New casino bill has Central MA connection, but local casino advocates shouldn’t celebrate

Posted by Jeremy Shulkin

On Friday, State Senator Jennifer Flanagan (D-Leominster) filed another casino bill to encourage debate over gaming at the start of the new legislative session.

According to Flanagan’s office this bill does have some differences from the senate bill filed last year, but despite the Central Massachusetts ties it does little to pave the way for a casino in Worcester County. In fact, just like last year, there are still some major hurdles to clear for that to happen.

In Flanagan’s version of the bill no smoking would be allowed, live racing sites wouldn’t receive bidding preference and there’s no mention of racinos. (A spokesperson from Flanagan’s office added this bill was filed “just to get conversation going” — they’re expecting to see changes from House and subcommittee deliberations.)

Like last year’s senate version, Flanagan’s bill sees the state divided into three zones, with Worcester County lumped into zone #2 along with Suffolk, Middlesex and Essex counties.

Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino have wanted to see Suffolk Downs chosen as a casino/racino site. A race track in Revere (also in Suffolk County) has surfaced as a casino location as well.

The one wrinkle in Flanagan’s bill that differs from last year’s senate version (and does help Worcester County’s chances) is that no preference will be given to already-operating racing sites. That means, theoretically, places like Suffolk Downs and the Revere site shouldn’t receive preference just because gambling already occurs there.

The six members of the gaming commission will also stay the same. As we’ve pointed out before, that doesn’t bode well for those who want to see a casino built in Central Massachusetts.



Filed under Uncategorized

2 responses to “New casino bill has Central MA connection, but local casino advocates shouldn’t celebrate

  1. For the record, I am against casinos anywhere in the state. Business at the CT casinos is down, so why would we think casinos in MA would do better, especially if they don’t allow smoking?
    All I see is more hacks in a newly formed/expanded MA Gaming commission and that’s all. I can see no benefit to building casinos, it’s a pipe dream at best.

  2. You’re not seeing the whole picture IJM. You got myopicitis.

    Yes, gambling is a cyclical industry. So.
    MA dollars should stay in MA.
    That means more taxes dollars for MA.
    New businesses means more jobs for the locals.
    We got a lottery commission; the infrastructure is there.
    Patronage doesn’t exist in MA. Ahem!
    More crime? Means more cop jobs.

    Casinos – a win-win situation.
    And listen, after what the white folks did to the local Indians, they sorta owe em eh?

    PS. Wanna bet the next commenter is gonna argue the psychological impact on lives and families?

    Hey anyone see Q around?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s