Suffolk Downs Casino?

Is "wealth redistribution" a taboo word (phrase) now, the same way "socialism" is?

Ant, by your argument, any form of entertainment is essentially "redistribution of wealth."
 
JohnAKeith said:
Interesting way of thinking of this:

The state won't collect 25 percent of money gambled at the casinos in taxes, it will collect 25 percent of the money LOST by people gambling.

How can anyone in good conscience support this?
Click to expand...

once again, scratch tickets, lotto numbers keno, horse racing = ok

casino gambling = bad


I just don't get it and I think my "beer/wine ok, hard liquor = not ok" analogy from earlier in the thread is on point.
 
^^ Or even just the sale of alcohol. There is not a doubt in my mind that alcohol is more detrimental to society than gambling.
 
BosDevelop said:
once again, scratch tickets, lotto numbers keno, horse racing = ok

casino gambling = bad


I just don't get it and I think my "beer/wine ok, hard liquor = not ok" analogy from earlier in the thread is on point.
Click to expand...

There are many, many alcoholics who drink only beer. Not many gambling addicts only play the lottery. Or rather, if you want to call lottery players addicts, they are still only losing a few dollars a day in most cases, little more than a coffee addiction. It is not uncommon for a person to lose all he has in a casino.

This is all fine if you're a social Darwinist, I suppose, but that doesn't address the fact that virtually all urban casino's are surrounded by pretty heavily blighted areas. Does anyone want that?
 
GW2500 said:
The safest part of Detroit is it's casino. But kind of like Kennedy said since the rest of the city is basically 3rd world it's tough to gauge.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that most cities with casinos (at least in the U.S.) are Detroit/St. Louis type cities. That is to say, severely distressed, desperately seeking a silver bullet. I don't much like the idea of Boston joining that crowd. That said, the idea of a glamorous, high end casino is nevertheless appealing.
 
Instead of looking at Atlantic City look at Camden NJ, I'd say inarguably worse and no casino (to my knowledge). I think the real cause of urban blight is lack of good education, transportation, jobs, and safety. If those issues are addressed then I don't see how a casino, which will create a lot of jobs, will single-handedly cause blight.

edit: It's pretty obvious I'm pro casino, but that assumes we build a gem.
 
Justin7 said:
There are many, many alcoholics who drink only beer. Not many gambling addicts only play the lottery. Or rather, if you want to call lottery players addicts, they are still only losing a few dollars a day in most cases, little more than a coffee addiction. It is not uncommon for a person to lose all he has in a casino.
Click to expand...

Once again, I urge you to spend just 10-20 minutes in a convenient store that sells scratch tickets in a low income area (better yet, a keno parlor). You are kidding yourself if you think those vices are not just as, if not more, detrimental than 2 casinos located in this state. Think about how easy it is to walk into a store on every corner in every town and drop a bunch of cash on what has now become scratch tickets as much as $10 a pop. Even downtown I see people who cannot afford these things throw down $50-$60 at a time. Are these same people really going to get in their car and drive to a casino every single time they get the urge to gamble? Well, guess what they can do that now if they want. Twin River and it's slots are 45 min from Boston and far less from the south shore.
 
BosDevelop said:
Once again, I urge you to spend just 10-20 minutes in a convenient store that sells scratch tickets in a low income area (better yet, a keno parlor). You are kidding yourself if you think those vices are not just as, if not more, detrimental than 2 casinos located in this state. Think about how easy it is to walk into a store on every corner in every town and drop a bunch of cash on what has now become scratch tickets as much as $10 a pop. Even downtown I see people who cannot afford these things throw down $50-$60 at a time. Are these same people really going to get in their car and drive to a casino every single time they get the urge to gamble? Well, guess what they can do that now if they want. Twin River and it's slots are 45 min from Boston and far less from the south shore.
Click to expand...

HOWEVER, by building a casino, it adds onto the effect. If you say that scratch tickets are as detrimental as you say, adding 2 casinos will make it worse will it not?
 
KentXie said:
HOWEVER, by building a casino, it adds onto the effect. If you say that scratch tickets are as detrimental as you say, adding 2 casinos will make it worse will it not?
Click to expand...

Not at all for the reasons I have already posted:

1) You can already hit a casino within 45 min of the Boston area for slot machines (Twin River)

2) You can already hit two mega casinos within 90 min of the Boston area for table games (Moheegan and Foxwoods)

3) You can already wager away your life savings without ever leaving your couch (internet gambling)

4) You can already gamble away your disposable income on virtually every street corner in the state (lotto, scratch tickets keno)

5) You can already wager all of your money on horses (Suffolk and other New England tracks)

My point is that folks who are addicted to gambling already have all of these options at their disposal. Adding two destination style casinos in two different locations in the state won't change the fact that Massachusetts gamblers have any number of ways to lose their money even from the comfort of their own home. I could appreciate the anti-casino argument a bit better if we didn't have all of the 5 options above for blowing your money. Are that many more people going to head to casinos because it's a 20-30 min drive as opposed to a drive that is 15-20 min longer? I don't see it. Gamblers will gamble no matter what the method or no matter the effort. Adding two casinos won't change that.
 
