For opponents of the Leominster slots facility, you should be heartened by the rising opportunities to kill the development. First, under the casino law, you have a chance, next week, to express directly to the state Gaming Commission, when it visits town, your opposition to the measure that passed. The commission factors in degree of local support in determining the final, winning proposal. Raynham and Plainridge had much higher yes vote percentages. Vocal opposition at next weeks hearing would do damage to Leominsters chances. Regardless of your position on the slots facility, MA residents should take pride in how well woven checks and balances are into our casino law in addition to how well it balances public input with professional, administrative oversight. Second, it looks like a binding measure to repeal the casino law may reach the threshold needed to land on next years ballot. If that measure were to pass, then there will be no casinos anywhere in Mass. While I think its the job of representatives, not voters, to make and pass laws, I figured its worth informing folks of this option to kill casino enterprise in the state. That will be good news to some and bad news to others. Id like to dispute some of the arguments Ive seen posed against the Leominster facility. For those who say, Look at Atlantic City, I give no credence to such pseudo-expertise. Already, in the 1960s, well before legalized gambling came in the late 70s, Atlantic City was a dying resort area littered with shuttered recreational and resort facilities along its decaying boardwalk and unkempt shoreline. It was bad. With tourism killed, poverty and crime skyrocketed from the 60s through the 70s by the time the first casino was built in 78 or 79. Voters only approved legalized gambling (76-77?) as a desperate effort to revive the tourism engine of the local economy. Also, were talking about a different era, decades ago, when the gambling business remained the enterprise of criminal organizations steadily stuffing cash into the pockets of New Jersey and federal officials/legislators. Gambling faced none of the checks, balances, mitigation, regulatory, tax/fee measures that face todays casino proposals. So, Id prefer folks to stop making the comparison because its invalid. As far as home values and crime go, there are no studies satisfactorily showing, even with the large resorts in RI and CT, spikes in crime and dips in property values related to such developments. You can post all the links you want, but Ive looked at lots of supposed research into casino-induced social and economic maladies with not one closely approaching my standard of social scientific evidence. The worst, most costly problem that I can find referenced in good new sources are traffic accidents and fatalities. It seems that the 24/7 operations of casinos pour drunken, tired, and/or stressed drivers (employees and customers) onto streets, creating unprecedented traffic hazards. The notion that casionos bring in bad jobs and suck out good money (more productively spent in other ways) is not backed up either. Casinos draw visitors from outside the community that would otherwise not be spending money here. As far as locals go, well, its difficult to measure the waste or productivity of their spending habits. As far as the jobs being bad ones, its just interesting that when any other business comes into town that no one worries about how bad their jobs are. When Walmart, Target, Dicks Sporting Goods, Chilis, Niche Hospitality (Mezcal, Rye & Thyme), etc. come into town, I hear no clamor about how bad their jobs are when assessing their development. Are casino jobs worse than normal jobs? Who knows for sure? All I do know, is that new jobs are better for the local workforce than no new jobs.
Posted on: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 18:36:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015