Inquiring Minds Want to Know

What are people really saying about the Western MA Casino Task Force groundbreaking report?

Following the advice of Sen. Stephen M. Brewer, D-Barre, the task force created a list of concerns that could be included in any future amendment process regarding casino or slot legislation.

Brewer, who received the letter recently, said, "They sent me a mountain of very good, creative ideas, some of the best ideas I have seen yet . . . It's the right thing for the region to have responsible planning."

Senator Candaras (D-Wilbraham) said, "You left no stone unturned."

Senator Karen Spilka (D-Ashland) said, "You have raised very important issues and I will study this further."

John Kindt, Esq (National Gambling Expert, Author, Professor), "Very thorough analysis."

"I was brought up to believe that the only thing worth doing was to add to the sum of accurate information in the world." -Margaret Mead

When the facts scare people - attack!

The decline of the fourth estate is evident everywhere. Lack of investigative reporting, tabloid/gossip and other garbage presented as news.

It is a hot and hazy mid-August day in western Massachusetts and the news must be slow. So, the Republican newspaper printed this article which attempts to fan speculation, rumor and undermine the work the western MA casino task force. A rather long article to show that some officials in one town don't like it that some officials in another town donated money to an anti-casino group.

There is a problem with the quality of reporting (by a talented writer, I might add) because it serves to muddle the different layers of committees and individual actions of the people identified in the article (which editor prompted the reporter to pursue this "sensational" angle for an article?). The failure to clarify the roles of different committees and separate professional and personal actions is a disservice to the readers, the participants in the process and the region. In the case of Monson officials, no stipends are received for service.

So, let me clarify what the article failed to accomplish. There is a local casino study committee (LCSC) in the town of Monson established about 1 1/2 years ago, which I chair. This committee has been inactive over the past year following preliminary research and a report to the town of the results of a questionnaire to residents. The LCSC is scheduled to meet again in September for updates on proposed legislation. There has not been a compelling reason to meet following the vote in the House to procedurally defeat slots, which are not legal in the Commonwealth and all the buzz about a mega-casino in an abutting town is speculation at this point. There may be more to discuss as the Legislature takes action in the fall.

There is a Western MA Casino Task Force (WMCAT), comprised of 15 communities that has studied the potential impacts on the region for almost two years. The WMCAT wrote a letter to legislators listing the concerns, dated July 23, 2009 and I have posted it downthread. The task force has received technical assistance from Pioneer Valley Planning Commission and has no position on slots/casinos beyond advocating for the region. The Republican devoted more space reporting the gossip in today's article than the groundbreaking work of the task force.

The Monson Board of Selectmen has stated as a board that they are neutral on the issue.

Some Palmer Town Councilors and the paid liaison for Northeast Realty also an elected official, are pro-casino. That's their personal right, I have no comment on their position. I have no comment on the position of other Town Councilors or Selectboard members in the region who have a personal opinion on the issue either. I certainly hope they have studied the issue thoroughly and have an idea of where they stand as well as a clear understanding of the potential impacts on their community. The Palmer Town Council has not taken a vote to endorse or oppose a casino in their community to the best of my knowledge. OK, so, what? My opinion of the Palmer Town Council's position on casinos is not any more newsworthy than their opinion of the Monson Board of Selectmen's position on casinos. The remarks and in fact, the entire article is a distraction from the real issues, which are the potential impacts and advocating for appropriate mitigation should the Legislature legalize the electronic gambling devices, known as slots.

Personally, after 15 years of research on the issues of gambling, addiction, public health, municipal and environmental impacts, I am opposed to slots/casinos. Philosophically, I concur with Walter Chronkite that funding government from gambling is "cynical". Politically, I agree with the resolution against predatory slot gambling passed at the Democratic State Convention. Economically, I support small businesses and deplore welfare for corporations that take from the working and middle class.

