Mass. voters deserve to dictate the fate of casino gambling
Two steps forward, two steps back?
If the state’s highest court sanctions a ballot referendum for the November election, it could, if passed, repeal the gambling expansion law.
As events of the last two years have borne out, voters in most communities where casinos have been proposed have shown little appetite for hosting a slots parlor or resort casino. Yes, the bill was passed as the commonwealth was emerging from the Great Recession and sought several potential cures to grow jobs and, more importantly for the state’s political establishment, revenue.
But now that Massachusetts has outperformed the nation in its economic recovery, that recessionary pressure has abated, and the voters should get the say at the ballot box that they didn’t get back in 2011, and deliver a resounding “no” to the casino industry. This should not be viewed as “backtracking,” but rather the righting of wrong-headed legislation that stands to serve up more harm than good in a state that has long prided itself on business innovation and the generation of well-paying, high-quality jobs. Advanced manufacturing, information technology and life sciences are all engines of growth that are more preferable than expansion through gambling.
Repeal may come with a price tag, though, notably from the developers of the three resort-style casinos that have won voter approval in their intended host communities: Revere, Everett and Springfield. The state may have to eat those stranded costs or fight it out in the courts. However, Penn National Gaming should be allowed to proceed with construction of the slots parlor in Plainville since it has gone through the approval process and begun construction. Also, because the slots parlor would be located at the Plainridge harness race track, putting two forms of gambling on the same property will minimize the additional negative effects in that region.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court must rule by early July on the fate of the referendum. In the meantime, state officials should slap a moratorium on the three proposals for resort-style casinos until the ballot issue is settled, either by the high court or the voters. That will prevent more development money from being wasted.
House Speaker Robert DeLeo, chief sponsor of the law, said in February that developers were “getting a little skittish” due to the potential for repeal, the State House News Service reported. He also opened the door to the possibility that the state might have to reimburse developers for some of their costs.
That’s the potential price you can pay for taking two steps forward without realizing a step may cost you. But handing this question directly to the voters should give the process — once and for all — a final endorsement, or mark the end of our casino gambling foray.n
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments