Suffolk Downs Casino?

Thanks, in a world of 7 billion, where there are millions of victims, and millions of perpetrators, one must get macro and prioritize.
IMO a Casino would be sucessful and do more good than harm. If the two in CT (with not much around them) can bring in crowds, how can one with more amenities, attractions, and people near by not? I guess I just like the idea of Boston adding more VIP and high-roller-ness into the mix. And even if it fails, how is that different than a big company going out of business? You would want any other big company to come into town and try to be sucesful. If shit happens then you deal with it then and eventually redevlop. But if Boston really wants to retain the young profesionals we need to be less sleepy and offer even more adult entertainment.
 
I hate when people say its a "tax". It is taxed, like nearly everything, and since it is an activity with more direct negative consequences, it is more heavily taxed. People do it because they enjoy it, people go out to restaurants, theatres, ballgames, and there is a tax, but no one calls Sox tickets a baseball tax. So to me that argument is bogus.

Casinos, i believe like all things, have a place in which they can healthily contribute to a community. Las Vegas, AC have no surrounding economy. Gambling is the only industry. In a infinitely more vibrant, diversified economy, it will just be one of many. As someone that does not gamble (but is going to Vegas shortly) i will go to the casino because of the improved horse racing entertainment acts.

And for the argument that it will take away from other tourist or local businesses, I don't really by it. Does anyone ever say that development on the seaport will take away from downtown, or will it add to it. I think casinos will just be one of many attractions in what is a diverse city to explore.
 
Has anyone been to the casino in Montreal? I'm curious to know how that interacts with or contributes to the urban environment...
 
There's a casino in downtown St. Louis, attached to a Four Seasons hotel. Relatively upscale, and you rarely see too much crime happening around the casino itself. Perhaps that's because St. Louis has far greater crime problems, but who knows? I can tell you one thing, this particular casino does absolutely nothing for the urban environment - this is not to say that a casino can't, though.

Maybe casinos are a bad idea, but would smaller "gambling parlors"
be more acceptable? Perhaps restaurants with poker tables, or sports bars with official bookies? This may or may not inspire back room dealing and grimy gambling, but I think it's an interesting, urban alternative to the casino.
 
We already have Keno parlors, and they are a blight to whatever neighborhood they are located in.
 
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.
 
Some of you people are being retarded; gambling can be urban. Just look at the pachinko parlors in Tokyo and Osaka. They blend in everywhere.
 
choo said:
And for the argument that it will take away from other tourist or local businesses, I don't really by it. Does anyone ever say that development on the seaport will take away from downtown, or will it add to it. I think casinos will just be one of many attractions in what is a diverse city to explore.
Click to expand...

Gambling doesn't create value. compare to a producer, e.g. a manufacturing or software firm. Gambling moves money from one pocket to another; whereas, the producer is creating new value -- money that didn't exist before.

Because gambling doesn't create new money it has to take money from net savings. The people who spend on gambling presumably still pay the rent and buy food, so they must save less.

With less savings piling up in local banks there is less of a need/ability for those banks to make loans to generate earnings. Since banks lend 10X every dollar on hand, the gambler's reduction in savings of, say, $1,000 becomes $10,000 less investment in local business, some of which would be producer businesses.

With less money going to producers there is less new money coming into the state -- the MA balance of trade deteriorates. That deterioration causes its own lowering of savings and therefore further lessening of investment.

I'm not saying the sky will fall if we allow gambling in MA. What I'm saying is that is the wrong direction for the state. It is a path of incremental badness at the margin that only gets worse over time. Why would we want to start down that road just to get a sugar rush of short-term revenue?

You can tell a similar story about gambling's effect on the skills of the workforce and the impact on decision-making at the state level (politics in shorthand), both of which are also negatively effected. And if you'll take my word for it on the workforce skills, you can see that playing in to the investment problem i just talked about since employers will see a lowering of investment at the same time that skilled labor gets incrementally more expensive.

