Today's Casino Hearing: The Epic Rundown

by: Ryepower12

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 22:07:00 PM EDT

Today's casino hearing was perhaps not as crazy as it has been in the past -- and the open format of the testimonies allowed for it to be an even exchange of ideas. There were still the union blue shirts shipped in to crowd Gardner, as well as the grassroots activists and media taking up the rest of the room. All in all the day was long, informative and -- hopefully -- useful for the legislators on Beacon Hill weighing the issue.  

Hero of casino opponents everywhere, Senator Sue Tucker came to offer testimony next. She noted the fact that this was "the worst possible time" to consider slots. Foxhoods has billions (with a b) in debt and discretionary income is at a premium everywhere. She wants to grow good, union jobs, but thinks there's plenty we can create through projects that would do the Commonwealth good. She notes a specific example in her district, low/mixed income housing at some of the old mills, getting people out of motels and into their own housing.

She points out the fact that if casinos worked in terms of being able to solve a state's fiscal problems, states with casinos would have lower taxes. They don't. Since casinos don't cover anywhere near all their expenses, we need to "start subtracting." Casinos wouldn't work as a business model if we made them pay for all their societal costs -- Massachusetts will inevitably end up subsidizing the industry, and be forced to make repeated concessions wth the industry.

"You think you have control over this industry," she says. "You don't. 'The deal' will change."

Senator Tucker was also fantastic in the morning's casino opposition presser.

Next up is Brian Wallace to cheer the casino on. He harps on the billion dollar line, how much we "lose" to Connecticut, which comes via the rather interesting academic technique of having Clyde Barrow out at Foxwood's parking lot with a clipboard, counting license plates. Pushes the inevitability meme. He wants an amendment to the bill (whichever one makes it through, anyway) to make it even more racino-ey. Yum.

Senator Bob O'Leary from the Cape and Islands came next. He's a strong opponent of casinos. He's here to specifically talk about how the deal always changes once you get in bed with the industry.

"The initial proposal is based on what people hope," he says, "but that never happens." "The economics of this drive it. Profit drives it.... They own you as  much as you own them.... For that alone, I think you should vote against this bill."

He's sold me. This should actually be a very compelling argument for fence-sitters. If anyone thinks whatever deal we would sign would hold up for any length of time, they clearly haven't looked at what's happened in probably every other state in this country. The gambling industry will always come back to the table for more -- and it usually gets it.

Sen. Pacheco was on next, saying we're losing a million a day, every day we don't have slots. He has a race track in his district, but wants a resort casino in addition to the racinos, "in a way that maximizes profits for the Commonwealth." Does that sentence worry anyone else? Even though it's off-topic (even he admitted it), he insists on more simulcasting. He's also fine with getting in bed with the casinos, "of course we're partners going forward."

He was asked a few questions. Would he support a 3 casino bill if it didn't help racetrack? That was a very, very, very reluctant yes. He was also asked about a town's self determination -- he thinks communities should be able to somehow vote on it. He doesn't care if it's town meeting or direct vote, etc. "all of those options are okay to me." He thinks it would have to be defined by existing state statute.

Apologies in advance for butchering his name, but Plainville horse track's President, Gary Pantowski, came on after. Plainville's uniquely situationed, "Gateway to Rhode Island," blah, blah, blah. He claims his track employs or is indirectly responsible for the employment of 1,600 people... that really, really depends on how you do the counting. Horse farms all over the state. How many of those horse farms race exclusively at Plaineville? If they race all over, that's like everyone getting to count every horse owner and stable worker three or four times (assuming these farms send their horses all over).

He was asked what his company would make with slots, but didn't want to answer. "Too many variables." Fair enough. He was pressed and then said with reasonable tax rates, 2,000-2,500 slots, yada, yada, yada, GAZILLIONS. Okay, $175 mil. 1000 jobs, if you believe it and don't factor in societal/economic impacts in the local community. Plus, it doesn't change the fact that horse racing is dying, though, so be prepared to be giving that up in a few years, if passed, when they again say they're "not at an even playing field." Don't believe me? Twin Rivers was finally allowed to stop its racing this past year.

