Each week prior to the November election The Somerville Times will present the Statewide ballot questions, along with pro and con arguments, one at a time for examination and further consideration. We continue the series this week with Question 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming.

QUESTION 3: Expanding Prohibitions on Gaming

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 6, 2014?

SUMMARY

This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races.

The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.

The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.

A YES VOTE would prohibit casinos, any gaming establishment with slot machines, and wagering on simulcast greyhound races.

A NO VOTE would make no change in the current laws regarding gaming.

ARGUMENTS

As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.

IN FAVOR: Massachusetts can do better than casinos. Just ask the “experts”:

• Governor Patrick1, Speaker DeLeo2 and Senate President Murray3 agree: No casino in their hometowns.
• The former CEO of American Gaming said he would “work very, very hard against” a casino in his hometown.4
• Ledyard, Connecticut’s mayor said there has been “no economic development spin-off from (Foxwoods). Businesses do not come here.”5
• Moody’s downgraded its casino outlook from “stable” to “negative”6 and Fitch Ratings said the casino market “is reaching a saturation point.”7
• Indiana prosecutors needed an additional court just to handle casino-related crimes.8

Listen to the experts. Vote Yes: Stop the casino mess.

1 http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/gov_deval_patrick_says_he_woul.html

2 http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/like_deval_patrick_massachuset.html

3 http://www.lowellsun.com/breakingnews/ci_24644606/like-patrick-and-deleo-murray-would-not-want

4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbRYUEtpGVQ

5 http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20031002-NEWS-310029963?cid=sitesearch

6 http://www.streetinsider.com/Credit+Ratings/Moodys+Lowers+Outlook+on+U.S.+Gaming+Industry+to+Negative+(LVS)+(MGM)+(IGT)+(BYI)/9624468.html

7 Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2014, Casino Boom Pinches Northeastern States Influx of Competition Leaves Early Players—Such as Delaware, New Jersey and West Virginia—Struggling to Keep Bets Flowing, By Scott Calvert and Jon Kamp

8 http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org/documents/KarenRichardsLetter.pdf

Authored by
Repeal The Casino Deal Committee
5 Michael’s Mall, #520162
Winthrop, MA 02152
617-701-7823
www.Question3Facts.org

AGAINST: A no vote will preserve the state’s Expanded Gaming Law, generating thousands of construction and permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for our cities and towns. Every year Massachusetts residents spend close to $900,000,000 at casinos in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine adding millions to their state budgets.

The Law already has provided voters in several communities, including Springfield and Plainville, an opportunity to bring much needed jobs and economic activity to their communities through first-class development projects. At the same time, the Law has ensured that no community opposed to a casino within its borders will have one. To help further protect residents, the Law contains industry leading consumer safeguards and dedicated public health funding.

Vote no on question 3 to create jobs, economic growth and much-needed new revenue in Massachusetts.

Authored by:
The Honorable Domenic Sarno
Mayor of Springfield
P.O. Box 8670
Boston, MA 02114
617-520-4559
www.ProtectMassJobs.com

FULL TEXT OF QUESTION:

Be it enacted by the people and their authority:

SECTION 1. Section 7 of chapter 4 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking out clause Tenth and inserting in place thereof the following clause:

“Tenth, ’Illegal gaming,‘ a banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, tiles or dominoes, or an electronic, electrical or mechanical device or machine for money, property, checks, credit or any representative of value, but excluding: (i) a lottery game conducted by the state lottery commission, under sections 24, 24A and 27 of chapter 10; (ii) pari-mutuel wagering on horse races under chapters 128A and 128C; (iii) a game of bingo conducted under chapter 271; and (iv) charitable gaming under said chapter 271.”

SECTION 2. Chapter 23K of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2012 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following section 72 following section 71:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter or any general or special law to the contrary, no illegal gaming as defined in section 7 of chapter 4 shall be conducted or permitted in this commonwealth and the commission is hereby prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request therefor.”

SECTION 3. The several provisions of this Act are independent and severable and the invalidity, if any, of any part or feature thereof shall not affect or render the remainder of the Act invalid or inoperative.