Last week, I again voted against bringing casinos to Massachusetts. In 2008, when I first voted against gambling, I was voting in the majority. Now, with a pro-casino speaker running the House, I find myself in the minority on the issue. For a harsh commentary on the changing of votes, see this Globe column.
My views on the issue haven’t changed. For a full explanation, click here. See also, this recent interview in the Belmont Patch. Clearly, the sharp contraction in building construction has increased the urgency of creating construction jobs — there are many people in the construction trades who are experiencing long term unemployment. But casino construction jobs are a long way off and will come too late to help people off the unemployment rolls.
It does appear that the House Speaker, the Senate President and the Governor all agree on how to go forward on casinos, so it is likely that legislation will pass this year over the opposition of myself and others.
Will, I think you have overlooked the reduction in green house gas production from gamblers no longer having to drive or bus to Connecticut and RI. They will be able to bike, use public transit, or burn less fossil fuel getting to much closer locations.
Fair point. Not sure how all the traffic will add up with new resort venues in MA, but it could work the way you suggest.
It is entirely conjectural. Closer casinos may enable more demand, more travel rather than less. Stay the course, Will!
Definitely will stay on course. Just acknowledging some ambiguity on that one point.
Will – read your “overall views” – good summary. I’m not a big fan of gambling — if you want a depressing experience, go to the Montreal Casino as I did this week — they, by law, can only serve coffee at the tables, so you can’t even get drunk while you’re losing money!
That being said, I will defend the rights of anyone to build one (gosh it sucks sometimes being a libertarian!)
I completely agree with your stance re the government – it simply should not be involved beyond the original grants of license. Regarding the revenue impact on the lottery — hey, that’s why they call it a “free market economy”.
SO, I’m in the uncomfortable position of telling you that as a constituent, I’d rather you vote pro-casino, while from a personal standpoint I don’t really “like” them. How’s that for a good, wishy-washy statement?
Far enough.
Out of curiousity, does a libertarian perspective compel accepting a casino regardless of location? Nobody is proposing preventing people from visiting casinos elsewhere.