For better or worse, we have let the gaming begin
VERY RARELY does a great event occur presenting the opportunity for great leadership. Very rarely is one presented the opportunity to stand up for the poor, stand up for the weak, and stand up against an industry that preys upon the less fortunate. Very rarely is one presented the opportunity to draw the line in the sand and demonstrate great leadership.
The people of Middleborough had such an opportunity and sadly they squandered it. As a result, there's a strong chance that families in Massachusetts will suffer as monies that should go toward basic necessities will be wasted in Middleborough; a sad day for Massachusetts.
JOHN McSHEFFREY
Cohasset
RE: YOUR editorial "Middleborough antes up," July 31. Of course the voters in Middleboro approved a casino in exchange for $11 million per year. What town would refuse that? What I don't understand is how 4,000 municipal voters who don't want to pay higher property taxes get to determine the casino policy for the entire state. And why do Indian tribes have a monopoly on casinos? Gambling is a regressive tax on stupid people and provides no net benefit to the community. Let's hope the other layers of government prevent casinos from being built in Massachusetts.
COLIN FURRER
Hopkinton
WITH THE recent vote of the citizens of Middleborough, it looks like my native state of Massachusetts is ready to expand gambling opportunities to its residents. A casino and its slot machines will be a slick and efficient mechanism for taking money away from the down-and-out and from lonely retired widows on Social Security. Who do you think plays the slots? The rich, successful, and well educated? A great deal of that money will then flow out to wealthy South African investors, lawyers, and insiders. It's discouraging to watch Massachusetts head down this road. It's appalling to read that The Boston Globe officially endorses expanded gambling (editorial, July 26).
KARL AROMAA
Rumford, Maine
IN RESPONSE to Yvonne Abraham's July 8th column regarding the supposed monetary benefits gambling would bring to her child's school system ("You can bet on this" (Page B1, City & Region), I would ask her whether helping to destroy a neighboring child's family is worth the cost.
Since at least 1 percent of the general population are pathological gamblers and another 5 percent are problem gamblers, there is a good chance someone Abraham knows has been adversely affected by a seemingly innocent night out.
My family has suffered directly as a result of pathological gambling. My mother moved our family to this area to escape the destructive environment caused by a family member's gambling. Now, in an ironic twist of fate, gambling has followed us here and she is afraid that our home will be devalued due to the detrimental effects that accompany a casino, such as an influx of traffic, pollution, increased drunken driving, depression, alcoholism, and bankruptcy, to name a few. The people who've voted for the casino have a buffer zone, and the ones directly surrounding the casino are the ones who probably voted nay.
In the end, I believe we'll be paying money to correct social ills caused by gambling that will outweigh any incoming monies. I ask not only Abraham, but also Governor Deval Patrick and our representatives, whether the cost of damaging our environment and lowering the quality of life on the South Shore is worth increased revenues.
MARY LURVEY
Kingston
The writer is a junior at Sacred Heart High School.
THE REASON I am in favor of a casino in the Boston area is that I have been disgusted by seeing all of the gas-guzzling SUVs going from Massachusetts to Foxwoods. We waste so much gasoline as we pollute the environment from Massachusetts to Connecticut and back. Personally, I no longer go to Foxwoods; I have found alternative ways of disposing of any excess income. But I do remember, on several occasions, having to wait while someone selfishly tied up two adjacent slot machines. Talk about an addiction!
GEORG DEYAB
Hingham
AS A registered voter in Middleborough, I was present to express my opinion and cast my vote at the open town meeting. Town meetings allow the melded ideas, opinions, and concerns of the governed to percolate to the surface refined and purified by the combined experiences and collective reason of those who bear the burden of their government. However, when the voices of the people are stifled, when the opportunity to speak is revoked, when parliamentary procedure trumps a previously stated course of events, when the cry of "Call the question" displaces the individual's right to be heard (especially when the call comes from an elected official, the chairwoman for the Board of Selectmen), then democracy suffers a palsy from which it may never recover. I was not allowed to speak at the meeting.
PETER FULLER
Middleborough
KUDOS TO Scott Harshbarger for pointing out that the only winner in casino gambling is the owner of the casino . . . the house ("Casinos -- the new gold rush," op-ed, Aug. 2). Now that both the Wampanoag and Mohegan tribes are interested in developing casinos, I am afraid that the Commonwealth will, as usual, act too late. The state should not allow any private party to operate a casino in Massachusetts. Rather, the state should develop and own two destination/resort casinos. One should be located outside Boston on Route 495 while the other should be outside Springfield on Route 91. These locations would maximize access during both summer and winter months while not burdening already overcrowded urban areas.
Instead of settling for the minor tax revenues paid by a casino or two, the state should go after the 50 percent profit generated by gaming establishments. At least this way when the house wins, as usual, the citizenry of the Commonwealth benefits, too.
JOHN MULCAHY
Blackstone 