BosDevelop said:
Not at all for the reasons I have already posted:

1) You can already hit a casino within 45 min of the Boston area for slot machines (Twin River)

2) You can already hit two mega casinos within 90 min of the Boston area for table games (Moheegan and Foxwoods)

3) You can already wager away your life savings without ever leaving your couch (internet gambling)

4) You can already gamble away your disposable income on virtually every street corner in the state (lotto, scratch tickets keno)

5) You can already wager all of your money on horses (Suffolk and other New England tracks)
Click to expand...

And that's just the legal stuff. When you add in the bookies and underground card games, you can blow a week's pay within a five minute walk of any residence in Suffolk County.
 
GW2500 said:
Some of that money collected goes to pay for workers paychecks. It allows individuals make a living. With their paychecks they can pay rent, buy groceries, contribute to their local economy. That is not economic nothingness, it lets people support themselves, thats a good thing. And if anything I'd say it is more of rich giving there money away, not the poor.
Click to expand...

GW2500 that doesn't work in the context of a policy debate.

The jobs created by a casino reflect the value the casino operation adds to its transactions. it takes what to run a table? Not much -- some amount of presentation skill and knowledge of the table. That doesn't support a lot of follow-on lower skill jobs. And it doesn't lead to better things for most of the folks on the table -- they aren't all going to run the floor and that's about as good as it gets even for the few.

By contrast look at another piece of policy in the news: the Cape Wind project. What does it take to design, manufacture, install and maintain the electric infrastructure and deep water installations required? It takes a lot -- and hugely more than running a table at the brightest, blingyest casino in the world, let alone a pale shadow of that in MA.

The jobs that are likely to be created by that regulatory investment are also vastly more variegated and therefore more likely to support a complex web of economic activity in support of the actual project itself -- meaning the Cape Wind work pulls through more high quality opportunity at a variety of levels of skill. And I think that's what you are looking for.

We need more policy that delivers high value jobs -- not just more jobs of whatever quality happens along. Casinos as a jobs program is a shortcut that actually weakens the economy rather than strengthens it. It's a sugar high, at best. At worst, it's coke.
 
So how about we allow Cape Wind and the casinos?
 
singbat said:
Casinos as a jobs program is a shortcut that actually weakens the economy rather than strengthens it. It's a sugar high, at best. At worst, it's coke.
Click to expand...

This is true, but it shouldn't be about jobs.

Who goes to Foxwoods and Mohegan? Some gambling addicts, sure. Certainly some people are going who should have stopped pulling the lever years or decades ago. But there are many more of another type of person: the vacationer, the elderly looking to be entertained, the college-aged poker whiz, the bachelor party...

Casinos are a forum wherein people are entertained. Some are addicted, but many more are looking for a a bit of entertainment and see however many dollars of losses as the cost of that entertainment. Casinos have much more entertainment value than lottery tickets or scratch tickets, or keno or dog racing. Will it create great jobs? No. But will it add to the total entertainment mix present in this city in a positive way? Yes. And what's the result? Fewer hotel vacancies, busier restaurants, larger tourist crowds, less braindrain to more "exciting" places like New York.
 
Yep, I'm with Kennedy, lets have both. And I don't understand how sustained employment is bad for economics. If thats the case, then every hotel (housekeeping) restuarant (most of its staff) and grocery store (again most of it's staff) have dead end jobs and are bad for the economy. It's not like the people who take these type of jobs would otherwise be taking high end jobs. No the reality of it is that there will allways be a poor side of town, and not everyone can get awsome jobs. We can't all go to school until we're 27 invest 400K in education and become rocket scientists and ceo's. This will get more people off unemployment and working. Can't see the bad in that.

I don't think that the jobs this will add will make Mass substaintially better, I just think it will help out a little bit. The main aspect I like about a couple of casinos is the entertainment it will bring.
 
Shepard said:
Will it create great jobs? No.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends what you consider "great." There are millions of Americans that would consider a $40,000+ a year (and benefits) job in a casino a great job.

Don't forget we are also talking about a hotel component here. There will need to be management positions within the hotel of course as well as simpler jobs such as housekeeping. These are all jobs that are very important as not every single Massachusetts resident has a graduate degree and is expecting a six figure salary. There are many people that do consider jobs within the hospitality industry as "great" jobs. Hell, even ivy league colleges offer degrees in hotel management. I understand we aren't talking about thousands of high paid management positions with two casinos here but as I said, there needs to be a balance and not everyone is qualified for management positions. That is just the way things will always be.
 