Interestingly, he says Foxwoods "will never happen again." Honestly, he's probably right -- the market's pretty saturated as it is. Don't think about expansion. They're not interested in anything but the slot machines, because everything else is a money loser. He thinks its what brought Twin Rivers down.

Asked how quickly he could open the slots up for business, he said 4 months. Tucker said they couldn't even get the regulatory structure ready in four months, so an honest answer would probably be at least a year or two, for a crappy racino.

Susan Moyer was up next. She's the Director of Labor Resource Center at UMASS Boston. Her Center recently wrote a gaming report called, "Gaming in Massachsuetts: Can Casinos Bring Good Jobs?" I wrote about that report a few weeks ago, here, having a few questions about it. The report is a massive cheer leading affair: Casino jobs are da bomb. They're even better than Massachusetts jobs. They're so wonderful that people who work at casinos poop out rainbows. There was not a bad thing to say: They'd provide good jobs for average people, according to her.

My critique upon hearing the testimony: There's only so many jobs. They eat into other, existing jobs. And she completely ignored all social costs. What good is that job if your spouse goes and gambles all the money away without your knowledge? So, basically, according to her, if you're lucky enough (hehe, get it?) to get the casino job, then you're golden. If not, good luck. Why is it then that casinos like Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun ship so many people from all around the country in for those jobs? Surely, if they're so good, local people would scoop all them up.

After a few casino proponents, it was time for some opponents. This next panel was a doozy: Natasha Shol from MIT, Hans Breiter from Harvard Medical School, Social-Justice hero Bob Massie and blogger extrordinaire/nosey neighbor Gladys Kravitz/Mary Tufts rounded the group out.

Natasha spoke about how the machines were designed. "These aren't your grandparent's machines." New slots are very different than old slots. Gone is any social gambling, in is the asocial gambling. The machines are designed using very sophisticated psychological techniques to maximize profits. They're geared for longer and faster play, with ever higher rates of players "play[ing] to extinction."

The goal is to "maximize profits," which ultimately means creating more addicts. Games are played every 3-4 seconds, 900 hands per hour, money and time get sucked away -- players don't even care about winning, it's a distraction, just getting in "the zone." People are addicted in an average 2-3 years of slot gambling now, compared to around 20 years for sports gambling.

Hans spoke about what the machines do to your brain. I have to admit, Hans Breiter is a lot smarter than I am. The stuff he talks about can be complex, but here's the gist of it: looking at brain circuitry with brain scans, what slot machines do to the brains of gambling addicts is the same as what cocaine does. Hans and an another professor tested the conclusions further by looking at the brains of a whole bunch of gambling addicts and a whole bunch of coke addicts, without knowing which was which was which, and they were completely indistinguishable.

Bob Massie came up to remind legislators of a few, key things: It is the official position of the State Democratic Party to be against slot machines. Slot machines are predatory -- and take advantage of what people do not know. Finally, he reminded legislators that how we raise money says as much about us as how we spend it. How true!

Mary Tufts/Gladys spoke about her local experience in Middleboro. She first cared mostly about her property, but started to study the issue and there were epiphanies all over. She was disappointed in some democrats for only caring about the money, not how it effects people, but her hope was renewed in the Democratic Party when it voted to make it the official policy of the party to oppose slot gambling at the most recent Democratic State Convention.

The Panel was asked some important questions.

Senator Spilka wanted to know roughly how many slot addicts there would be with casinos. While answering the question itself (3-4%), Natasha said that it was honestly the wrong question. Instead, she says, the question should be how many slot players are addicts. The answer to that question is a lot more frightening -- 20-30% of people who play slots are addicted to them, and those are the people who the industry depends on for its profit margin.