Personally, I plan to exercise my right to free speech on this issue, including funding organizations that oppose expanded gambling and electronic gambling devices, engineered to keep users "playing to extinction" (slots). I plan to exercise my right to free speech to debate the issue, not roll around in the muck of ad hominen distractions with those who would seek to shy from the serious matters at hand.


Gambling promises the poor what property performs for the rich -- something for nothing.
Author: George Bernard Shaw

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.

July 23, 2009

Honorable Senator Steven M. Brewer

Honorable Senator Stanley C. Rosenberg

Honorable Senator Gale D. Candaras

Honorable Senator Karen E. Spilka

Massachusetts State House

Boston, MA 02133

Dear Senators:

Representing fifteen towns in the western Massachusetts region, WMCAT was initiated in August of 2007 by the Monson Board of Selectmen to address potential issues facing our communities from the possible legalization of casino gambling in the Commonwealth as proposed by Governor Deval L. Patrick. The Monson Board of Selectmen notified community leaders in the Quaboag Valley region to organize and discuss the pending legislation and impacts on the region. The WMCAT currently consists of an elected or appointed representative and an alternate from over fifteen communities in the region. The WMCAT mission:

“To assure that the economic, social, and quality of life interests of communities within the Western Massachusetts region are protected and all impacts resulting from the potential development of expanded gambling/gaming within the region are recognized.”

At the April 22, 2009 WMCAT meeting, Senator Brewer requested an extensive list of concerns and issues from the task force for inclusion in any future “amendment” process regarding casino or slot legislation. The following list has been developed by members of the task force as high priority concerns for our communities:

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).

Regional Map showing sample impact region was included, maybe I can link it when it is posted on the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission website.

Senate President Therese Murray and AG Martha Coakley

Dear President Murray and Attorney General Martha Coakley:

I am writing to you to express my deepest concern for the actions recently reported in the Boston Herald regarding discussions to develop gaming regulations and regulatory structure. How are these meetings not being conducted openly with hearings and input from the public? How are we, the voters of the Commonwealth, expected to believe that any real reform has occurred on Beacon Hill when it is clear that the will of leadership is to bring expanded gambling and with it increased corruption, money laundering, DUI, family disruption, addiction, bankruptcy, environmental impact and other burdens upon municipalities, while conducting discussions behind closed doors? Will the hearings in the fall be a kangaroo court? Will you pressure legislators to do your bidding despite the fact that most have voted, "no" to expanded gambling/slots in the past? Will you use the considerable power of your position to get casinos by letting legislators know that their district may not fare in future budgets if they oppose your position? Do you commit to allow this to truly be a vote of conscience as you have told your senators?

I have studied the issues of gambling for 15 years as Mental Health Counselor and an elected official in an small rural community in a region of a proposed class III casino. I am aghast at your support for this industry! Do we need this?

Yes, some jobs will be created and relatively insignificant revenue will be generated for your budget. The misery and costs of mitigation exceed any gain.

I challenge you to due diligence and perform a cost-benefit analysis before voting on expanded gambling to approve slots in Massachusetts. Develop a blue ribbon commission to study the pros and cons for Massachusetts in the "new world order" aka the current economy, with a balanced if not neutral panel of residents. Include budgets that will account for the AG's expenses and expansion with a new regulatory branch of government, district attorneys and court costs, education and health care for new low income residents that may work part-time at a slot/casino and comprehensive regional mitigation costs. Do you plan to protect the regions where a slot/casino might be sited or have the state take the revenues and starve the host region like they have done in CT? There is not enough profit to have it both ways, which will it be?

Ms. Coakley, every AG before you has opposed slots in the Commonwealth. Your silence on this issue is not lost upon many of us who are the active core of the Democratic party. We voted at the convention to oppose predatory slots - you were there.

As women leaders, I expected much more from both of you in the arena of judgment, morality (yes, inviting crime and addiction is a moral issue) and concern for the most vulnerable in society. Have you not considered the impact upon children and young adults to be immersed in a gambling culture?