Just to clarify, I don't thumb my nose at those type of jobs and know plenty of people who would like one. What I probably should have said was that it won't by itself create the quality or the volume of jobs needed to improve our economy. But the rest of my comment was saying that, jobs factor aside, it could boost the economic landscape in other ways.
 
But, of course! This should surprise no one.

Two Indian tribes in Massachusetts are still pushing to get federal recognition so they can build their own. So, we'll have ANOTHER two casinos, possibly more.

DeLeo opening casino door to tribes
By Paul McMorrow, The Boston Globe
May 10, 2010

ROBERT DeLEO wants to bring legalized gambling to Massachusetts. He wants two casinos and slots at four racing tracks, and right now, it looks like he?s going to get his wish.

And, potentially, a lot more. In DeLeo?s rush to appease the building trades and carve out some action for the two racetracks in his district, the speaker of the House is setting the table for a gambling expansion in Massachusetts that has the potential to be far broader than anything he?s pitching. He?s opening the door to new gambling halls on Martha?s Vineyard and the Cape, in Middleborough and Fall River. It?s also something neither he, nor anyone else on Beacon Hill, can control.

Forget, for a second, all the reasons we know we should worry about legalized gambling ? its regressive nature, the way it cannibalizes money that would otherwise be spent at local businesses, the negligible benefits it offers strained government budgets, the staggering social and regulatory costs. None of that has swayed DeLeo, or anybody else on Beacon Hill whose opinion actually matters these days. Two years ago, the Legislature was debating whether to legalize casinos at all; now the body is just wondering how many to greenlight.

The Mashpee Wampanoag and the Aquinnah, the state?s two federally recognized Native American tribes, have each expressed serious interest in owning a gleaming gambling hall. They haven?t been able to follow through on those urges because, legally, they can?t.

The tribes are sovereign, but they?re only allowed to set up a gambling shop at the highest level of gaming that?s legal in their home state. Right now, they could peddle scratch tickets, or maybe hop into the high-stakes bingo game. There?s no serious money in either pursuit. That changes the moment the governor signs a casino bill into law this summer. Each will be freed to set up gaming operations on their tribal land, on the Cape and Martha?s Vineyard. And the state wouldn?t be able to touch a dime of whatever rolls in.

There is a bit of fine print to tackle first. A Supreme Court decision has stalled the Mashpee Wampanoag effort to take land into federal trust, establishing a sovereign homeland. Still, anyone who thinks Congress will not eventually override the decision is wholly unfamiliar with Congress and with money; money and Congress, though, are by no means strangers.

Clearly, state-backed gambling enterprises will get rolling before any potential tribal enterprises. These things have life cycles of years, not months, though. The Mashpee Wampanoag fought for decades for federal recognition. In that context, the difference between a groundbreaking in 2010 and 2015 isn?t necessarily a deal-breaker. And anyone who thinks the gaming interests that form partnerships with tribes are afraid of competition should take a drive up the California coast, where every exit seems to feature a gambling outpost.

The speaker, who has assumed a leadership role in pushing gambling in the Commonwealth, is fond of quoting figures. He says he knows how many jobs will materialize, and how much cash will flow to cities and towns. His guys have it all figured out. Except that they don?t. They have no idea how many gaming operations the state will eventually wind up hosting. These things can change quickly. And they?re completely beyond Beacon Hill?s reach. Until 2007, the Mashpee Wampanoag weren?t a federally recognized tribe; months later, they had financial backers, and were talking about gobbling up more than 500 acres in Middleborough.

The Legislature hasn?t appeared to be preoccupied with asking questions about the ramifications of votes it takes. DeLeo, in particular, has been steering the effort to broaden gambling?s reach and install 3,000 slot machines at the state?s four racetracks (only two of which still feature actual racing, but let?s not nitpick).

Two of those four ? Suffolk Downs and Wonderland ? lie in the speaker?s district. Suffolk essentially controls Wonderland, a greyhound track rotten with debt; DeLeo?s version of the gambling legislation would hand Suffolk?s politically wired ownership half of the state?s slots market, giving it a virtual lock on one of the two full casino licenses the state will be selling off. That?s the point, really.

DeLeo rose to his post at Sal DiMasi?s right hand. DeLeo was responsible for divvying up the state budget?s spoils ? a process that has long rewarded leadership?s allies, and delivered punishing blows to political enemies. His path into DiMasi?s old office was cleared with budgetary earmarks.

The casino debate shows DeLeo still playing the part of the two-bit committee chairman. DeLeo has yet to fully grasp that the speaker?s office is a statewide position. Here he is, about to dramatically reshape the state?s economic landscape, and he?s obsessing over his district, his neighborhood guys, the tracks he grew up visiting. From the beginning, he has been out to get a piece of the action for his two tracks. And now he?s on the cusp. Once he opens that door, though, he should watch out ? that?s when things get interesting.

Paul McMorrow is a staff writer for Banker & Tradesman.
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...eleo_opening_casino_door_to_tribes/?page=full
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top