necessary to ameliorate the social and economic damage that the industry causes.
Resort casino gambling would involve our state government in condoning and encouraging behavior that has led in far too many cases to personal financial ruin, the breakup of families, domestic violence, and child neglect. In addition to these social costs, resort casinos draw money away from local restaurants, stores, and farms, compounding the injury. So presenting resort casino gambling as a source of revenue that would benefit our communities is misleading. The academically documented experiences of other states suggest that resort casinos damage, rather than boost, local economies.
We remain committed to showing leadership in our communities and in our Democratic town, ward, and city committees. Day after day, week after week, month after month, we make the case for tax equity. We are asking you to show leadership as well, by abandoning the resort-casino proposal and focusing instead on a cause that is both more ambitious and more promising–fair and progressive taxation.
Yours sincerely,
Judith Seelig, Pelham
Pat Fiero, Leverett
Tom Hollocher, Sudbury
Jeanne Maloney, Sudbury
Kathleen Norbut, Monson
Carl Offner, Sudbury
Sharon Raymond, Shutesbury
Susan Triolo, Sunderland
Maxine Yarbrough, Sudbury
-- 30 --
Friday, February 1, 2008
Truth to Math
It's a wonder to see such optimistic projections about job development with casinos. The glossy presentations touting 20,000 permanent jobs and 30,000 construction jobs are compelling. Who wouldn't want economic development that has no downside like traffic, pollution, domestic violence, bankruptcy, corruption and burdens on local taxpayers, public school systems and infrastructure?
Mohegan representatives in their recent presentation (that cited no references in the handout) to the Palmer Citizen Committee reported projected development of "more than 1,500 construction jobs and approximately 3,000 new full-time jobs".
Wait a minute....
1,500 X 3 sites = 4,500 construction jobs....NOT 30,000.
3,000 full-time jobs X 3 sites = 9,000 jobs....NOT 20,000.
Here's the math.
Assuming conservativetax revenue at 300,000,000 which is the figure guaranteed in the bill and 800,000,000 in ten year license fees.
300,000,000 operational revenue (27% tax)
-124,000,000 lottery shortfall (which will increase with casino opening)
--------------
176,000,000 balance
- 80,000,000 Gaming Commission/year
--------------
96,000,000 balance
-300,000,000 The real costs for regional mitigation (4X what is allotted)
---------------
(204,000,000) DEFICIT
AGO, State Police, bankruptcies, district courts, DA's, etc. are additional expenses not accounted in the casino bill. Education impacts for migrant/new worker families in three regions (unknown, not considered or researched in the casino /proposals).
The loss after the first year will be (~204,000,000) not including additional mandatory educational funds. The funds to cover the losses will either come from the license fees (gone in three years) or be sucked from local budgets and existing programs. How will the losses be covered in years 5 and beyond?
Will the offset of income taxes from low/moderate income wages impact the fiscal picture? Not hardly.
When will the MSM report the real costs that the average Massachusetts citizen will bear if casinos are legal in MA????
Mohegan representatives in their recent presentation (that cited no references in the handout) to the Palmer Citizen Committee reported projected development of "more than 1,500 construction jobs and approximately 3,000 new full-time jobs".
Wait a minute....
1,500 X 3 sites = 4,500 construction jobs....NOT 30,000.
3,000 full-time jobs X 3 sites = 9,000 jobs....NOT 20,000.
Here's the math.
Assuming conservativetax revenue at 300,000,000 which is the figure guaranteed in the bill and 800,000,000 in ten year license fees.
300,000,000 operational revenue (27% tax)
-124,000,000 lottery shortfall (which will increase with casino opening)
--------------
176,000,000 balance
- 80,000,000 Gaming Commission/year
--------------
96,000,000 balance
-300,000,000 The real costs for regional mitigation (4X what is allotted)
---------------
(204,000,000) DEFICIT
AGO, State Police, bankruptcies, district courts, DA's, etc. are additional expenses not accounted in the casino bill. Education impacts for migrant/new worker families in three regions (unknown, not considered or researched in the casino /proposals).
The loss after the first year will be (~204,000,000) not including additional mandatory educational funds. The funds to cover the losses will either come from the license fees (gone in three years) or be sucked from local budgets and existing programs. How will the losses be covered in years 5 and beyond?
Will the offset of income taxes from low/moderate income wages impact the fiscal picture? Not hardly.
When will the MSM report the real costs that the average Massachusetts citizen will bear if casinos are legal in MA????
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Truth to Vegas
It looks like things aren't all glitter in tinsle town.
MGM Mirage and Chief Executive Officer Terry Lanni told the gathering at the Nevada Development Authority's annual luncheon that,
Flip that coin and we find the Adminstration has submitted legislation to allow casinos in Massachusetts to fix the problems created by inadequate tax and spending policies in the Commonwealth.
When I was a teenager my mother used to say to me, "you're a smart girl but you don't have any common sense." She considered common sense a highly desirable virtue. With gray hairs some of us do obtain a measure of common sense. It appears evident that the global and regional competition for casino build-out will reach market saturation. This is a hint that Massachusetts would be better to stay out of the game of implosion and explosion of an industry that is insatiable.
Revel casino in Atlantic City received approval this week to build a 2 Billion dollar enterprise on the Boardwalk as part of the recently launched concerted effort to pull-back the New England market to it's gambling roots in pristine, virtuous Atlantic City.
MGM Mirage and Chief Executive Officer Terry Lanni told the gathering at the Nevada Development Authority's annual luncheon that,
http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2007/11/23/news/iq_18027972.txtNevada's economy is in disarray because the tax structure,
which relies heavily on gaming and sales taxes, is broken.
Flip that coin and we find the Adminstration has submitted legislation to allow casinos in Massachusetts to fix the problems created by inadequate tax and spending policies in the Commonwealth.
When I was a teenager my mother used to say to me, "you're a smart girl but you don't have any common sense." She considered common sense a highly desirable virtue. With gray hairs some of us do obtain a measure of common sense. It appears evident that the global and regional competition for casino build-out will reach market saturation. This is a hint that Massachusetts would be better to stay out of the game of implosion and explosion of an industry that is insatiable.
Revel casino in Atlantic City received approval this week to build a 2 Billion dollar enterprise on the Boardwalk as part of the recently launched concerted effort to pull-back the New England market to it's gambling roots in pristine, virtuous Atlantic City.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
