We The People have a few questions:
How much did we the taxpayers pay for the second Spectrum Gaming benefit analysis?
UMass Dartmough has benefit analysis paid in part by taxpayers, kids tuition and gambling interests produced every time one is needed by the proponents.....how is that allowed?
Why do you refuse to have a cost analysis?
Why do you state that you met with opponents, when that does not appear to be the case, we ask again with whom did you meet?
Why was the bill, that did not receive a public hearing, and was rammed through Mr. Dempsey's committee immediately following the Easter holiday, not given more time for legislators to read it?
How many legislators did not have time to read it?
How many legislators have not had the time to fully analyze the gambling bill that has no cost analysis while being pressured by proponents?
How are the taxpayers supposed to know what is in the bill and to dialog with their legislators on a bill of this magnitude that is being "fast-tracked" through the House?
Why are no-bid sweetheart licenses that will yield billions for the owners/investors, not required to followed competitive bid processes as outlined in Mass General Laws?
Why are the casino licenses that will yield multi-billions to the often out-of-state owners and investors being given away at a fraction of their value?
Why are you not accounting for the businesses and jobs that will be lost when people spend their money on slots instead of services in the local economy?
Are those people expendable?
When are you going to tell people that the local aid gambling fund is merely an offset for the losses to will occur when the lottery takes a hit?
When are you going to let the people know that there are not enough revenues to offset the costs?
What is the cost of the new state police department?
What is the cost of the new AG department?
What is the cost to implement the economic crime bill statutes?
Do you know that we know, that the responsibility of House Ways & Means is to review all bills and that they passed the Special Interests Gambling Bill in a nanosecond, without a Fiscal Note - on your watch?
This bill is tainted. Vote NO.
Showing posts with label speaker DeLeo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label speaker DeLeo. Show all posts
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Mr . Speaker - where does our money go?
When a regressive, back-door tax that sucks money out of local economies, harms small businesses and families is the only idea that the Massachusetts Speaker of the House can muster, there is a serious deficit of creative and courageous thinking.
(excerpt from State House News)
The big-ticket stuff comes next. DeLeo has spent … well, more or less the entirety of his legislative career working on a bill that would expand gambling in Massachusetts, and the fruit could be borne next week. Casinos. Slots. Bob DeLeo becoming the public face of the casino culture in Massachusetts, the one and the same culture against which his predecessor railed, and against which DeLeo himself voted, less than two years ago. Times change, the reps who are meeting with constituents to explain why they were against casinos before they were for them will say. It’s about jobs now, they’ll say, or already have.
Craven flip-flop in the face of an about-face in leadership? Principled, economy-driven policy evolution? What’s the etiquette for convincing constituents that you’ve “grown” on an issue when, privately and sheepishly, you wouldn’t swear on a stack of one-eyed jacks that what you’ve done wasn’t taking an assignment from your chamber’s titular head and fulfilling it?
Sometimes, within the environs of the Great and General Court, it is polite to let the demons win.
(The article continues) DeLeo batted down questions this week about where the $378,000 in taxpayer dollars allocated in the People v. Sal DiMasi actually went.
Mr Speaker - Oh where, oh where does our money go? And we're supposed to trust the General Court with expanded gambling?
Perhaps the mess we are in is due to the "demons winning". This is the height of poor public and poor fiscal policy.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Speaker's predatory gambling proposals fail, "sniff test"
Speaker’s predatory gambling proposals fail “sniff test”
(Boston) – In a rare address to members of the House, Speaker DeLeo reaffirmed his support of governing by gimmicks versus real reform and economic development. Less than a year after being a chief architect of the 25% sales tax increase he stated that he does not support more taxes; he continued by endorsing special interests in his district and proposing state sponsored expanded predatory gambling revenue, slots/casinos, often called “a tax on the poor”.
Sound public and fiscal policy promote the public good, do no harm, increase opportunity and are sustainable. Speaker DeLeo does not seem to be aware that all legislation needs to be measured against philosophical and prudent benchmarks. His remarks reveal that his governing criteria do not include the basic tenants of legislative leadership by stating that his proposals to expand predatory gambling are “not philosophical”.