You are making a grave mistake and I implore you to change your tactics and your stance.

Sincerely,


Kathleen Conley Norbut
Monson

Monson forum

There is a rather ridiculous on-line forum in greater Springfield area hosted by the regional newspaper and I am having a discussion with a gentleman that I recall being very concerned about his taxes and the condition of roads in our community. So, the previous post was in response to his asking about why I posted the link to the Reuters article. Then he replied with this:

Yes I was joking but only about the tickets covering revenue.

Middleborough is one of the other communities that is in the mix for hosting a casino. They recently completed a very thorough study of the potential impact of a casino in their town. I think the results are just as biased as many of the anti-casino research you are citing, but I also believe it adds a little balance to the conversation.

http://www.middleborough.com/General/Impact%20and%20Mitigation%20Report.pdf

Feel free to visit the above link and see that while there are potential negatives to a casino placement for both the host community and the surrounding cities and towns, there are also some very real and very important benefits.

I am only going to address one of your most direct attacks on a casino placement in Palmer. You state that in CT the student population in the surrounding communities jumped enormously after the opening of the casinos. What you fail to refer to is the very rural character of both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun's communities. Being remote, the casino had to look far outside the local community to staff. As a result overtime folks that were employed in the casinos moved closer to both reduce their commutes and improve their quality of life. Your comments make no mention of the tax base impact this had or the reasoning for it's occurrence. Once again it's not a complete argument only designed to put fear into people's lives where non-need be. In Palmer conversely the infrastructure will and population density will make the likelihood of a huge influx of new students substantially lower than in CT.

The rest of your post is more of the same fear-mongering and distortions of fact. Read the Middleborough report and I think you can see that the gains will out weigh the costs.

Finally as I said in my first post, if Palmer and the local communities aren't savvy enough to make arrangements before the placement that protect them in a meaningful way from increased costs associated with the Casino then they will get what comes.

I know that means we should have faith in our elected officials, but since none of them are capable of a balanced discussion of this issue on either side that won't likely happen. If I were a Monson Select Board member, I would be forcing my way to the table to insure that my voice was heard constructively and supporting the casino if in fact it was developed responsibly by all parties.

So, it was imperative that I responded with this:

I just came home from a two hour meeting of the regional casino task force (WMCAT) comprised of 15 towns in the Quaboag region that includes people who personally have differing opinions on the casino issue. We have worked together for almost two years (no I don't get paid) to identify the concerns for mitigation to the towns in the region should expanded gambling/gaming become legal in Massachusetts. We finalized a letter listing 23 areas of concern.Your reply to my post indicates that you are not interested in discussing the issue and have made up your mind. I responded to you because I had found you previously open minded.

The Spectrum Gaming (casino industry experts) report commissioned by Governor Patrick to review his pro-posal for three resort casinos leans bias towards casinos, and the State of CT study is from the state's department of revenue. Your accusation that my post is "fear mongering and distortions of fact" is false.

"If I were a Monson Select Board member"

If you were a Monson Selectman, you would know that increased population particularly with children to educate, has a net negative impact on the town budget. Spectrum Gaming featured one town, of the 351 cities and towns in the Commonwealth, in their report and it was Monson. I wrote the study that they published highlighting the fiscal impacts on education. You can find it at www.mass.gov(search Spectrum Gaming report).

If you read the link that I posted from the state of CT citing their documented revenues/expenses and impacts on the communities you would perhaps understand what was being posted. I am surprised to learn, as someone concerned about their tax dollars, that you have not done more research on this issue.

Fortunately for the taxpayers the "town" has been trying to protect it's financial interests through WMCAT and other initiatives.

I read the Middleborough study when it was released. Their Selectboard negotiated a lousy deal for 7 million dollars with criminals, in secret.

WMCAT

The WMCAT is a regional group of Selectmen, Town Councilors, and appointed officials from 15 towns in the Quaboag region studying the impacts of a potential casino/slot parlor on our communities.

