Question 3 reads thusly:
QUESTION 3: Law Proposed by Initiative Petition
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.
This is yet another ballot question that if you think about it in a logical manner without actually reading the question will lead you to vote exactly the opposite way that you intend to. It is important, as always, to be careful with such questions.
The jobs that the ads discuss (anywhere from 3,000 - 10,000 jobs, depending on the ad) are a joke. There will be a negligent amount of long-term, middle class type jobs. The beneficiaries of this bill are the unions who will have short term project work to tide them over for an election cycle or two. The losers if this bill becomes law is nearly everyone else (excepting, of course, political big wigs and insiders who stand to make a killing off of the coming casinos.)
If this was 1989 instead of 2014, the ideas of casinos saving the economy might make sense. Back then, people had disposable income. Back then, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun weren't but a twinkle in the eye of anyone. Now, however, Foxwoods is the largest casino in the United States (and 3rd largest in the world) and Moehgan Sun isn't that far behind. Despite that, they are a nearly combined $3.5 Billion in debt. I'm sure there's plenty of business reasons for the debt, but the fact remains, we have been in a national recession for going on 6 years, our unemployment rate (regardless of what goverment reports will state) is at least double digits, and people simply do not have the pocket money to consistently spend it at a casino.
Add to this the increased crime that casino cities and towns face, problematic traffic, and a general decline in the valuations of homes anywhere near a casino, and this ballot issue is a loser, too. Massachusetts should focus its attention on something it has long been good at: innovative technologies and advancing education. A YES vote lets the legislature and casino backers know the real values of our communities, while a no vote will further destroy what is already a fragile economy here in the Bay State.
