Casinos reconsidered

FOR MONTHS, state officials have been poring over studies on casino gambling, in anticipation of yesterday's briefing for Governor Patrick. Between now and Labor Day, the governor will be wading through material on regulatory issues, gross tax revenues, and potential economic impacts from pathological gambling, to name just a few factors. It's not clear where he will land on the question of expanded gambling. One thing, however, is clear: Thousands of Massachusetts residents will be heading for Connecticut casinos while he ponders the issue.

The evident demand for casino gambling in this state coincides with calls for more state aid to support education, public safety, and public works in the state's 351 cities and towns. One obvious solution would be the creation of an attractive destination casino like Foxwoods, or perhaps more than one, where the taxpayers get cut in for a significant piece of the action.

A way to stop the bleeding
This page has opposed proposals for casinos in Massachusetts in the past. We sounded alarms about casino operators who muscle state officials for tax breaks while undermining local businesses and draining cash from players who risk more than they could afford to lose. Indeed, as casinos have proliferated nationwide, the results for a small number of problem gamblers have been financially disastrous. Still, for most adults, casino gambling is entertainment and nothing more; millions of Americans have voted with their feet for the notion that casinos are an acceptable, even desirable part of the US leisure industry.

As public attitudes and the state's needs have evolved, so has this page's view of casinos. The Patrick administration and the Legislature should make way for casino gambling here as a way to recapture and redirect money that could be used to improve the quality of life in Massachusetts.

Last year, Bay State residents spent upward of $800 million at the Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun casinos, according to the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. More noteworthy, over $100 million of that amount went directly into the Connecticut treasury. Bay Staters also took a shine to the Lincoln Park and Newport Grand slots parlors in Rhode Island, spending nearly $180 million at those two venues in 2006. And entertainment dollars are not only flowing out of Massachusetts but through it. New Hampshire and Maine residents spent about $100 million last year at the Connecticut casinos. While one might quibble with those figures, the huge flow of money into Connecticut's coffers is undeniable.

How much might casinos mean for Massachusetts? A 2002 study prepared for former acting governor Jane Swift cites figures of $135 million to $450 million in annual added revenue before the market is saturated. Others have higher estimates. But the state's take would depend on the nature and number of gambling venues.

To be sure, not every gambling proposal is worth pursuing. We continue to be skeptical of so-called racinos. In these venues, which are likely to attract less affluent gamblers, slot machines are shoehorned into racetrack facilities -- and communities -- that were not designed for them. But a well-crafted plan that grants exclusive rights to a limited number of destination casinos in exchange for a percentage of the take should work here as well or better than in Connecticut.

Some legislators fear that casinos could cannibalize the state Lottery, which provided $951 million in direct aid to cities and towns in 2006. If casinos are generating hundreds of millions of dollars each year for the same purpose, however, then no one should be too worried about what state Treasurer Tim Cahill predicts will be a 3 to 8 percent drop in Lottery revenues over five years.

Neither Patrick nor the Legislature should ignore the potential for new jobs, either. A destination casino like Foxwoods employs about 10,000 people. They aren't the kinds of biotechnology jobs that the Patrick administration wants to see. But they are the kinds of jobs that people with limited educations can perform well, with benefits and hopes for advancement.

The strongest rationale, however, remains the need for a consistent level of support for cities and towns. State aid has been eroding for years, forcing municipalities to raise property taxes. Still, they can't keep pace, as evidenced by escalating school fees, teacher layoff notices, and cutbacks in library hours.

There are other ways to increase local aid or put more money in the hands of municipalities, including local option taxes on meals, closing corporate tax loopholes, and Proposition 2 1/2 overrides. But the Legislature and the public have balked at such solutions.

Casino revenues would provide an acceptable alternative to other revenues -- as long as the state addresses the potential downside in a straightforward manner. This means that state public-health agencies need to have a plan to minimize and treat gambling-related pathologies. It also means Massachusetts residents need to be vigilant, for casino licensing has been the source of political scandals elsewhere in the country. Yet, intangible concerns such as these are being addressed intelligently in some of the 37 states that now allow casino gambling.

Another intangible -- quality of life -- will weigh heavily upon residents of Middleborough, who are expected to vote Saturday on a proposed pact that would pay the town at least $11 million a year to host an Indian casino. Residents of Middleborough, like every other community, deserve their say in whether a gambling venue should be built there. The question that only they can answer is, are the financial incentives offered by a $1 billion casino worth more traffic and other changes to the town's character?

If town residents green-light the project, it would still require an exemption to the state ban on slot machines and federal approval to convert the land into a reservation for the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe. Even so, the proposal increases the pressure on the Patrick administration: How many casinos would be optimal? Indian or commercial? Where? What rate of taxation?

The first question Patrick and legislators need to answer, though, is whether to head in this direction at all. We believe they should. Casino gambling is not the ideal way to increase state revenues, but it is a proven winner in that field.