Casinos -- the new gold rush
Say it ain't so. The Boston Globe has endorsed casino expansion, giving state leaders who have remained silent a free pass on this failed business/economic development strategy. As with prior casino proposals in Massachusetts, the Middleborough proposal is all about money, special interests, and politics. State Treasurer Tim Cahill, who has been through the "gold rush" lobbying before, is one of the few who has stood tall.
The devil is in the details, and the Middleborough proposal has few details on how it would be executed. This is an invitation to casino owners to feast on gambling profits, with few checks and balances. The gold rush has just begun. The only winners in this game are the casino owners. Is Massachusetts and its leadership ready -- or have we already compromised?
What's the rush? Why are we trying to resolve in just a couple of months a complex, multi-year, billion-dollar deal proposed by a major international financier? The details of the project are not defined; there is no guarantee that the contract will be either binding or legal in Massachusetts and no indication that any agreement will be approved in Massachusetts. With little outcry from public and civic leaders, many feel that the wheels are greased, the financial interests are aligned, and the casinos are on their way. If there is one thing to be learned from other states, it's that you can't just have one casino. If this casino proceeds, it won't just be Middleborough; it will be other cities and towns. Those with alleged fiscal problems will reach out to the Native American tribes, the Legislature, and the governor asking that casinos be allowed to be their "solution." This is Fool's Gold -- a classic example of the consumer warning "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." When I was attorney general and president of Common Cause, I raised questions for years about expanding gambling to include casinos in Massachusetts. Until now, I believed that the forces of reason, of those who insist upon information, disclosure, transparency, meaningful economic development, sound fiscal and public policy, and values would prevail in Massachusetts.
What is the reason for the change now? Each time we have new leaders in state government, the casino forces try to pounce. The "need" is a fiction created by casino backers to make billions and establish their Beacon Hill presence. The forces of money and special interest are all on one side here; promises are being made about jobs, tax relief, and development, yet many disturbing issues have not been addressed.
Who is looking out for the public interest? Casino owners will make immense profits and make in two days roughly what they promise to pay Middleborough in one year.
Casino gambling is qualitatively different from the lottery and other gambling forms. In other major casino states, such as New Jersey and Nevada, sophisticated regulations are in place to deal with issues related to casinos -- appropriate laws, significant prosecutorial tools, background investigations, as well as programs to ensure fair games, legitimate profits, and avoid corruption and personal and corporate bankruptcies. None of that has been addressed in Massachusetts.
Even economists who tend to report favorably about casino gambling, acknowledge the "cannibalization" of local businesses near a casino. What about other social costs? According to the National Council on Problem Gambling, 2 percent to 3 percent of Americans have gambling problems. Why is no one asked about the problem or how to prevent it? Who would pay for those social costs?
What about economic impact? Will a casino in Middleborough really take away much business from Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun? Is there a saturation point past which each new gambling venue simply weakens a rival venue?Where is the independent review and objective analysis?
What if the optimistic projections don't come to pass? What if Middleborough doesn't become a destination resort? What will be the impact if New Bedford has a casino and race tracks have slot machines? Who's analyzing this?
This decision should be made based on a full and reasoned debate. Let the legislature debate; let the people weigh in. Let's learn about all the issues surrounding casinos. From my own experience, independent observers who have reviewed this for the past seventeen years, especially former Representative Dan Bosley, have concluded that expanded gambling with casinos is a "bad bet" for Massachusetts. Finally, every state that has consumed the casino Kool-aid still has tax problems, education funding issues, economic development issues. In other words, promises are made, but promises are cheap, and often not kept. The only sure bet is that investors in casinos will make huge profits, and the state will get a slice, but we'll all bear huge social costs. .
Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger is senior counsel at Proskauer Rose LLP. 