A strong casino opponent was up next. Representative Damico came to speak about how casinos are sort of an economic mirage (my words, not his). "Casinos don't produce new wealth, in the end, they just move it around." A vote for casinos, the Representative said, was therefore a vote to sacrifice local jobs. He also touched on the concept of job multipliers: When a local business job is created, they tend to help create another job. However, casinos, he notes, have a negative multiplier rate -- for every job created at a casino, more than one job is actually lost in the greater economy.

He hits on racinos the hardest: They "drain away what little wealth there is in... struggling communities," like Revere. Then he says that the damages done by casinos and racinos can't really be mitigated, once the damage is done. Once broken, it's scarred for life. Noting the dangers of youth gambling, he hits on the fact that with all the Commonwealth's many universities and colleges, gambling is a particularly bad recipe in this state.

The City Manager of Chelsea came on next, but I didn't catch his name. He was supposed to be joined by Kim Driscoll, Salem's Mayor, but she was too busy with all the Halloween stuff going on. Both of them are co-chairs of the Massachsuetts Coalition of Jobs and Growth. It's the industry's main Massachusetts website. Given the huge damage a casino in a Revere, for example, could do to Salem's economically important downtown area, I've been baffled about Kim's involvement for a little while -- anyone know? Chelsea's City Manager tries to make the worries about the state lottery being siphoned seem overblown, saying the Connecticut state lottery has grown 13 of the past 16 years. However, the lottery systems are very different, so it's not a particularly good comparison. Anyway, he just wanted to come to push for the three casinos plan.

Stu Ploc (sorry if I got that name wrong). I'm not quite sure who he is, but he seems to think that the casino plan could be against the state's constitution, at least in spirit, channeling Article 7.

Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men

I don't think it actually constitutes a violation, but nevertheless, it's a helpful reminder that even John Adams could understand that government was instituted for the common good; it seems like casinos is all about a profit for the rare few. It's a lesson some legislators could well learn.

Next was the Union Group Panel, another panel doozey. There were four people on it, including Bob Haynes, head of the AFL-CIO and Frank Callahan from the Mass Building Council. A Beverly from the UAW was also on it, but I didn't catch her last name. Suffice it to say, they think unemployment is a "pandemic" and Massachusetts needs a "vision" for jobs. Casinos doesn't seem very visionary to me, but I guess even the low-hanging fruit can look nice to some.

Beverly actually had some of the most interesting stuff to say. She was definitely down with the cause, but had some concerns. First, she didn't think casino jobs were so good after all -- unless they were unionized. She noted the table workers at Foxwoods and how their pay and benefits had stagnated for a long time. It's not fixed yet, but she did note that they joined the union and things are under collective bargaining now. From my understanding, there's no way for the state to actually guarantee any casino hires union workers for its permanent jobs, at least that's what I remember hearing from one of the hearings for Governor Patrick's bill last year.

Secondly, she also insisted that Massachusetts retain its ban on smoking at casinos. I give her a lot of credit for that, but I doubt it'll happen.

Bob Haynes headlines this panel.  He doesn't think the debate was open or fair last time. I'm not sure it's open and fair this time. Ah, well. He kindly recognized Bob Massie and all the work Bob had done for social justice. He also said that his union was at the 'forefront' in tackling problems with addiction.

Then he went on to say something really strange. The reason why we need to build casinos is because of addiction. He said that unemployment is causing addiction and a job was essentially the cure. He wasn't the last to repeat that bizarre claim. I refute it with this fact: the rosiest casino job numbers suggest maybe 15,000 jobs if you ignore all local losses and social costs. Federal numbers say that slots make gambling addiction within 50 miles go up roughly 2.5%. Assuming the 3-casino plan is what we get this time around, too, that means the entire state would be within 50 miles of a casino. 2.5% of 6.5 million is roughly 163,000 new addicts. Anyone care to put that in a ratio with the jobs?

Then Haynes more or less concedes addiction is an afterthought.

