MA Casino Developments

[Arlington]

Traffic impacts shouldn't be a factor in whether or not large venues get built?!?! If someone wanted to put a mall or stadium or arena or casino down the street from your house, I bet you'd think the traffic impact is relevant.

This is the worst sort of pure-emotion and no-math freak out that earns NIMBY's their reputation as unreliable participants in civic decision making.

Insignificant traffic impacts should be an insignificant factor, yes.

All evidence suggests that the Casino's traffic impact will be moderate, spread out, and fully mitigated by its impact payments to nearby communities. In fact, the mitigation payments (lumps up front and $ ongoing) look to me too large to actually have any basis in engineering reality and much more to be just pure political payoffs. Take the money...it more than compensates for any traffic costs...and shut up about traffic.

The real thing going uncompensated here is the lives of individual families who are going to be ruined by a problem gambler. The real, known, uncompensated impact worth talking about--ruined lives and life sucked out of homes and small businesses-- is the one overlooked because people are so busy talking about commuting traffic UNRELATED to the Casino.

I want to kill the Casino. I'm voting Yes on Question 3, but it is intellectually dishonest to oppose it for its traffic impacts, and data-free fear-mongering about traffic is very destructive and should not be encouraged or tolerated.

{APPEND}And what houses are "down the street" from the Casino? Nearest neighbors are a railroad track, big box retail, a bus-maintenance garage, a wind turbine, a real smokestack power plant, and fuel tank farms. There is a small neighborhood of houses there, but they are situated such that their daily trips are likely to be in the direction *opposite* from people going to/from the Casino, and they're likely to see their lives improved by having a toxic site capped and the Rt 99 streetscape improved.

 

[TheRifleman]

The Seaports *are* the kind of 14,000 who impose huge congestion costs and trigger the need to spend a whole lot of capital dollars on infrastructure expansion.

Except that they are new and you fear the new, the Casino and the Seaport are nothing alike.

Agree the Casino and the Seaport are nothing alike. But lets get something straight
Capital has been coming back from the taxpayers to help support the developments in the Seaport. Our leaders should have proposed laying the groundwork with our tax dollars from the get go into Infrastructure or Future Transit accessibility---Which would have made the developments overtime more desirable.

Instead Ex-Mayor Menino was enriching his development pals with Taxpayers percs instead of devising a plan to enrich everybody around the surrounding areas.

The Casino planning is nothing more than Criminal at this point.
Just look at the site they are building on---Nothing more than a Toxic Dump that probably killed off have the residents with Cancer in Everett that lived near the village. Very sad

 

[Arlington]

Instead Ex-Mayor Menino was enriching his development pals with Taxpayers percs instead of devising a plan to enrich everybody around the surrounding areas.

I believe you are correct, but that is for another thread. Too many local communties (even Boston) think it is the job of the State to shower infrastructure on them, so the Mayor can divvy the upside instead of co-investing in growth.

 

[coleslaw]

The casino is bad because casinos are a tax on poor people. Boston is not Las Vegas, Everett is not going to attract high rollers. Who cares about traffic? That is so far away from the real problem.

 

[393b40]

The casino is bad because casinos are a tax on poor people. Boston is not Las Vegas, Everett is not going to attract high rollers. Who cares about traffic? That is so far away from the real problem.

No. It's not a tax on poor people. Nobody is forcing them to go spend their money there. There's a lot of good reasons to not want a casino from environment/traffic/long term social concerns, but that it might attract poor people who will spend their money is not one of them. However, a related but mostly untalked about aspect of casino's, and one that is relevant to everyone is the cost to the Commonwealth of helping the people rich or poor who end up destitute because they blow all their money due to a new found gambling addiction.

 

[coleslaw]

The poorest people gamble the most because they are most desperate they might not be forced at gun point but they are forced by their socioeconomic conditions. The lowest 5th plays the lottery the most about 60% compared to much less than half in all other groups.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

This is the worst sort of pure-emotion and no-math freak out that earns NIMBY's their reputation as unreliable participants in civic decision making.

