Editorial: Casinos In Mass. Are Still A Bad Bet
Is casino gambling an economic cure for Massachusetts?
We’re not putting our money on it. As we slog through the after-effects of the worst economic slowdown since the Great Depression, and a job market that just can’t seem to find adequate traction, the political powers that be on Beacon Hill are once again being seduced by the allure of blackjack tables, roulette wheels and slot machines. That could pump more than $500 million into the state’s coffers, based on a $2 billion gross revenue estimate for casinos in a 2008 study by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce.
Yes, casino gambling will surely bring both short- and long-term jobs, as well as added revenue for the commonwealth. But what happens a few years down the road after the economy picks up? Will casinos have made Massachusetts a more desirable or less desirable state for business investment? Will they undermine what has been the core strength of the commonwealth as an incubator for innovative companies and industries, supported by a foundation of strong public and private education?
There are ways to direct public investment toward economic growth. Casino gambling isn’t one of them.
First, the three casinos and slot parlor that the pending legislation would allow will indeed create thousands of long-term jobs at the facilities themselves. More jobs will likely be created by economic spinoff at surrounding hotels and restaurants. But will those jobs create sustainable wealth? In its study, the Greater Boston Chamber estimated that casinos would create 17,000 to 21,000 permanent positions. But some studies have shown that casino jobs, especially gaming dealers, are among the lowest paid jobs in the nation.
Saturated Market
Which leads to another key point: The casino gambling market has become more saturated in the Northeast, and it’s beginning to impact gambling revenues in Connecticut and New Jersey. Last year, the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos saw their fourth consecutive year-to-year decline in gross gaming revenues, according to a study by the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. Adding casinos in the Bay State will only serve to further shrink the size of each piece in that revenue pie. It may siphon off a good portion of the state’s residents who currently drive down to Connecticut to feed their gambling itch, and add more. But broadening that customer base will be difficult without a denser population center outside the state from which to draw new gamblers. If distance from current casinos is factored in, the best chances for growth come from Northern New England and the Albany, N.Y., area.
There’s also a legitimate concern about the potential effect on arts and entertainment venues, especially venues like The Hanover Theater, which has been a cornerstone of development in downtown Worcester. As the Hanover’s Troy Siebels says in our story in this issue on the casinos legislation, the owners of any nearby casino would be able to undercut other entertainment venues on ticket prices while paying more to performers. That would hurt the ability of the entertainment venues — especially those in the state’s largest cities — to draw both patrons and acts. The Foxwoods entertainment calendar reveals a robust schedule of events, all aimed to send more patrons into the casino complex.
If Massachusetts wants a cut of gaming revenues without the headaches that come with having in-state venues, it should. By using the mere prospect of having its own casinos, it should demand from the Nutmeg State a share of the millions it takes from Bay State residents who visit the Connecticut casinos. (According to the Center for Policy Analysis, about 25 percent of the patrons at the casinos come from the Bay State.) Connecticut wouldn’t like it, but it might be wise to cut a deal that would forestall Massachusetts jumping in with both feet and cutting further into the casino revenue pie.
Unlike last year’s legislation, Massachusetts’ top political leaders appear to be in sync on this bill. But state legislators should not act like bobble head dolls when it’s time to vote. They should carefully consider the legislation – especially the potential long-term negative effects. Is this what Massachusetts stands for? Is this in the long-term economic interests of the state? We think not. The short-term gains may help them score points with their constituents, but what happens down the road when we jump into business with the casino crowd must carry just as much weight.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments