GOVERNOR Patrick wants to see three resort casinos built in Massachusetts, but he hurts his own cause by making hyperbolic claims about the potential job benefits. Unvarnished information should be sufficient to make the case, if faithfully presented by the administration and carefully considered by the Legislature - beginning with a hearing of the joint economic development committee on March 18.
In a Globe report on Sunday, several analysts contradicted Patrick's claim that his casino plan would create 30,000 construction jobs. One macroeconomics expert placed the figure at 4,000 to 5,000 new construction jobs over a three-year building period. Job estimates by another economist reached as high as 20,700. There are many variables at play, not the least of which is the size of a resort. But based on typical labor costs for modern casino projects, which usually range from 27 to 33 percent of their construction budgets, it's hard to see how job creation could possibly climb to 30,000.
There is no need for Patrick to oversell casinos. They offer a chance to recapture millions of dollars now spent by Massachusetts residents in Connecticut casinos. Cards must be dealt. Meals must be served. Security must be enforced. And there is no arguing with the fact that resort casinos are a labor-intensive industry. Benefits also extend to the rest of the state. Taxes on gross gambling receipts in Massachusetts could be used for property tax relief, health, education, or other state needs. Though Patrick's job and revenue figures may be open to challenge, his basic premise is sound: passage of a casino bill opens a new economic development front in Massachusetts.
For their part, casino critics offer a game of "gotcha," a diversion that doesn't create a single job or dollar in tax relief.
Within two weeks, a report commissioned by the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce should shed more light not only on job figures but on other areas in dispute, including Patrick's estimate that the state could realize $400 million in annual revenue from three resort casinos. Critics, including the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, contend that the state would be lucky to pocket half that amount. Legislators, many of whom are undecided on casinos, will be looking for dispassionate information. The chamber's report could fill that role, coming as it does from an organization whose membership is itself split on the benefits of casino gambling.
There is no precise mathematical formula to resolve the debate over casino gambling. There are social costs, such as gambling addiction, to weigh against the economic development and revenue gains. Patrick's excessive job claim makes his sales job harder. But it doesn't diminish the overall soundness of his proposal.
rising
falling 