Milford Vote Shows Mass. Must Rethink Casinos
Last week's resounding rejection of the resort-style casino proposal for Milford has deep-sixed all chances that Central Massachusetts will host a major gambling resort anytime soon.
However, Leominster remains in the running for the one slots parlor license, a facility that projects to be a quarter the size of any of its larger casino brethren. With this month's defeat at the ballot box for resort casinos in Milford and Palmer, Leominster may emerge as a favorite against Raynham and Plainville should the gaming commission place a high priority on geographic diversity in siting the new gambling meccas. Arguably, Leominster finds itself in a strong position as a convenient locale for gamblers from New Hampshire and Vermont, as well as the Merrimack Valley. Meanwhile, Raynham is next door to Taunton, which could serve as the site of the resort casino for Southeastern Massachusetts, and Plainville is next door to Lincoln, R.I., the site of the Twin River casino.
We've been critical of the significant flaws in the process that followed the state's gambling legislation, especially the late-in-the-game rush that yielded a host-city agreement between Leominster officials and the Cordish Cos., the developer for the planned $200-million slots parlor. It's clearly a project that voters had little time to consider. Whereas, in Palmer and Milford, developers had been openly working on their plans for years, and residents and businesses had ample time to consider all the issues. While casino developers may wail about the rigors of the state's system, it's hard to argue with the degree of “local control” the process gives to towns, and their right to embrace or reject such developments.
The gambling-expansion law was passed not long after the end of the Great Recession and its slow recovery, clearly a down time when local and state officials were grasping for new revenue sources. The allure of new jobs and the potential economic boost from these sites can make for a convincing argument when political leaders are panicked about funding government, and recognize that just raising taxes won't pass muster. But with the economy slowly strengthening here and nationally, the aggressive casino approach — three resort sites plus a slots parlor — no longer looks like a prudent approach. Every other state in the region has long looked jealously at the financial windfall gambling revenue has yielded for Connecticut, and want their share. Unfortunately, most neighboring states are also in the process of developing their own gaming strategies, and with more facilities coming on line, at a pace far faster than the pie can grow, there will be many disappointed states that will fall far short of the big tax payday they dreamed of.
Approval of one casino license or, at most, two, at this time would be the most prudent course of action. This way, the state can take a critical look at the process before opening the door to more casinos. Massachusetts' economic fortunes have improved in the two years since the law was approved, and more businesses in the region are finding more solid traction for the months and years ahead.
Times have changed, and the process that has had several municipalities reject casino or slots parlor developments has proven that the legislation was written with some teeth, and that gambling, on balance, is not that attractive an economic development option to many. Efforts to throw out the whole process may or may not make it on the ballot in 2014, but a scaling back of the number of casinos would give the state needed time to learn some lessons and move forward in a more informed manner.
Read more
Milford Casino Developers Win Conditional Approval
Milford Voters Deliver Emphatic 'No' On Casino
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments