Senate hears casino feedback

By Taryn Plumb
Turley Publications Reporter

BOSTON – The level of passion was no lower; the talking points no different; the divisions no less severe.
Even the venue was the same.
But the one big change at a casino debate before senators at the Statehouse on Tuesday: The stakes.
It was most likely the last time for the public to offer input before resort casinos potentially become a reality in Massachusetts. Before the month closes, the Senate is expected to vote on a draft bill it released last Friday that would legalize three casinos in the state.
Taking full advantage of the opportunity, then, fervent supporters, staunch opponents, and some agnostics, too, converged on the Statehouse's Gardner Auditorium – where a very similar debate was held before a joint legislative committee late last October – to offer their impassioned opinions.
“What is the acceptable number of destroyed lives?” asked Somerville resident and clergyman Robert Massie, reading from a “Top 10” list of reasons to reject casinos – which, he and other opponents stress, varies from the social impacts of predatory gambling to the lack of a non-biased cost-benefit analysis. “Even if compulsive gambling only affects 2 percent of the population, that's 120,000 people.”
Supporters, on the other hand, say such effects can be mitigated – the real stress point, they urge, should be employment.
“This bill is all about the jobs,” said Robert Young, who attended with the grassroots group Palmer Businesses for a Palmer Casino, members sporting royal-blue-and-white T-shirts declaring “Casinos=Jobs.” “It's about the government putting people back to work.”
Palmer, of course, has been targeted by the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority for a potential casino development off Thorndike Street and Exit 8 of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
The apex of months of contentious debate across the state, the Senate bill proposes licensing three casinos: Two of which would be competitively bid, and a third that would be allotted to a qualified Native American tribe. The bill would also continue to ban slot machines at the state's racetracks.
The proposed plan varies greatly from one released by the House in April – House Speaker Robert DeLeo (D-Winthrop) proposed legalizing two casinos, as well as slot machines at state racetracks (and riled both supporters and opponents by skipping the public debate process).
If the Senate plan is ultimately passed later this month, a final plan will be hashed out in a joint conference committee.
The expediency has spurred some surprise and outrage.
The short turnaround – just four days – between the bill's release and the public hearing was “unconscionable,” asserted vocal opponent Kathleen Norbut, of Monson.
Because of that, the president of United to Stop Slots and member of the Western Mass. Casino Task Force said she wasn't able to change her schedule around in time to attend.
Also, the quick move prevented groups like the task force – which is required by Open Meeting Law to post its gatherings 48 hours in advance – from discussing or digesting the proposal, or even pulling together a response, she said.
“As if 14 communities could get together in 48 hours anyway,” Norbut pointed out.
But many more than that flocked to the Statehouse on Tuesday, offering testimony in a discussion that raged for more than six hours.
One of the most rousing supporters was Robert Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO, flanked by union workers in colorful T-shirts and signs declaring “Casinos Now! Jobs Now!”
He asked the crowd to raise their hands if they were unemployed, had been foreclosed on, or were worrying about their mortgages.
Meanwhile, on the other side, Sen. Susan Tucker (D-Andover), former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, and Massie, spoke out harshly against casinos.
Massie extended 10 points to senators, noting the short notice for a hearing, a lack of understanding of cost, the downplayed effects of predatory gambling, and what Massachusetts will do if its neighboring states also jump on the idea of gambling.
“What proof do you have that the rosy predictions of the casino billionaires and their paid researchers and lobbyists will come true?” he asked.
Norbut, meanwhile, asserted in a phone interview that “There's a special interest agenda here, driving this,” adding that certain legislators are doing “backflips” to make it happen.
She called it “terrible” public policy to “exploit” people for the benefit of casinos.
Advocates, on the other hand, see it as less of an exploit – and more of an infusion.
Simply put, “We need jobs in Western Massachusetts,” said David Whitney, chairman of the grassroots Pioneer Valley Jobs Coalition.
Like Norbut, representatives from his group didn't make it on Tuesday – they actually got there a day early.
Hoping to beat the onslaught, three members traveled to Boston on Monday, toting a stack of petitions scrawled with 2,500 signatures asking for legislators to bring gaming to Massachusetts, specifically the western counties.
“We thought if we went a little early, we could get a better audience,” noted Whitney, a retired teacher from Palmer.
They spent about three hours at the state capital, he said, and delivered roughly a half-dozen petitions.
With a local casino, he described jobs for “all kinds of skill levels and ability levels,” and spanning hospitality, the gaming floor, restaurants, as well as spinoff for suppliers.
It's much needed, he said, as the recession has “Really trickled down hard on Western Massachusetts.”
He described Palmer specifically as “A mill town without the mills.”
Young, for his part, agreed that “It's an opportunity for Palmer to have a rebirth,” noting the numerous jobs lost over the last 10 to 15 years.
His group, which is just about two months old, wasn't able to offer is testimony at the hearing because the speaking card was full – but they did come wearing matching T-shirts showing local pride in Palmer High School's royal blue and white colors.
With roughly 20 members – and growing – the group formed to let legislators know that, “Here in Palmer and Western Massachusetts, we don't want to be forgotten – which is what often happens,” said Young, from KEY Property Services, Inc., in Palmer.
Norbut has also lamented high unemployment, but stressed that something else shouldn't be forgotten: A cost analysis.
United to Stop Slots is continuing to call for such study, which she said should focus on new bureaucracies, departments and statutes coming about from casinos, as well as infrastructure impacts.
She called it the “fiduciary responsibility” of the Senate committee on Ways and Means to perform such an analysis.
Others are looking toward the future, as well – but for different reasons.
As Young indicated, things will move quickly if the Senate passes its legislation.
Therefore, Palmer should poise itself now by getting a referendum prepared, and seeking a professional negotiator who will get “the absolute best deal for the town of Palmer.”
“We're already way ahead of everybody else,” Young said. “We need to stay there.”