Unless your long-term project is turning Boston into Vegas or Macao, this is not a way to make Boston competitive or prosperous and it won't even make people want to come here for the entertainment value since the competition is too great for Boston to compete on anything more than convenience -- and that would be yet another kind of mediocrity we don't need.

What i'm saying is, gambling is not a small question and it doesn't in the long-run have anything to do with individual preferences. What any of us like or don't like in terms of entertainment or crime is immaterial when placed beside the long-term health of the economy and whether or not our children will be able to stay in MA and get high paying jobs at world-class companies and/or at the local companies that grow up around them.
 
Shepard said:
Has anyone been to the casino in Montreal? I'm curious to know how that interacts with or contributes to the urban environment...
Click to expand...

Often.

It was built as the French pavilion for Expo 67. Architecturally, while interesting in and of itself, the casino adds nothing since it sits on an island on the St. Lawrence and is somewhat remote from the city center. As to the "urban environment", it is an amenity in that many find it to be an attraction.

The casino has a dress code, is maintained to a good standard, and has a "casino within a casino" for those who prefer a smaller crowd.
 
armpitsOFmight said:
Some of you people are being retarded; gambling can be urban. Just look at the pachinko parlors in Tokyo and Osaka. They blend in everywhere.
Click to expand...

Also, the casino in Monte Carlo is urban and urbane as these things go, and there are also plenty of private gambling clubs in London.

Regrettably, crude local politicians will retail casino licenses to their chums, who will set up Kmart style operations.
 
The Canadian provinces of Ontario and, in particular, Qu?bec are models of how casinos can be run. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation runs a few casinos throughout the province, however they have opted to put the casinos away from the larger urban areas, but do operate slot parlours at racetracks and the like in places like suburban Toronto and Ottawa. Furthermore, the OLG licenses casinos elsewhere, like those in Niagara Falls and Windsor.

Loto-Qu?bec, on the other hand, has created destinations in places like the Charlevoix, Lac-Leamy (Gatineau/Ottawa) and Mont-Tremblant, in addtion to the Casino de Montr?al. These locations feature excellent hotels and are located in areas with other activities - Lac-Leamy located in the National Capital Region; the Charlevoix region is a well-known getaway region for Qu?b?cois and used to be the haunting grounds of the American aristocracy, like the Roosevelts; Mont-Tremblant is known for its ski resort and the base village with lots of restaurants and other activities.

Furthermore, the casinos in both Ontario and Qu?bec are run by the provincial lottery agencies so any profits are then put back into social services and local funding as well as funding gambling addiction programs. Furthermore, the casinos strive to be good neighbours, funding many community programs in the regions where they are located.

As state-run organizations, you also eliminate much of the associated crime that can associate gambling.

I'm pretty neutral on the idea of casinos in Massachusetts. I can see the pros and cons. Just trying to illustrate that there are some options that exist that can minimize some of the social stigmas that can be associated with legalized gambling.
 
So, does anyone know for sure, what does this mean for the Indian reservation casinos? If they can get federal recognition, they can still build, right? In addition to any state-authorized casinos.
 
singbat said:
Gambling doesn't create value. compare to a producer, e.g. a manufacturing or software firm. Gambling moves money from one pocket to another; whereas, the producer is creating new value -- money that didn't exist before.

Because gambling doesn't create new money it has to take money from net savings. The people who spend on gambling presumably still pay the rent and buy food, so they must save less.

With less savings piling up in local banks there is less of a need/ability for those banks to make loans to generate earnings. Since banks lend 10X every dollar on hand, the gambler's reduction in savings of, say, $1,000 becomes $10,000 less investment in local business, some of which would be producer businesses.
Click to expand...

These types of argument make me angry, because they center on issues that are only brought up in the issue of gambling. "Gambling does not produce money."- this is absolutely correct. It is a form of entertainment, and it must be budgeted by each individual like every other form of entertainment. When a new restaurant or retail store opens up and sells shirts made in malaysia, is it creating wealth here? When you go bowling, or to the movies, do you create wealth from a producer? No, you pay for entertainment and the services done by the staff on site (i.e. local jobs) that these people invest in an economy.