Insignificant traffic impacts should be an insignificant factor, yes.

All evidence suggests that the Casino's traffic impact will be moderate, spread out, and fully mitigated by its impact payments to nearby communities....

Did you just criticize me for not relying on evidence and then make the blanket statement that "All evidence suggests..." and then not cite any evidence? That was kind of awesome.

Rather than rely on your paternally reassuring "all evidence suggests..." I'm gonna go ahead and take the word of a guy who's spent his entire career working on transportation policy instead. Courtesy of the Boston Globe:

The commission’s response is that by forcing the Wynn group to pay for part of the city’s Sullivan Square plan, the severe adverse traffic impact of the casino can be mitigated. This ignores the fact that the plan for Sullivan Square was developed before the casino in Everett was proposed, and was intended to lower the capacity of the square, as a traffic calming strategy. Forcing the Wynn group to finance the reduction of capacity in Sullivan Square will not mitigate the square’s existing disaster — it will worsen it.

 

[TheRifleman]

The Problem with Casino's and why it destroys the communities in the long run: Economic decay for a community.

A casino ends up depending on the locals (Working Class) to spend their time energy and resources in the casino and the problem is gambling is really not a winning scenario. So most of the community members (Not all) spend their extra money or more in the casino instead of improving the communities in a positive way:
This is what drags down the surrounding communities and creates economic quagmire.

The Seaport probably would have been the best bet for the Casino because most of those people working in the area are very educated and out-towners that make great money. So in the end its a very high end community that really doesn't focus their life gambling for a living. Desperation: This is why Detroit, Vegas, and Atlantic City are starting to head downward.

Also the working class just doesn't have extra funds like they did in the 80's.

 

[Arlington]

While not technically a tax, it is wealth transfer to state coffers (like a tax), and mediated by state power (as taxes are). That the state chooses to outsource collection to a for profit operator is less important than the reality that it is the State's exclusive license (a local monopoly) that enables Wynn to build his big wealth-sucking machine.

When we pay "too much" to Apple Computers, we call it the Apple Tax, knowing it is the right thematic word, even if not technically a direct state levy (though partly owing to the state's grant of Patent, trademark, and copyright)

No. It's not a tax on poor people. Nobody is forcing them to go spend their money there.

Is "force" the test here? Would it be better if we used these technically true alternatives?
- The State is licensing traps to wound the vulnerable
- The State is licensing lures to afflict the addicted

I don't know how social progressives can support something so freakishly regressive, taking more from people who are already at risk of losing.

I don't know how social conservatives can support something so opposed to work and thrift and so directly undermines self-mastery and self-reliance.

I don't see how moderates can sit by and think that this is the middle path to funding the functions of government or encouraging growth.

Politicians may be scared of pissing off the construction unions, but the union rank and file I know are against the Casino...they know too many of *exactly* the kinds of ordinary Joes that are going to get ripped by the Casino buzzsaw.

 

[Seth]

Ferry with booze from the Seaport with a stop at Long Wharf. Hell, thrown in a stop at the Airport too.

This needs to get done.

 

[coleslaw]

While not technically a tax, it is wealth transfer to state coffers (like a tax), and mediated by state power (as taxes are). That the state chooses to outsource collection to a for profit operator is less important than the reality that it is the State's exclusive license (a local monopoly) that enables Wynn to build his big wealth-sucking machine.

When we pay "too much" to Apple Computers, we call it the Apple Tax, knowing it is the right thematic word, even if not technically a direct state levy (though partly owing to the state's grant of Patent, trademark, and copyright)


Is "force" the test here? Would it be better if we used these technically true alternatives?
- The State is licensing traps to wound the vulnerable
- The State is licensing lures to afflict the addicted

I don't know how social progressives can support something so freakishly regressive, taking more from people who are already at risk of losing.