While bi-partisan and non-partisan leaders across the state including Governor Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Mass Chiefs of Police Association, United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts (USS Mass), League of Women Voters, Mass Council of Churches, National Association of Social Workers MA-chapter, Mass Family Institute, numerous statewide organizations and individuals are calling for a fresh independent cost-benefit, data-driven analysis of expanded gambling before legalizing slots or any additional form of predatory gambling, the Speaker has rejected this necessary quantitative and qualitative approach.
AG Coakley stated at legislative hearings in 2009, “Before the legislative debate on gaming even begins, the Commonwealth must have the law enforcement tools necessary to combat potential illegal influences both during the legislative debate and after proposed legislation becomes law in the Commonwealth.” When asked how much that would cost, she replied, “expensive”.
Recent focus on the concentration of political power, ethical and legal problems associated with Legislators in the Commonwealth and the long history of corruption associated with the gambling industry requires elected officials to step-back and re-evaluate the proposals to legalize predatory gambling, slots/casinos.
Voters repeatedly state that politicians are not listening to their concerns including the negative fiscal impacts slots/casinos have upon entire regions, small businesses and local economies. The Globe released a poll (January 2010) that showed the majority of respondents (38%) oppose any form of expanded gambling, (30%) support casinos and (3%) support racinos/slot parlors.
Citing the long term economic drain, negative regional fiscal impacts, social and legal costs associated with predatory gambling slots/casinos, Kathleen Conley Norbut, president, USS Mass stated, “Mr. Speaker back-door taxes and gimmicks are not the way to gain the people’s trust.”
(Boston) – In a rare address to members of the House, Speaker DeLeo reaffirmed his support of governing by gimmicks versus real reform and economic development. Less than a year after being a chief architect of the 25% sales tax increase he stated that he does not support more taxes; he continued by endorsing special interests in his district and proposing state sponsored expanded predatory gambling revenue, slots/casinos, often called “a tax on the poor”.
Sound public and fiscal policy promote the public good, do no harm, increase opportunity and are sustainable. Speaker DeLeo does not seem to be aware that all legislation needs to be measured against philosophical and prudent benchmarks. His remarks reveal that his governing criteria do not include the basic tenants of legislative leadership by stating that his proposals to expand predatory gambling are “not philosophical”.
While bi-partisan and non-partisan leaders across the state including Governor Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Mass Chiefs of Police Association, United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts (USS Mass), League of Women Voters, Mass Council of Churches, National Association of Social Workers MA-chapter, Mass Family Institute, numerous statewide organizations and individuals are calling for a fresh independent cost-benefit, data-driven analysis of expanded gambling before legalizing slots or any additional form of predatory gambling, the Speaker has rejected this necessary quantitative and qualitative approach.
AG Coakley stated at legislative hearings in 2009, “Before the legislative debate on gaming even begins, the Commonwealth must have the law enforcement tools necessary to combat potential illegal influences both during the legislative debate and after proposed legislation becomes law in the Commonwealth.” When asked how much that would cost, she replied, “expensive”.
Recent focus on the concentration of political power, ethical and legal problems associated with Legislators in the Commonwealth and the long history of corruption associated with the gambling industry requires elected officials to step-back and re-evaluate the proposals to legalize predatory gambling, slots/casinos.
Voters repeatedly state that politicians are not listening to their concerns including the negative fiscal impacts slots/casinos have upon entire regions, small businesses and local economies. The Globe released a poll (January 2010) that showed the majority of respondents (38%) oppose any form of expanded gambling, (30%) support casinos and (3%) support racinos/slot parlors.
Citing the long term economic drain, negative regional fiscal impacts, social and legal costs associated with predatory gambling slots/casinos, Kathleen Conley Norbut, president, USS Mass stated, “Mr. Speaker back-door taxes and gimmicks are not the way to gain the people’s trust.”
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Western MA Casino Task Force (WMCAT) - Muncipal Concerns
As a culmination of 1 1/2 years of study the neutral, non-partisan Western MA Casino Task Force finalized the following list of 23 major concerns for municipalities in our region regarding Legislative proposals for expanded gambling/gaming. This is not the short list and any legislator worth their paycheck must pay heed to the impacts involved.
Honorable Senator Steven M. Brewer
Honorable Senator Stanley C.
