Battle over casinos about to heat up

With recommendations from Gov. Deval Patrick expected in less than a week about whether the state should support casino gambling, local legislators are asking themselves will the measure help or hurt Massachusetts?

State Rep. Paul Donato, D-Medford, said it’s hard to predict what the answer will be until Secretary of Housing and Economic Development Daniel O’Connell, who is heading Patrick’s commission on the issue, releases his findings.

Donato said the state has legalized gambling in the forms of the Lottery and Bingo, but the discussion on Beacon Hill will center mostly on whether to allow casinos or put slots in the racetracks at Plainville, Taunton-Raynham and Revere, something known as racino.

In the past, there have been a number of bills for racino, all of which have been shot down. Donato said the latest around brought the yeas up to 67 from the low 40s, only 14 votes shy of the 81 needed for passage.

If such a vote were to take place again, Donato estimated racino might win, especially considering the tough financial times in which many cities and towns find themselves and the estimated $250 million slots could bring into state coffers.

But that may not be the answer. State Rep. Paul Casey, D-Winchester, believes giving away the rights to tracks is a big mistake.

“I’d vote against it,” Casey said. “Everyone wants the slots, but we have to be assured that Massachusetts is going to get the best bang for the buck. If they want it, they should bid for it.”

Casey said the atmosphere around the State House is less desperate than two or three years ago now that the budget is balanced so there is time for a thorough discussion before any decision has to be made. And, he added, Massachusetts can study what other states that allow gambling have done well to ensure themselves a big piece of the take.

For example, Casey pointed to Indiana, which bought slots and took bids on who would be allowed to rent and maintain the machines. That state, he said, now gets at least half of the take from the slots.

“If it’s done well, then Massachusetts could be come a destination site,” Casey said. “If it’s done badly, then we end up like New Jersey, with nothing substantive [behind the glitz].”

And let’s not forget all the problems associated with gambling and casinos in general. Both Casey and Donato said increases in drunk driving and crime, not to mention gambling addiction, are very real concerns.

Additionally, legislators are balancing the money brought in by gambling with possible losses to the Lottery. With one of the most successful lotteries in the U.S. — bringing in close to $1 billion annually — that state could find itself running short on aid earmarked for cities and towns should consumers turn toward casinos or racino instead of scratch tickets and Keno.

“You could say that we shouldn’t do it, but the reality is that gambling is prevalent in our society so shouldn’t we make some money from it? In bad times, most people would say yes,” he said, adding that even state Treasurer Tim Cahill has flipped from his opposing views on gambling. “The Lottery may take a hit, but [Cahill] is in control and he would earmark aid for cities and towns from gambling. That would be one of the stipulations [if it was allowed].”

Donato added there’s also a concern over the proposed casino in Middleborough by the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe.

“The federal Gaming Act indicates that a state is required to recognize a tribe’s right to have the same type of gambling establishment that is allowed by law in that state,” Donato said. “That means if we are open to casino gambling, then the Wampanoags should be allowed to have it.”

And that’s not something Donato is comfortable with, although he’s already supported racino.

“In the past, I’ve voted for racino gambling, but I’m not convinced as of yet about a full-fledged casino,” said Donato. “It all depends on what the recommendations are.”

Despite what are sure to be heated discussions between opposing factions on Beacon Hill, there is one group that’s not about to change its mind on gambling in any form and that’s the League of Women Voters of Massachusetts.

“We are opposed to changing the current law on gambling to open any other form of gambling,” said the League’s state President Diane Jeffery. “We don’t support it.”

And it doesn’t matter who owns the casino or slots, she added, the League is opposed to making any change at all to the law.

“It’s a drain on the economy,” Jeffery said. “Studies have found that for every dollar that’s received in taxes from casinos costs the taxpayers $3.”

Jeffery said the League has sent at least 24 independent studies to O’Connell and Patrick, from a University of Iowa study on the increase of bankruptcy rates in counties that have casinos to a study of the toll casinos have taken on Connecticut by the Connecticut Alliance Against Casino Expansion, in the hopes of changing the state’s gambling status.

“He listened to what we said,” she said, of his reaction. “It gave us hope that he would make a great decision. Right now, it’s wait and see, but we’re trying to lobby the governor to see how he will come out.”

Jeffery said she’s even taken a ride down to Middleborough to talk to residents about their vote to accept gambling.

“There was another vote that wasn’t publicized, where residents voted 3 to 1, by a show of hands that they didn’t want the casino in their town,” she said. “A lot of them felt they had to vote to accept gambling because they were told it was coming anyway and if they didn’t, they would see no revenue from it.”

And neither Jeffery nor the League is willing to see Middleborough suffer. In fact, she said the League’s 8,000 plus voters in more than 120 cities and towns statewide feel the detrimental effects of gambling will hurt the state in the long run, not help, no matter what financial incentives are offered.

“We’re not a knee-jerk organization,” Jeffery said. “We study these issues very thoroughly.”

Jeffery said every year, the local, state and national chapters vote on an issue to study. In 1980, when a proposal to put a casino in Hull landed at the State House, the League decided to study gambling and how it would effect the state and its residents.

“We conducted an in-depth study and in 1982, we reached a consensus that we were opposed to casino gambling,” she said, adding that the resolution was reached after every local branch received research materials and reports to study — both pro and con — so they could deliberate and decide what stand to take.

And while the League is working hard to ensure that the law doesn’t change, Jeffery said it could lose should Patrick and O’Connell recommend going ahead with casinos.

“Then we would start lobbying the Legislature,” she said of the organization’s next step. “League members throughout the commonwealth are very concerned with this issue.”