I don't know how social conservatives can support something so opposed to work and thrift and so directly undermines self-mastery and self-reliance.

I don't see how moderates can sit by and think that this is the middle path to funding the functions of government or encouraging growth.

Politicians may be scared of pissing off the construction unions, but the union rank and file I know are against the Casino...they know too many of *exactly* the kinds of ordinary Joes that are going to get ripped by the Casino buzzsaw.

Exactly, the thing is progressives aren't really supporting it the progressive groups around MA are fighting for the the repeal, so that confusion you express shouldn't really exist.

 

[Arlington]

Exactly, the thing is progressives aren't really supporting it the progressive groups around MA are fighting for the the repeal, so that confusion you express shouldn't really exist.

That public opinion is 50-50 ish says that at least one of these groups is not voting consistent with their guiding principles. If it is the moderates, they're looking damnably passive.

 

[underground]

That public opinion is 50-50 ish says that at least one of these groups is not voting consistent with their guiding principles. If it is the moderates, they're looking damnably passive.

Oh, please. The moralizing is ridiculous. After we get through re-banning casinos, we can get our soda ban, McDonalds ban, gas guzzler ban, and everything else that studies show are harmful ad infinum until the only thing that's legal is sitting quietly at home doing a pre-approved set of "healthy" activities. We'll have to bring back Prohibition too, because studies show how bad drinking too much is. Pay no attention to how poorly it did the first, and how poorly the war on drugs has gone. On the plus side, it's a real job creator. I mean, it's all mob jobs, but we can't be choosy in this economy. And pay no attention that MA residents already manage to gamble degenerately on just about every street corner in the commonwealth (even play Keno at Park Street under). But a casino? THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! Wake up, Progressives, and clutch those pearls!

I mean, seriously, vote for it or vote against it; that's your democratic right. But the moralizing about people not following their principles is riiiiiiidiculous.

 

[Arlington]

Oh, please. The moralizing is ridiculous. After we get through re-banning casinos, we can get our soda ban, McDonalds ban, gas guzzler ban, and everything else that studies show are harmful ad infinum until the only thing that's legal is sitting quietly at home doing a pre-approved set of "healthy" activities..

Clutch your own pearls. Undoing the Casinos that havent even opened yet is not the government coming to take away your soda, or prohibit your booze, or undoing your American Way of Life. It is keeping the state from addicting itself to a business that is inherently predatory.

It is also undoing a classic politicians-donors-unions deal that got done over the heads of voters and the rank-and-file. Straight up: is this what you *want* from Government?

 

[fattony]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/25/the-liberal-case-for-casinos/5JZPCQY6IU54BvCVC7E6MI/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline

I have to agree with Barney Frank. The notion that limiting personal freedom of choice is somehow "liberal" is ridiculous on its face. Classical liberalism says precisely the opposite even if contemporary trends in american progressivism largely clash with what can rightly be called liberal.

I also agree with underground. Vote for or against based on whether you want casinos or not. You cannot make a consistent moral argument against, and yet there are clearly many reasons to be against. I struggle with this myself because I believe strongly in individual liberty - the true root of liberalism - and yet I worry about inviting an industry with major externalities in my community.

 

[underground]

It is keeping the state from addicting itself to a business that is inherently predatory.

"Addicting itself"? Really? That's not something that sounds like over the top moralizing to you? Seriously, what data point could you even imagine existing, let alone actually measure, that would lead a person to come to that conclusion? You added up all the government officials in areas with casino's and measured the rate at which they are or are not "addicted" to the gambling business?

It is also undoing a classic politicians-donors-unions deal that got done over the heads of voters and the rank-and-file. Straight up: is this what you *want* from Government?

The officials you elected, and have the option to vote for or against again (or even run against yourself if you're so inclined), voted amongst themselves to do something you don't agree with? Wow, what a violation of representative democracy!

