Casinos Split Medford Delegation

House, Senate Continue Debate on Casino Gambling Legislation

Story Updated 1:27PM Wednesday, August 4, 2010

– Allison Goldsberry

Bringing slot machines to race tracks and resort style casinos to Massachusetts has split state legislators who are eager to help get the economy out of its slump. Some legislators say casino gambling will bring jobs and economic benefits to the state, while others argue it will cause harmful addictions that will lead to more bankruptcies, broken families, and crime.

Medford’s state delegation is split on the issue. State Representative Paul Donato (D-Medford, Malden) voted in favor of a bill in April that would authorize two resort-style casinos and up to 3,000 slot machines at the state’s two existing dog racing tracks and two former dog racing tracks.

“The most important part of the casino/racino bill is that it will provide jobs and will keep the 700 plus jobs that are at the race track now. It will also provide one time revenue for our Commonwealth through the sale of the licenses,” said Rep. Donato after the bill passed the House in April.

Representatives Sean Garballey (D-Arlington, Medford) and Carl Sciortino (D-Medford, Somerville) voted against the bill.

In a statement provided to InsideMedford.com, Rep. Garballey had the following to say about his recent vote against casino gambling:

“Our state is certainly in the one of the most difficult economic climates in our history and creating jobs and finding new sources of revenue remain some of my top priorities as a State Representative. I voted against the creation of casinos in 2008 and did so again this year because I strongly believe that this choice is not good economic or social policy for the Commonwealth and will end up costing our state more than what we will receive.”

Rep. Sciortino has been vocal in his opposition to casino gambling and has spoken publicly about a close family member whose gambling addiction led to an attempted suicide.

“For me this bill does not make good sense either as fiscal policy or social policy. I’ve had a very close experience with the issue of gambling addiction in my own family and I saw the devastating effect,” Rep. Sciortino told the Somerville Journal in April.

Sciortino said he is not convinced the bill will be a viable job creator and he believes it will instead lead to problems with addiction the state is not prepared to handle.

“In terms of the job creation argument, I don’t dispute that there will be jobs created in this. It’s more a question of where the jobs will come from, in terms of cannibalizing other industries. The new addicts will be a far greater number than people who will be getting jobs out of this. Part of the challenge of that is there’s been a refusal by the proponents to take a step back and do a truly independent cost and supposed benefits analysis,” Rep. Sciortino said.

State Senator Pat Jehlen (D-Somerville, Medford) is also skeptical about the economic benefits of casino gambling. Sen. Jehlen was among fifteen state senators who voted against a recent bill to license three resort style casinos in Massachusetts.

I’m convinced that the costs will outweigh the benefits, and the rewards in jobs and revenue will be less than promised,” said Sen. Jehlen in a statement posted on InsideMedford.com.

Update

The House and Senate approved a bill on Saturday to allow the licensing of three casinos and two slot machine parlors at the state’s existing racetracks. The House voted 115-36 in favor of the bill while the Senate approved the bill 25-15.

Rep. Donato voted in favor of the bill, while Reps. Sciortino and Garballey and Sen. Jehlen voted against the bill.

Governor Deval Patrick is opposed to slot machines and has sent the bill back for consideration by the state legislature without the provision for two slot machine parlors. The legislative session ended July 31 and it is unclear at this time if state lawmakers will reconvene to address the bill.