Yes, gambling takes money from people that freely hand it over, just like people a restaurant does. People will always find ways to throw away their money and get in debt. I would be willing to bet more people do it buying clothes they can't afford than gambling money they dont have.
 
choo said:
These types of argument make me angry, because they center on issues that are only brought up in the issue of gambling. "Gambling does not produce money."- this is absolutely correct. It is a form of entertainment, and it must be budgeted by each individual like every other form of entertainment. When a new restaurant or retail store opens up and sells shirts made in malaysia, is it creating wealth here? When you go bowling, or to the movies, do you create wealth from a producer? No, you pay for entertainment and the services done by the staff on site (i.e. local jobs) that these people invest in an economy.

Yes, gambling takes money from people that freely hand it over, just like people a restaurant does. People will always find ways to throw away their money and get in debt. I would be willing to bet more people do it buying clothes they can't afford than gambling money they dont have.
Click to expand...

Just keep in mind, I'm arguing that gambling is a counter-productive way to address the need for state revenues and economic growth.

I'm definitely not suggesting that we need regulatory change in favor or against clothing stores or restaurants! I would not vote to in some way expand the number of restaurants per capita, for instance.

Also keep in mind that one of the reasons we, in general, don't worry about importing clothing is that as a polity we don't see textiles as the future of the US economy. Vis-a-vis foreign markets, the US has advanced to compete in high tech products, high tech manufactures, high-value added services and capital-intensive commodities.

I'm not sure we want to re-orient that trajectory to include more roulette tables in what we see as our future competitive advantage... would be a shame for the most competitive economy in the nation with the highest venture capital and patents per capita to aim so low!
 
This is the last casino I went to. I dont see any blight.

IMG_4695.jpg
 
singbat said:
I'm not sure we want to re-orient that trajectory to include more roulette tables in what we see as our future competitive advantage... would be a shame for the most competitive economy in the nation with the highest venture capital and patents per capita to aim so low!
Click to expand...

I think our disagreement is one of scope. I don't advocate turning massachusetts into las vegas. I don't think 2 casinos will have this affect. Two casinos does not mean that the state will no longer invest in its public education, or work to enhance and promote the next big biotech or energy or financial or whatever innovative business to come out of one of our many world renowned universities. I don't believe in ten years we will have a state of degenerate gamblers and a bunch of empty office towers (at least not because of black jack at suffolk downs.) I believe that working people who do not have the advanced degree to win millions from one of the many venture capital firms in the state will have the opportunity at a good paying job providing an entertaining service for other residents who currently drive to the woods in connecticut for such things.
 
choo said:
I think our disagreement is one of scope. I don't advocate turning massachusetts into las vegas. I don't think 2 casinos will have this affect. Two casinos does not mean that the state will no longer invest in its public education, or work to enhance and promote the next big biotech or energy or financial or whatever innovative business to come out of one of our many world renowned universities. I don't believe in ten years we will have a state of degenerate gamblers and a bunch of empty office towers (at least not because of black jack at suffolk downs.) I believe that working people who do not have the advanced degree to win millions from one of the many venture capital firms in the state will have the opportunity at a good paying job providing an entertaining service for other residents who currently drive to the woods in connecticut for such things.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. In a way I'm not arguing w/you so much as ticked off that the Commonwealth doesn't (maybe also) do something more to push the competitiveness envelope as part of the reaction to crisis.

Last time we got good and hurt we hired Michael Porter to tell us which way was up -- this time we seem to be pretty damn certain that economic salvation has something to do w/betting.

What genius told us that?
 
Look, at the very least, the establishment of some legal casino gambling in Massachusetts will help to stem the flow of local money to Connecticut, AC, and LV. It might also stimulate spending from out-of-staters (from ME, NH, etc.) who would find it more convenient then travelling to the other gambling destinations.
 
Probably already been said...build the casino near the new convention center as part of a an entertainment district with later closing hours for clubs and bring in money from out of star conventioneers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top