And now with the UNION boogymen thrown in!

I also agree with underground. Vote for or against based on whether you want casinos or not. You cannot make a consistent moral argument against, and yet there are clearly many reasons to be against. I struggle with this myself because I believe strongly in individual liberty - the true root of liberalism - and yet I worry about inviting an industry with major externalities in my community.

For real. Read the studies, come to a conclusion over whether or not you think the casino could "work" in the larger Boston ecosystem, and vote as needed. No need to go Mother Theresa over it, and no need to act like the sky is falling.

 

[JeffDowntown]

It is keeping the state from addicting itself to a business that is inherently predatory.

Arlington, I take it you have never heard of the Massachusetts Lottery -- kind of late to be worrying about the Commonwealth being addicted to gambling for revenue. We've been addicted to the Lottery since 1972, for "education" (I assume that means remedial math).

 

[TheRifleman]

Oh, please. The moralizing is ridiculous. After we get through re-banning casinos, we can get our soda ban, McDonalds ban, gas guzzler ban, and everything else that studies show are harmful ad infinum until the only thing that's legal is sitting quietly at home doing a pre-approved set of "healthy" activities. We'll have to bring back Prohibition too, because studies show how bad drinking too much is. Pay no attention to how poorly it did the first, and how poorly the war on drugs has gone. On the plus side, it's a real job creator. I mean, it's all mob jobs, but we can't be choosy in this economy. And pay no attention that MA residents already manage to gamble degenerately on just about every street corner in the commonwealth (even play Keno at Park Street under). But a casino? THE SKY IS FALLING!!!! Wake up, Progressives, and clutch those pearls!

I mean, seriously, vote for it or vote against it; that's your democratic right. But the moralizing about people not following their principles is riiiiiiidiculous.

I agree I think Gambling should be Legal...........But why are the only people that can really profit from gambling are the politicians and a couple billionaire corporate hacks? Why can't the middle-class become bookmakers or offer better innovative ideas for gambling? So basically we are voting Yes or No for gambling to be legal for the Political hacks and billionaires to make rich. But the Working class gambling would still be against the law if they were caught taking action. That make sense.

You see this should be a free society--Whoever offers the best service or some hardworking folks like to hand over their money to other working class members. That is not the case for the gambling industry---It's monopolized by the Political hacks on Beacon Hill--Who make it legal for them to offer gambling but not for the private working class Entrepreneur.
Just like the Scratch Tickets, Lottery and whatever else they can tax. I never realized Beacon Hill needs revenue when in reality the only thing these fucking morons are supposed to do is service the American Taxpayers. Not have their own businesses with their own personal rules and laws.

Sounds like Fascism to me in this specific industry.

 

[HenryAlan]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/25/the-liberal-case-for-casinos/5JZPCQY6IU54BvCVC7E6MI/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline

I have to agree with Barney Frank. The notion that limiting personal freedom of choice is somehow "liberal" is ridiculous on its face. Classical liberalism says precisely the opposite even if contemporary trends in american progressivism largely clash with what can rightly be called liberal.

I also agree with underground. Vote for or against based on whether you want casinos or not. You cannot make a consistent moral argument against, and yet there are clearly many reasons to be against. I struggle with this myself because I believe strongly in individual liberty - the true root of liberalism - and yet I worry about inviting an industry with major externalities in my community.

I agree with Frank on principle, but I consider casino gambling inherently corrupt. If there was a way to do it without corruption, then fine. But anybody who can argue that the process in this state so far has been corruption free and maintain a straight face deserves an Oscar.

 

[Arlington]

Arlington, I take it you have never heard of the Massachusetts Lottery -- kind of late to be worrying about the Commonwealth being addicted to gambling for revenue. We've been addicted to the Lottery since 1972, for "education" (I assume that means remedial math).

Actually, the lottery is Exhibit 1 in evidence that we get hooked on these regressive revenue sources. We don't need any more of it.