We meet tonight at Monson Town Offices, 110 Main Street at 7pm.

It is an open meeting. Good opportunity to learn about the comprehensive fiscal impacts that affect host regions.

You were joking that traffic citations would cover costs in Monson, weren't you?

The net theoretical gain of having Masschusetts gamblers ($800 mill/year estimated going to CT) spending their money in MA might be as high as 27% (tax on the revenue), less those who would continue to prefer 'going-away'.

Let's say MA retained $200-270 mill. plus $125 mill per license-renewable every 10 years (going rate according to recent senate hearing testimony by casino industry) and two or three licenses are granted... we would be looking at $312 mill/year revenue for the state to close a growing $4 billion dollar deficit.

Do you think the revenues will stay locally to assist with mitigation of the costs to the municipalities? Of course not, it is the Boston agenda that has set this stage and there is no model anywhere of host regions receiving the funds necessary to mitigate the costs. The region would never see the full amount of funding needed for mitigation because the math does not work.

The AG would need to establish a Gaming Regulatory Commission (NJ employs 500 state workers for that task) which cost tens of millions of dollars per year. The AG has stated that new racketeering laws, RICO and money laundering and surveillance are needed if the Commonwealth goes in the direction of legalizing slots. Gov Patrick has stated that mitigation for increased gambling addiction (estimated by Prof. Goodman to cost the taxpayers $13,200 per addict/year in 1990's dollars) will be funded.

Anyone concerned about their taxes whether you gamble or not, would benefit from learning about local fiscal impacts on this issue. The town would have more demand on it's services without sufficient increased aid to offset the demands.

Up to 12,600 new students were estimated to come with new workers in the Spectrum Gaming analysis of the Governor's 3 casino proposal. Let's say only 2,000 new students come to our region...Monson taxpayers pay for over 30% of each students PPE, the state pays the balance with exceptions for special education that may be much more costly.

Housing, infrastructure, education, public safety, transportation, sanitation, water (Palmer does not have sufficient water to host a casino), air pollution (9,000-12,000 visitors per day).

CT Div. of Special Revenue study of casinos and gambling recently released reveal that the host regions have been "enormously" underfunded.

Check out pages 135-136 contributions to municipalities"The casino revenue split between the state and Connecticut municipalities was initially tilted in favor of municipalities. In 1994, for example, nearly 80 percent of the $113 million collected went to the municipalities. Just two years later, the split was two thirds state, one third municipalities. Since then, the state has continued to keep more and more of the pie. The state‘s share in FY 2008 was nearly 80 percent.

The dollar amount flowing into the state‘s General Fund has increased from $24 million in FY 1994 to $340 million in FY 2007, a more than 13-fold increase.By comparison, the state‘s municipalities have seen their take stay relatively constant. In FY 2007, the municipalities split $86.3 million, $2 million less than they received in 1994. The amount of money set aside for Connecticut municipalities is approved each year by the General Assembly."

Pioneer Institute (conservative think tank) has research on the increase in high school drop out rates for host regions to slots/casinos.

There are some things we do know about expanded gambling that should give us pause.
As tax policy, gambling is among the most regressive tax, taking a disproportionate share of revenues
from the elderly and low- and moderate-income families.

As social policy, we know that gambling is bad for kids and families. Teenagers and casino employees are the most vulnerable to becoming problem gamblers. Today 1.1 million children in the U.S. between the ages of 12 and 18 are pathological gamblers. As they get older they will swell the ranks of adult problem gamblers, now numbering between 1.8 and 2.5 million. As fiscal policy, the prospects
are also fuzzy. Indications are that gambling revenues level off after a few years. Consequently, expanding gambling will not help solve the State’s fiscal crisis, but will rather serve as a smokescreen of the serious structural imbalance between overall state spending and the ability of our economy to support it. New casinos have not prevented large budget deficits in Illinois or neighboring
Connecticut.

The Sell-Out

The Sell-Out