Honorable Senator Gale D. Candaras
Honorable Senator Karen E. Spilka
Dear Senators:
Representing fifteen towns in the western
“To assure that the economic, social, and quality of life interests of communities within the
At the
Legislation
A. Comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of slot parlors and mega-casinos.
The legislature will perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis and develop data-driven budgets by region that account for fiscal revenues and both operating and capital investment expenses. Benefits/revenues will result from income and property taxes, license fees, job creation, reduction of welfare rolls, and ancillary economic development for regional businesses. Costs/expenses will result from capital investment projects, infrastructure expansion and maintenance thereof; mitigation compensation to affected regional communities for issues defined in the paragraphs below; and state and regional oversight and administration expenses.
The cost-benefit analysis will address state based costs such as the Attorney General; gaming commission personnel, equipment, operating budget, software and all consultants; gambling addiction services; state police and overtime; domestic violence advocates at district courts serving the regions impacted by proposed expanded gambling/gaming; corrections and financial counseling. Subsidized health care costs for transient workers and workers not covered by proposed expanded gambling/gaming health insurance.
B. Establish Regional Mitigation Trust Funds.
The Legislature will establish a Mitigation Trust Fund (MTF) for each region impacted by proposed expanded gambling/gaming which reflects data-driven fiscal costs. Regional MTF Oversight Committees will be established to oversee the allocation/dispersal of MTF Funds and to review the regional impacts and costs annually. These regional committees will be comprised of 5-7 members, 70% of which will be elected locally by a vote from the region such as the Western MA Casino Task Force, to assure fair and equitable regional representation. Each Mitigation Trust Fund will be fully funded from license and tax revenues prior to use of any revenues from proposed expanded gambling/gaming for other state initiatives.
C. Local representation on Gaming Commission(s) & Oversight committees.
The legislature will appoint local and regional representatives of the communities impacted by proposed expanded gambling/gaming to all gambling/gaming commissions, and oversight committees. Local representation will ensure that host regions have equal voting power in decisions impacting the communities that they represent.
D. Public Safety – Police, Fire, Emergency Medical Services.
Legislation will provide data-driven fiscal mitigation funds for public safety costs to communities in the region impacted by expanded gambling/gaming. These costs will include but not be limited to personnel, materials and equipment, vehicles, and translators for non-English speakers. Compatibility with state police technology and equipment will be funded through proposed expanded gambling/gaming revenues not local tax receipts.
E. Environment.
Legislation will consider the impact on natural resources and will enforce all state environmental laws and regulations. Preference will be given to development proposals that utilize Smart Growth policies, including restoring existing structures and facilities; that preserve forestry, wetlands, and wildlife habitat; that minimize air, water, noise, hazardous waste and night light pollution; and that address other MEPA considerations. Credit for increased air pollution due to vehicular traffic will be mitigated through additional payments to host and regional municipalities and regional respiratory care facilities.
F. Infrastructure.
Legislation will assure that all infrastructure costs required to enable proposed expanded gambling/gaming will be borne by the developers/license holders. Examples in this category include but are not limited to: road and bridge improvements, utilities, upgrades to water/sewer facilities, etc.
G. Education.
All enrollment costs for new students due to worker surge in the region of a proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility will be paid by the revenues from tax and license revenues prior to any other state initiatives. These costs will include but not be limited to personnel, materials and equipment for ELL not currently taught in the school districts, special education, facilities and transportation. Legislation will provide annual assessment of education impacts to the region.
H. Zoning.
The legislature will prohibit “hot-bedding” and dormitory housing in communities abutting a potential casino. Local control over zoning supersedes proposed expanded gambling/gaming development proposals. The Commonwealth will provide legal protection for host and regional communities from lawsuits brought against the municipalities by proposed expanded gambling/gaming developers/licensees.
I. Work Force Development.
Proposed expanded gambling/gaming facilities will utilize local, regional and state workforces. Plans for skills development and retention of under-skilled and special needs workers will be promoted. Workers will be guaranteed the rights to organize and form unions on all levels of employment. Union wage and fair, open and competitive procurement laws will be enforced. Preference will be given to proposals that embrace work force development from developmentally disabled and unemployed populations and that include affordable housing and public transportation initiatives.
