As opponents of expanded gambling in the House warned of social ills and overpromised economic benefits, House leaders on Wednesday urged their colleagues to embrace a bill that would legalize casino and slot parlor gambling in Massachusetts for two reasons: jobs and revenue.
Kicking off the House debate Wednesday afternoon, Rep. Joseph Wagner, a Chicopee Democrat and the House chairman of the Economic Development and Emerging Technologies Committee, told House members that the bill being debated improved upon legislation from last session that narrowly missed becoming law.
“Thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue annually serve as the cornerstone of the legislation before us for debate and consideration today. Thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars at a point in history for this Commonwealth where economic conditions continue to be challenging to say the least,” Wagner said.
Shortly after his comments, Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton) ripped the bill. "This is a race to the bottom," Balser said, arguing casinos don't represent economic development and rather foster the transfer of funds and represent a "predatory business."
Fellow Democrat Rep. Jonathan Hecht (D-Watertown) also urged his colleagues to reject the premise – put forth on Tuesday by House Speaker Robert DeLeo – that expanded gambling represented the state’s best bet to quickly create thousands of new jobs.
Later in the afternoon, Rep. James Lyons (R-Andover) said, “This bill turns our cultural history on its head.” Lyons added, “Do we want to be part of a Legislature that will be known for one thing - the casino gambling Legislature? That will be our legacy. That will be engraved on our monuments.”
Before the House is a bill that would license three regional, resort-style casinos and one competitively bid slot parlor reprising the basic contours of expanded gambling proposals that have consumed countless hours of attention on Beacon Hill over that past three years.
By late afternoon, after more than an hour of opening remarks from both proponents and opponents, the House began dispensing rapidly with handfuls of the 154 amendments members filed to the bill. At the outset, a slew of amendments were rejected without being read aloud. Later in the afternoon, the House took a voice vote to reject an amendment pushed by casino opponents calling for a cost-benefit analysis of the proposal, and also rejected Rep. Carolyn Dykema’s amendment on a 51-101 vote that would have allowed communities within two miles of casino to request impact mitigation funds.
The House did adopt an amendment offered by Rep. Cory Atkins (D-Concord) requiring security personnel to conduct regular checks of parking areas for minors left in motor vehicles and immediately report any such finding to the local police in the municipality where the gaming establishment is located.
Another amendment that won approval was a proposal by Rep. Ann-Margaret Ferrante (D-Gloucester) limits live horse racing applicants to race the same horse breed that races at the existing facility in 2010 to protect Massachusetts breeders.
The debate got off to a rocky start as lawmakers ran into technical problems with the microphones, preventing members from hearing Wagner. After a brief delay, Wagner said the bill - crafted by House and Senate leaders with input this year from Gov. Deval Patrick’s office – improved upon the “good bill” that passed the House last year, in part because of the increase in gambling revenue dedicated to mitigation for communities impacted by casinos, more funding for problem gambling programs and the development of a transportation infrastructure fund that will provide resources for the state’s road and bridge repair program without increasing the gas tax.
Wagner said members should look at the gambling bill, even if they are opposed to gaming as a public policy, as an opportunity to generate resources for other programs and priorities they might have in state government and as just one component of a broader economic development strategy. Wagner said he was not a gambler and “could take it or leave it,” but could not ignore the jobs and revenue that would be created.
“It’s an opportunity for us as a Commonwealth to bring on line a sector of industry that doesn’t exist at present here in Massachusetts and will add the jobs and revenues that are so sorely needed,” Wagner said.
Hecht asked his colleagues to consider a different path forward to create economic development.
Instead of gaming, Hecht called for immediate passage of the Middle Skills Solution Act, which would provide training at community colleges and other jobs centers for workers that lack the skills to fill available jobs, and called for a broad investment in infrastructure to create construction jobs.
“We could do that within months, not years,” Hecht said, referring to time that will be needed before gambling jobs are created. Hecht said the state could pay for the investments by cutting just 2 percent of the $24 billion a year given in tax breaks, generating $500 million for infrastructure and job training.
Rep. Thomas Conroy, a Wayland Democrat who has twice voted against casinos in the past, also spoke out against the bill, warning that casinos were out of character with the type of tourism the state typically attracts. He also said he and his fellow House members would “rue the day” expanded gambling was legalized if it stole money from the Lottery and resulted in a decrease in local aid to cities and towns.
Addressing problem gambling, Wagner said bill opponents who cite gambling addiction ignore the good things the bill does to mitigate addiction, including a new provision that would allow family members to place a problem gambler on a casino exclusion list. The bill that nearly became law last session only allowed the gambler to place himself or herself on such a list.
Rep. Paul Frost, an Auburn Republican and the ranking GOP member on the economic development committee, also lent his support to the bill, calling it a step forward in reviving the economy. Frost said he said he hoped to see the bill strengthened with several amendments, and also addressed criticism from opponents worried about gambling addiction.
“People have a right to make their own choice,” Frost said. “You can’t legislate all that people do in their lives.”
Balser, a Newton Democrat, warned that gambling addiction, particularly to slot machines, would lead to the destruction of families, debt, bankruptcy, foreclosure and suicide among the “poor and vulnerable.”
Balser also questioned the economic benefits of casinos, pointing to studies that suggest casinos devour outside jobs in the local economy, and reports that states where gambling has been expanded, including Connecticut, face some of the most daunting budget challenges in the country.
“Before we leap into this, let’s look at the track record and see what their experience has been. Mr., Speaker, if we look at the experience of other states we will see this is a failed experiment,” Balser said, calling expanded gaming a “race to the bottom.”
Prior to the start of debate, a group of mayors released a letter written to Gov. Deval Patrick, Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Robert DeLeo urging passage of the gaming bill.
“We know that your efforts will bring our Commonwealth sizeable new tax revenues, significant new job creation, and new and profound tourism and hospitality growth,” read the letter, signed by Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, Salem Mayor Kimberly Driscoll, Chelsea Mayor Jay Ash, Revere Mayor Thomas Ambrosino and eight others.
The mayors cited 19,000 workers employed by Connecticut casinos earning, on average, $45,000 a year with benefits helping them to “pay their mortgages or rent, their heating bills, and to feed and clothe their children.”
“The Commonwealth needs the jobs and new revenues that expanded gaming will bring, and needs it now. Our local communities, struggling with state aid cuts and declining local receipts, can’t afford to wait any longer,” the letter stated.
House Minority Leader Brad Jones also confirmed a divide among the House Republicans on expanded gambling.
"I think there are some that have a philosophical or a moral disagreement with the idea of expanded gaming," he said, adding, "I’m not at a comfort level that I said I’m going to vote for this bill."
Jones supported expanded gambling proposals in the past but said he's waiting to see what changes are adopted by his colleagues in the House. He said he hopes for more "specificity" in where gambling revenue is applied.
