Speaker: no hearing before casino debate

By Taryn Plumb
Turley Publications Reporter

STURBRIDGE – Now it begins. After many long months of anticipation, state legislators will get down to debating a bill that could bring casinos and slot machines to Massachusetts.
And, as the issue once again accelerates, local supporters and opponents remain firmly entrenched on two sides of a very wide chasm.
“There's nothing else coming to Palmer, that's the main trouble,” said David Whitney, co-chairman of the Pioneer Valley Jobs Coalition, which is pushing for a casino in the Town of Seven Railroads because of the job-creation potential. “We're a mill town without the mills.”
But on the other end of the divide, vocal opponent Kathleen Conley Norbut of Monson asserted that “the impacts far outweigh the benefits. You can't pretend that there's an economic benefit.”
Last week, House Speaker Robert DeLeo unveiled a 172-page gaming bill that would license two resort-style casinos in Massachusetts and allow for 3,000 slot machines at the state's four racetracks.
Possibly making the future unclear for Palmer, though, the proposed bill doesn't specify locations for the two casinos – so they could be sited anywhere in the state.
Currently, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (which operates its flagship facility adjacent to Uncasville, Conn.) leases about 150 acres of land from Northeast Realty off Route 32 in Palmer for the express purpose of building a resort casino, events center, restaurants and retail shops. Northeast Realty has been actively pursuing options on other land in town as well.
As outlined in the bill, casino licenses would cost a minimum of $100 million, and racing facility licenses a minimum of $15 million. A division of gaming enforcement would also be established, along with a five-member, appointed gaming commission.
Legislators are expected to take up debate on the extensive bill next week.
Up to this point, gambling hasn't elicited much impartiality in the state – depending on where you stand, casinos and slots are evil and corrupt, or they're a solution that could help heal Massachusetts' deep economic wounds.
Still, both sides seem to meet on this point: There should be opportunity for public discourse.
But, in a move that surprised many, DeLeo decided not to hold a public hearing: As indicated in media reports, he said he felt the issue had been extensively debated already.
Whitney, of Palmer, called the decision a surprise and said he was disappointed.
“I've always been a proponent of people getting to say what they think, on any side of any issue,” he said.
Others used stronger language.
“This is a really heinous approach, it's not democracy,” said Norbut, who is president of United to Stop Slots and a member of the Western Mass. Casino Task Force. “I wish it were a joke, but it's not, it's tragic.”
State Rep. Todd Smola (R-Palmer), meanwhile, called it “ridiculous,” and described the process as being “hijacked.”
“At the basic, fundamental level of government, when a bill like this is filed, we should be given a public hearing,” he said. House leaders “know how divided people are on this issue. (They should) give them a chance to be heard on it. Whether you're for or against casinos, you should allow this to have its fair day in court.”
Skipping the hearing process isn't completely unheard of in the Legislature, Smola explained – but it's typically done in cases of housekeeping bills or routine bills, not on such a contentious issue. He surmised that “Advocates don't want to hear the negative things people have to say.”
Here's what those advocates contend: Allowing casinos and slots in the state would generate close to 7,500 permanent jobs, 6,000 temporary construction jobs, and another 3,500 spin-off jobs in surrounding hotels, restaurants and stores. Similarly, when it comes to yearly revenues, the state could garner anywhere from $200 to $600 million – or a 25 percent cut from casinos and a 40 percent slice of the pie from slot machines.
Whitney agreed that introducing gambling would help infuse the economy.
He cited recent statistics on the amount of state money being spent at Foxwoods and Mohegan. “It'll be good to get some of that money back to Massachusetts,” he said.
Overall, though, he urged people to keep a realistic perspective.
“It's not going to be as great as the proponents say,” he said, “and it's not going to be as terrible as the opponents say.”
However, he said, “I would like people to keep an open mind about it.”
Mohegan officials also stressed the job creation possibilities and potential revenue streams.
“It's a very well-thought-out bill, very comprehensive,” said Paul Brody, vice president of development at Mohegan, which has long been eyeing Palmer for a casino site. “We're very excited that the needle seems to be advancing on legislation.”
Also, he said that Mohegan is pleased to see the bill allotted money for compulsive gambling, traveling, tourism and infrastructure support, among other things.
But those items just scratch the surface of issues brought forward in a letter sent by the Western Mass. Casino Task Force – composed of town leaders from Palmer, Monson, Wilbraham, Hampden, Ware, Brimfield, Belchertown, Brookfield, Sturbridge and other communities - last fall to key legislators, such as state Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), chairwoman of the joint committee on economic development and emerging technologies. It raised such varied concerns as local representation on a gaming commission, effects on local infrastructure, education and housing and mitigation trust funds for host and surrounding communities.
So, others just aren't as convinced as representatives of Mohegan.
“The numbers don't work,” said Norbut, who described some people as “livid” and “disgusted” by the lack of transparency and “arrogance” in the way the bill has been “steamrolled out.”
“We don't see anything positive about it,” agreed Emmaladd Shepherd, co-president of Quaboag Valley Against Casinos.
Her group would prefer not to have any casinos legalized in Massachusetts, she said.
As for slots, she called them “predatory” and “evil.”
Smola also takes issue with slots.
As he put it, they create no construction jobs, and offer no boost to tourism or retail. “Slots at racetracks are slots in a box,” he said. “They offer no positives.”
He also expressed concerns about the bill requiring casinos to compete for licenses, while they are just handed out to racetracks, and questioned why the authority over casinos would be given to state police in criminal matters. Similarly, he said he'd like to see more of a level playing field when it comes to citing the casinos.
And he said he has serious questions about the revenues. So ultimately, along with Gov. Deval Patrick and other state officials, he said he'd still like to see the completion of an independent cost-benefit analysis.
Although there have been many studies up to this point, “nobody can seem to reasonably agree on what a casino will or will not bring in,” Smola said.
Those were sentiments fiercely shared by Norbut.
“Lay out the costs, lay out the benefits,” she said. “Let's have a grown-up discussion, and see where the numbers fall.”