Should The State Bet On Casinos, Part 3, by Chris Trakas

In part 1 of my argument, I made the case for allowing gaming in the state at all. Part 2 compared the MA plan to those of neighboring states. In this final part 3, I will describe the changes that I believe the MA plan should incorporate.

There should be at least one, possibly two, Massachusetts tribal casinos to allow another long time Massachusetts group(s) to help their workers and the state. One of the casinos should be in Western Massachusetts. These casinos would be able to offer some gaming over and above what the track based racinos could offer, such as blackjack, dice, and roulette. The above two approaches have worked well in New York and other states and should be the way to go here.

The current casino plan with its hundred million dollar plus licenses as proposed now, will very possibly end up as being an expansion of the two Connecticut casinos and possibly one Las Vegas outfit. Mohegan Sun seems likely to get the Western Massachusetts license. It may also get the Southeastern license, possibly in conjunction with the Wampanoag tribe, but more than likely on its own. The third license may end up being a bidding war between Foxwoods and Sheldon Adelson's group from Las Vegas. Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods already have fabulously successful casinos and I wish them the best, but it is not necessary for them to take over the Massachusetts market as well to the exclusion of the Massachusetts tribal groups and tracks. Sheldon Adelson is one of the wealthiest people in the world and I certainly wish him continued success and happiness but we need to take care of people based in Massachusetts.

The plan proposed now certainly has its merits, but the plan for three full scale casinos probably owned by out of state interests is too far flung. If any tribal group benefits from this, it should be a Massachusetts tribal group. Also, the tracks should be allowed to participate as a way to both help their beleaguered employees who are long time Massachusetts residents, and to help the state at the same time. It should be altered to the racino and tribal casino approach mentioned above which is working in New York and other states. This is the fairest approach.

This is also an issue where Massachusetts Republicans can actually make a difference. We live in an essentially one party state, but this is an issue that has divided the Democrats, and the Republican votes can make the difference. The middle and working class Democrats who used to be called Reagan Democrats and who are based in the smaller cities such as Lynn, Brockton, Holyoke, Revere, and parts of Boston such as South and East Boston are generally in favor of this. Republicans can work with this constituency and possibly create some good will to work together in the future. The more affluent liberal wing of the Democrat party based in wealthier urban areas and Boston suburbs seems generally opposed to the expansion of gambling. They cite social costs, which I feel is not a valid argument as outlined above, and also that the character of the state will change. Possibly they feel this is some sort of pedestrian activity, and that we would be better off pursuing higher callings. This is also an opportunity to work with the Governor, pass something together, and try to set the stage for further cooperation down the line.

The state needs expanded gaming, the racetrack workers and Massachusetts based tribal groups need this, and Republicans need an opportunity to make a difference. Let's start with the plan proposed, change it to all of our benefit, and then enjoy the fruits of this hard work.