34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - (508) 222-7000
News
Gambling plan supported by city candidates
Top Headlines The House has overwhelmingly voted against a plan by Gov. Deval Patrick to allow three casinos in the state, but the local candidates said Massachusetts is missing out on money being spent in Rhode Island and Connecticut. Democrats Kate Jackson and William Bowles and Republican George Ross said they would like some of that gambling money to stay in Massachusetts to create jobs and tax revenue for cities and towns. Bowles and Ross - both city councilors - said they also support allowing slot machines at race tracks such as Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville. Jackson, a former city councilor, said she has doubts about the slot machine idea because she questions whether it would create many jobs. "But casinos, I'm all for them," she said, although she added she is not sure the state needs three casinos, as Patrick proposed. She said with cities and towns having financial problems, the added tax revenue from a casino or two would be a help. Jackson, like Bowles and Ross, said Massachusetts residents are driving to gambling venues in Rhode Island and Connecticut to spend their money because they cannot gamble here. Bowles, who will oppose Jackson in a September primary, said he was disappointed that the Legislature cut off a debate on casinos so soon without fully exploring the issue, and the matter should be reconsidered. He said he would put three conditions on support for casinos: The state lottery must be protected against a loss of revenue because the lottery funds city and town governments, communities that become home to casinos have to be compensated for additional services and programs have to be expanded to handle any health or social problems that result from gambling. Bowles said slot machines at tracks is probably the fastest way to increase revenue to cities and towns. Ross, who will square off against the winner of the Jackson-Bowles primary, said he occasionally gambles in Rhode Island and Connecticut, and sees nothing wrong with it. "I think we're missing the boat without slots or casinos," he said. He said one way to proceed may be to allow slot machines at the race tracks and see how that does before approving casinos. Although the House firmly rejected casinos, Speaker Sal DiMasi has said he is open to holding a non-binding referendum on the issue and reconsidering it in the Legislature next year. Some lawmakers, such as Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, have said they believe casinos would be approved if their tax revenue was earmarked for cities and towns, rather than the state. Jackson, Bowles and Ross are running for the seat being vacated by Rep. John Lepper, R-Attleboro. JIM HAND covers politics for The Sun Chronicle. He can be reached at 508-236-0399 or at jhand@thesunchronicle.com.
Post Your Comments NedBT wrote on Jun 15, 2008 10:38 PM: " I find it Jackson who is clueless. You can't licence casinos wihout opening it up to slots. If you allow one, under the law it opens up both. It boils down to the number of licences the state is going to issue for gaming. Jackson appears to favor gambling but only for a select few and not existing businesses. Makes me wonder who is donating to her campaign. I want my State Rep to be more than a High School drop out. I want someone who can think an issue through and give it serious debate. Kate, stick to the table dancing, just don't break another arm. " sduplessie wrote on Jun 15, 2008 7:16 PM: " It's unfortunate that none of the three candidates for State Representative actually represent those Attleboro voters who think more gambling in Massachusetts is a bad idea. True, it is politically expedient to agree on this one - agreeing effectively takes the issue off the table for debate. But no one will speak against the chaos and expense that expanded gambling brings to our community, to individuals and to families. Gambling supporters like to say that gambling will increase income to the community. But did you know that if only 2% of gamblers become addicted, thats $280 to $440 per year paid by every other citizen! Supporters like to say that casions bring new jobs to the economy. Did you know that most casinos attract 80% or more of their market from a 35-50 mile radius? That means that casinos absorb the existing dollars that would have been spent at other entertainment, restaurant and hotel businesses. That destroys other jobs in the trade area and eliminates their sales, employment and property tax contributions. Supporters like to say that gambling is just harmless recreation. Did you know that the most recent study of all the casino counties in the nation confirmed personal bankruptcy rates are 100% higher in counties with casinos than in counties without casinos? Casinos are bad for taxpayers, bad for jobs, bad for communities and bad for families. " BillB wrote on Jun 15, 2008 6:37 PM: " One of the cornerstones of business is fair competition. To liscense one or more resort casinos, while saying to the four existing race tracks you cannot compete in the same business is blanantly unfair. New businesses should not be created to drive existing operations out of business. That being said, liscensing the racetracks has some advantages. We will begin generating revenue to the state within a few months, when it is badly needed. For thoses that say it will not create jobs, I wonder about the rationale. Workers will be required to set up the operation, and workers will be required for ongoing operations. The revenue does't just just pop out of the slot machine in an automated fashion. I favor a discussion of the merits of building casinos, as well as liscensing slots as part of comprehensive decision on whether to enter this field as a state. Bill Bowles " mrdandy wrote on Jun 15, 2008 10:26 AM: " Well, at least one of the three candidates for state rep "gets it!" Resort casinos (like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun) are so much better than slot parlors (like Twin River) because they not only create tax revenues, but thousands of jobs and position regions of the state year-round as tourism destinations. So wile Kate Jackson gets it, it's clear Bill Bowles and George Ross haven't a clue --- and the last thing I want to do is send another legislator to Beacon Hill to join the Sal DiMasi-Dan Bosley "We haven't got a clue" Club. Also, I'd like to see all three candidates asked if they will vote for Speaker DiMasi as speaker if they're elected. Because as much as I believe Jackson understands the value of resort casinos over slot parlors, I'm not voting for anyone who says that they'll vote for DiMasi as speaker. It makes no sense to send a pro-casino legislator to Beacon Hill if they're going to vote to elect an anti-casino speaker. I want from each state rep candidate a definitive "I will not vote for Sal DiMasi as speaker under any circumstances." That's the tie-breaker for my vote!!! " or
|