"We're here about revenue and we're here about jobs.... Jobs will be created. Period."

At this point (or soon thereafter), I think I took a much-deserved lunch break.

The next person I have notes for is Rep Reinstein from Revere. She loves racinos because she used to work at them and she says they helped her get through college. She's all about the racinos. She also repeated the bizarre 'casinos will cure addiction and social ills' meme. I guess it was one of the themes of the day.

Warning: Red Herring alert! She says casino opposition thinks the sky will fall, the earth will end, everyone will become addicted "and commit suicide." Um, no, Rep Reinstein. Most of us just think it's bad policy and causes problems we don't need.

Kathleen Norbut, head of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, Democratic State Committee woman, Board of Selectperson and all-around powerhouse activist gave a resoundingly awesome presentation. I'm not even going to describe it; I'm going to post it. She gets it!

Rep Tom Calter came to talk to everyone next. He said he voted against Deval Patrick's plan not because he's against casinos, but that he's against three of them. He only wants one, though he didn't say he'd absolutely, positively vote against 2, either.

He also has a lot of other concerns.

"Once something hits the ground... you have a lot of trouble pulling the licenses."

He wants major legislative protections, strict bond stuff, etc. to ensure that it ends up being a major resort. He also wants to ensure there's local control, so a town would have to vote on it, and that there's direct access to the casino from the highway -- no townie back road traffic.

Next came Rep. Denise Provost, speaking against casinos. I started to just film a lot of the testimonies at this point, so check out her 3 minute testimony.

Also, at some point before, Rep. Carl Sciortino came to speak out casinos, too. I taped his, but didn't mark where exactly he spoke in my notes (as I did Provost). I was particularly impressed with Sciortino's testimony, it was very personal and helped people picture just what goes on in the life of a "problem gambler" before we actually decide to double the number of them in this state.

The Mohegan Sun reps came to chat. They claim they'd build a casino within 2 years of a site selection process (which I took for state approval). Not much else here. They were asked if they'd do anything to "encourage" local business owners to own at the casinos, in case the inevitable happens -- and casinos really do hurt local businesses. They said they allow people to lease out shops and storefronts. He was pressed again on that question, and just said "yes."

Then they were asked about their predatory gambling. They said they're "responsible" with problem gamblers. He claims their employees are trained to spot it. I got some good video coverage of this, but Tucker had some real good questions here. (That'll go in my video post.) He said they allow people to voluntarily put themselves onto lists that bar themselves from gambling at Mohegan Sun. Family can't get you on that list, so you could conceivably gamble their money with little they can do to stop you, if they can get access (easy for spouses, etc.). Tucker asked more about their signs, etc. and typically they only got concerned when people got violent or overly rowdy -- and that's when you may end up on that banned list, whether you like it or not.

Suffolk Downs sent a panel of representatives, too. They don't care so much about the fact that casino companies like Harrah's gets 90% of its profits from 10% of it's players. 'Any buisness may rely on some customers more than others.' That's right, casinos are just like the Gap.

One of the panelists didn't acknowledge the 90/10 figure, saying she had never heard of it. For her benefit:

"Harrah's propeller heads discovered 90 percent of Harrah's profits came from about 10 percent of its most avid costumers."

Binkley, Christina. "Winner Takes All." pg 184.

My last notes are from a woman from the state's Chamber of Commerce. She pulled out one of the most absurd statements I've ever heard. Not only will casinos in Massachusetts not hurt local businesses, they'll help them! Even some of the representatives asking the questions who had seemed pretty open minded weren't buying it. Anyone who knows what's happened in Detroit or Atlantic City would find her suggestion laughable.

Notably absent from my Epic Post are presentations from Les Bernal, head of Stop Predatory Gambling; Laura Everett, Associate Director of the Mass Council of Churches; Kelly Marcimo, Board member of the League of Women Voters, and perhaps one or two other interesting presenters -- plus plenty of good exchanges during Q&A. They'll all go in my video post tomorrow.