Beton Brut
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,382
- Reaction score
- 335
The communities are absolutely right at exercising caution with something the state may be moving way too fast to build...
My opposition to the concept of a casino at Suffolk Downs has become more nuanced over the past couple of years. My initial concerns were traffic on the already overburdened road infrastructure, but I've come to believe that though these concerns are real, there not the core of what makes expanded gaming a bad idea for the entire Commonwealth.
In the past couple of years since discussion and debate began, I've read up on the gaming industry quite a bit. I've spoken to many people with a variety of opinions on the topic and how it plays into real estate values, economic development, and social issues. I've also visited Atlantic City, and Ledyard, CT.
Let's begin with the interesting point Henry makes here:
I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site.
It must those oil tanks GW2500 mentions in his post:
It's also relevant to note it's right next oil tanks. If you really want a better neighborhood around Suffolk Downs then those would most certainly have to go.
Those oil tanks aren't going anyplace in the next 100 or so years. No one's gonna build a golf course there.
Nothing about the site says "resort," though the owners of Suffolk Downs are licking their chops at the prospect of a slots-barn to prop up their failing "thoroughbred" track. This is the model that's overtaken the industry across racetracks in colder climates. Slap some paint on the walls, roll in the slot and poker machines, throw up a budget hotel, and wait for the bus-loads of old folks to feed their pension-checks into the investors' portfolio. Tip your waitress, try the veal...
...but there needs to be a distinction drawn between prudent caution and total fear of changing the status quo. The status quo ain't been so great for a very long time.
I absolutely agree. The status quo in the Commonwealth is really part of the problem. Injecting the gaming industry and all the money that comes with it into a state with such a rich culture of political corruption and patronage requires the highest degree of "prudent caution." Senator Jamie Eldridge had the temerity to suggest that a five-year waiting period for state legislators to accept a position in gaming should be written into the Expanded Gaming Bill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShjXsp911A
One of his colleagues took offense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_ArfRFoDtA
We've sent these folks to Beacon Hill to do our business; how much of our business are they actually doing? How much of it is their own?
Is [the status quo] really preferable to an huge investment of new development they can have considerable say in shaping?
I'm all for seeing Suffolk Downs redeveloped.
If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.
I dissent with the view that a gaming facility is the best and highest use for the property.
I think you should at least entertain the thought that if it gets built your life won't really change and Suffolk Downs owes you something about as much as you owe it.
I'm not suggesting that I'm "owed" anything beyond the opportunity to speak my mind about this issue to anyone who will listen. I think your suggestion that my life (and my neighbors' lives) "won't really change" is simply not rooted in reality. If the value of my home is undermined, that's pretty life-changing. If there's an uptick in violent crime in my neighborhood, that'll hit my wallet as well, through higher auto and homeowners' insurance premiums.
Since the beginning of the expanded gaming debate, fair-minded people have listened to proponents and elected officials talk about job creation and expanding tourism. Many of us have asked the Commonwealth to provide an independent cost-benefit analysis that considers benefits to the state, and benefits to host communities, measured against the expense of creating a new bureaucracy, enhancing public safety and infrastructure, and the aggregated effects of casino gambling on Lottery revenues which are paid back to cities and towns. No such study was ever commissioned, and the "nothing to see here" attitude of my elected officials makes me a bit queasy. It should make you queasy too.