AG Coakley got it right!

When Attorney General Martha Coakley presented her comments included here: Pipedreams of Casino Gold , she was soft-spoken, spoke rapidly and the acoustics in the Gardner Auditorium left much to be desired.

.

Digesting her written comments, it is clear that she indicated (regarding Monitoring and Oversight, on page 9) that:

.

For example, in New Jersey, the Attorney General's office includes a separate Division of Gaming Enforcement, with investigators who monitor 11 casino operations on a day-to-day basis. The entire Attorney General's office comprises approximately 1,000 employees; roughly 500 are part of the Division of Gaming Enforcement. In other states, primary responsibility for monitoring and supervising a casino's finances, machines and operations lies with the regulatory entity.

.

Phew! So unlike the $100,000,000 (that's million) feared here: Regulation and Enforcement and Prosecution, it might be only $50,000,000 (that's million, just for the AG), but a closer read indicates other costs that need to be considered, like Financial Audits, local enforcement, jurisdiction and so on.

.

Heeding the words of John Grogan, Managing Director, Corporate Finance Advisers, who explained who risk averse the capital markets have become after years of casino gambling and phony financial instruments, explained how Massachusetts would become the single largest shareholder in this endeavor.

.

He went on to explain that the largest stakeholder becomes the problem solver.

.

If the Commonwealth guarantees the investment and survival of casinos, racinos or slot parlors, as Professor Goodman pointed out, the state moves from being a gambling regulator to being a gambling promoter.

.

In that position, additional personnel seemed to be required.

.

This in a state known for the Big Dig and Dianne Wilkerson?

.

Truth to Power offered Be scared, this is scary.

.

When Governor Patrick submitted his proposal, he included $50,000,000 to treat addiction. Although that figure appears woefully inadequate, we need to begin a public discussion about the costs of Predatory Gambling. Why are states with casino, racinos and slot parlors in worse fiscal shape than Massachusetts? Could it be the League of Women Voters is right [emphasis mine]?

.

Gambling is a business that drains the economy, it does not bolster it:

.

Independent research has shown that for every $1 earned in revenue from casinos, $3 is spent in the costs associated with them.

.

“Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits”. Gringols, Earl PH.D. 2005.

.
§ Gambling is no substitute for a reasonable tax policy: The Governor claims that adding three mega casinos is just one piece of the solution for our fiscal challenges. Yet, not one state in this country has ever solved its budget problems with gambling revenues. Last year, New Jersey, with its 17 casinos, had to shut down its state government due to a budget crisis.

.
Governor Corizne signs executive order for orderly shutdown of government operations, Office of the Governor press release, July 1, 2006.

.
§ Casinos will not bring an economic multiplier effect to our area: Cities like Atlantic City and Detroit and States such as Louisiana and Mississippi continue to languish despite their heavy concentration of casinos. If the casinos were good economic development as their proponents say, then The Boston Business Journal would not be strongly editorializing against them. Casinos lower a region’s standard of living by attracting many low wage casino jobs and merely act as a jobs transfer, not a job creator.

.
“Gambling numbers don’t add up.” The Boston Business Journal, September 21, 2007. Pg 63.

.
§ Expanding Gambling will turn the myth that everyone is gambling already into a fact. While 16% of residents in this state traveled outside the state to gamble, 84% did not! The real mission of the casino plan is to increase the number of gamblers in the state, which is why they are trying to locate them near our population centers.

.
Opinion Dynamics poll on behalf of the Massachusetts State Lottery and the Massachusetts Council of Compulsive Gambling, Fall 2005.

.
§ The negative impact of casinos is most intensely felt within a fifty mile radius of the facility. With 3 mega casinos proposed strategically across the state, there is not a place in the Commonwealth left without an overlaying effect from the casinos. Central Massachusetts has the greatest area of concern, with a triple overlay effect, falling in the fifty mile radius of all three of the proposed casinos.

.
National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report commissioned by US Congress 1999.

.
There will be few winners in the state if casino gambling arrives. It is not a quick fix for Massachusetts, but no fix at all.”

.

Doesn't this make sense?

Cost: Benefit Study Required -
"We believe that once you examine the facts, the revenue and expenses, and give casino/slots a fair examination, they should be opposed because we simply can't afford to subsidize wealthy investors."

.

The elected officials of the Commonwealth have a solemn duty to perform due diligence on all matters that come before them. A comprehensive cost:benefit study of slots/casinos is required.