J. Housing.
Due to the impact from new private housing construction connected with potential expanded gambling/gaming the legislature will act to mitigate the stress on local services to the region by reforming 40B “Affordable Housing Law” to grant full credit to affordable non-publicly funded housing and manufactured housing as affordable housing stock. Each of these types of housing units will count 1.0 as an affordable housing unit.
K. Smart Growth Development.
Legislation will promote Smart Growth initiatives to revitalize areas with existing affordable housing stock, existing commercial buildings, infrastructure and natural resources.
L. Transportation.
Legislation will encourage developers/license holders to reduce regional vehicular traffic by subsidizing low emission public transportation for workers and patrons, providing reduced emission/shuttle busses, rail, etc.
M. Marketing.
Proposed expanded gambling/gaming facilities and their partners, affiliates or subsidiaries will be prohibited from marketing to youth. Marketing materials including but not limited to: logos, materials, clothing, samples of products, will be prohibited to youth. Direct gifts to schools, youth organizations, sports teams, etc., will be prohibited.
N. Ownership.
Legislation will consider restrictions on non-US majority ownership of any proposed expanded gambling/gaming development or facilities.
O. Courts.
Legislation will provide annual assessment of court based services and budgetary needs, track increased impacts and provide fiscal offset for the regional impacts.
P. Ethics.
Legislation will strive for the fullest transparency of all interactions with proposed expanded gambling/gaming. Legislation will prohibit any legislator, municipal official or other individual in an appointed or elected capacity from employment with gambling/gaming entities for five years from effective date of any proposed legislation to expand gambling/gaming in the Commonwealth.
Q. Regional Voting.
Legislation should consider ballot approval of any proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility by host and abutting/directly impacted communities.
R. Casino Expansion.
Legislation will prohibit additional proposed expanded gambling/gaming licenses subsequent to any proposed initial expansion of gambling/gaming in the Commonwealth. Any community that is utilized for host or ancillary services (including but not limited to parking lots, service buildings, employee housing) will be eligible to require a host contract with the casino developers/licensees for impact to the community. Third party businesses that provide a proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility with the above ancillary services will qualify the community for host impact agreements with the proposed expanded gambling/gaming developers.
S. Protection of taxpayers and region from profit loss, bankruptcy and reduction in lottery receipts and local aid.
Legislation will protect taxpayers and regions from lost revenues due to bankruptcy, small business closure and reduction in state subsidies currently provided from lottery receipts and local aid. Data-driven analysis of fiscal impacts will be reviewed and mitigated through the Mitigation Trust Fund on an annual basis to reflect the “real costs” to communities impacted by proposed expanded gambling/gaming.
T. Social and public health costs.
Baseline studies paid through any potential enabling legislation for any proposed expanded gambling/gaming site will be conducted to determine current regional resources. Full funding of regional social and public health costs will be paid by the revenues from tax and license revenues prior to any other state initiatives. Annual analysis of “real costs” will be conducted for the purpose of transparent and accurate mitigation.
U. Underage restrictions.
Legislation will require any proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility to restrict access to gambling for all persons under age 21 years. Legislation will require separate entrances for entertainment venues appropriate for persons under age 21 years.
V. Professional and Technical Assistance.
Legislation will assure professional and technical assistance to regions impacted by proposed gambling/gaming, through the municipalities, which will include but not be limited to: zoning, housing, infrastructure, etc.
W. Expanded gambling/gaming Proposal Selection/Approval Process.
Legislation will provide for inclusion of regional representation during the expanded gambling/gaming proposal selection/approval process.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. We appreciate the diligence and attention you have committed to this issue. Please protect the communities that we call home throughout any considerations of expanded gambling in the Commonwealth.
Sincerely,
Edward S. Harrison, Chairman
Western Massachusetts Casino Task Force
Attachments
APPENDIX A - Definitions
The Western MA Casino Task Force recommends that legislation for any proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility consistently utilize the following terms.
Host – municipality or municipalities hosting structures and ancillary structures for any proposed expanded gambling/gaming facility.
Abutting – municipalities sharing at least one border with a Host community (above).
Region – the area including a host and abutting/directly impacted communities to any proposed expanded gambling/gaming facilities (see sample Appendix B).
Regional – pertaining to the region (above).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
