Rolling the Dice on Gambling in Mass.

Early next year, the Massachusetts legislature will decide whetherto legalize casino gambling in the commonwealth. Proponents, chiefamong them Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, want to create threecasino licenses, contending that legalized gambling could generate20,000 permanent jobs and $400 million in annual tax revenue for astate in serious need of cash. Critics, including fellow DemocratSalvatore DiMasi, the speaker of the state’s House of Representatives,argue that the governor’s projections of a casino windfall are overlyoptimistic and that any additional revenue from gambling wouldn’t beworth the resulting increase in gambling addiction and crime.

Even with no casinos within its borders, Massachusetts has between 123,000 and 250,000 problem gamblers, according to the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling,a nonprofit that offers information and counseling services to gamblingaddicts. Nevertheless, the state faces billions in funding shortfallsfor such things as transportation and the new mandatory healthinsurance law, and casinos offer a monetary lifeline.

Will thecurrent push for casinos succeed where others have failed? We askedMetropolitan College’s Daniel LeClair, a professor and chairman of theurban affairs, city planning, and criminal justice department, to giveus odds.

BU Today: How realistic are the Patrick administration’s projections of an economic boost from casinos?
LeClair:The answer is we don’t know. We’d have to look more at his figures, andeven then it’s only a guess, because a lot will depend on how theeconomy fares overall. Still, revenues were overprojected in the pastrelated to something very similar — the lottery. We’ve just learnedthat there’s going to be a budget shortfall in the lottery, thatrevenues are going to be lower than projected. It’s not uncommon tooverproject the public take in order to push through development orhelp get legislation passed.

Do you agree with those who saythat casinos aren’t legitimate economic development because they merelydivert spending from other entertainment sectors of the economy, suchas restaurants?
We’ve found with the lottery that the peoplewith the least amount of spending discretion are the ones who spendmore on gambling. If you’re in an office building on payday, it’s thelowest-paid people you see going down to the convenience store andbuying lottery tickets. It’s not the middle and high wage earners.

Now,that’s the lottery, and whether it would be the same with casinos Idon’t know. It’s possible that resort casinos may move more into themiddle or upper-middle class, because there’s dinner, bars, dancing,and other entertainment there. But if the clients being pulled intocasinos are from lower economic brackets, then spending on gambling maynot affect theaters, restaurants, and other culture institutions, butmight affect more practical things like taxis and even publictransportation.

Does Massachusetts need casino revenue?
Well,it definitely needs some new revenue source. The state has a hugetransportation deficit, and the cost of the new mandatory health-caresystem may be quite high. And now there’s this shortfall in lotteryrevenue.

Still, the pattern for new revenue sources is thatpublic spending always goes up to meet that level, and then governmentscan’t go back. I don’t know the experiences of other states that allowcasinos, but it is interesting that few have closed them down. It couldmean that the anticipated problems have not occurred, or it could meanthat they’ve grown too accustomed to the revenue.

Does the Patrick administration’s casino plan do enough to mitigate against things like gambling addiction?
That’sone of the things that concern me. Many of our drug treatment centersnow take patients with gambling addiction and put them through theAlcoholics Anonymous model. It’s absolutely amazing how similar thedynamics are between addictions to drugs and alcohol and to compulsivegambling. Indeed, they often go together.

I don’t likegambling. I can’t imagine anybody throwing their money away. So I feellike, okay, gamblers who can’t control themselves deserve theirtrouble. But on the other hand, I also feel that may be a form ofentrapment, because the revenues are so enormous and there are hugeprofits, and it seems to me that these casinos are luring more thanjust that percentage of people with a predisposition to gamblingaddiction. The question is, do you want the state to provide the baitto open up that latent disposition and then use state money to repressit and to treat it?

I’m also worried about crime. One of thereasons that people come into addiction centers is that they commitcrimes to pay their debts. When gambling addicts need money, they stealfirst from a family member or a close friend, and when they’vealienated themselves, they rob a stranger, maybe in a mugging orsomething like that. Then they get arrested, and if they can convincethe court, they can get a suspended sentence provided they seektreatment.

Also, the money that’s involved in the winningsdraws criminals into the immediate area, because after somebody winsthey often start flashing their money around and put themselves inharm’s way.

If casinos do come to Massachusetts, where are the best and worst places to locate them?
Iknow that those interested in economic development in towns likeSpringfield, New Bedford, and Fall River would gravitate toward havinga casino, because these towns need the money. But I would think that’sthe last place you’d want to put it. You’d want to put it away from acity, where you have to drive to the place, away from potentialmuggers. These street crimes are very difficult to commit in suburbanor rural areas.

Any casino should be located in a place that’s alittle more remote, where you drive specifically for that purpose, andthere’s parking and the area is fenced off.

I would get itaway from walk-in populations. Just having to have a car to drive thereand have transportation would deter a lot of crime. Plus, I wouldn’twant the people with lower incomes to be enticed to gamble more. Youwant to hit more of a middle class, even though in the lower crimeareas there will probably be more citizen opposition to building acasino.

The legislature will most likely hold hearings on the governor’s casino legislation in early 2008. What are its chances?
Sincethe debate is going to be right after an election, the timing is goodfor passage. I think the major opposition would probably be political,because this would be a windfall for the governor in meeting all of hisagenda and a competitor might organize against it for politicalpurposes. Still, I don’t hear much grassroots opposition.

Slots, blackjack tables, and poker rooms may be on their way to Massachusetts. Will you ante up? Click here to vote.