DiNatale Backs DeLeo Casino Bill (04/10/10)
Posted 2010-04-10 12:59:35
Some lawmakers rethink stance on gaming
By Matt Murphy, mmurphy@lowellsun.com
Posted: 04/09/2010 06:37:41 AM EDT
BOSTON -- The upcoming vote to license resort casinos and slot machines in Massachusetts has put many local House lawmakers in the difficult position of explaining why they now support a plan they once opposed.
Two years after the House voted 106-48 against Gov. Deval Patrick's plan to license three resort casinos in Massachusetts, dozens of lawmakers are considering reversing their positions. Almost uniformly, those politicians cite the economy and the promise of new jobs as the reason for the switch.
No one exemplifies this dilemma more than House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Murphy, a Burlington Democrat who once supported casinos. Then he didn't. And now he does again.
In the fall of 2007, Murphy ran an unsuccessful campaign for state Senate as a strong supporter of Gov. Deval Patrick's plan to legalize resort casinos.
But by March of the next year, he had switched positions and voted against casino legislation that he said would be bad for Massachusetts. The speaker of the House at the time was Sal DiMasi, a strong opponent of expanded gambling who had recently given Murphy a promotion to a vice chairmanship carrying a $7,500 yearly stipend.
Today, Murphy is one of the leading supporters of House Speaker Robert DeLeo's proposal to license two resort casinos and 750 slot machines at each of the state's four racetracks.
"We live in a different time economically, Murphy said. "Nine percent unemployment and not coming down anytime soon. We need people back to work. Back when I took that vote we weren't living in these economic times," Murphy said Thursday. "It's not the fact that the speaker has changed. The economy has changed."
Murphy's evolving position on expanded gambling in the commonwealth is emblematic of the contortions many local lawmakers are going through as they try to explain a change in their positions on gambling. The House has scheduled a debate on the speaker's bill for next Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, fast-tracking the proposal without a public hearing.
Lawmakers from North Central Massachusetts have largely avoided the appearance of flip-flopping on gambling after they were among the minority to support casinos in 2008.
State Rep. Stephen DiNatale voted against leadership two years ago to support gambling, and doesn't intend to change his position now.
"I've always been a proponent for seeking a way to make this happen in the state. We need to capture those jobs, both the construction jobs and the permanent jobs," DiNatale said.
Both Reps. Dennis Rosa, D-Leominster, and Jennifer Benson, D-Lunenburg, were not elected until after the vote took place in 2008 giving them a clean slate. Rosa is struggling to make a decision, while Benson gave her tentative support to the speaker's bill.
"I'm leaning in support. I don't think we can underestimate the importance of jobs," Benson said.
Benson said she doesn't see any better alternative to generating new revenue, and believes this bill does a lot to address the issues of public safety and gambling addiction that have concerned opponents.
"It's not a panacea, but in this economy there is also a social cost to joblessness," Benson said.
Rep. Robert Rice, D-Gardner, and Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, R-Holden, both supported casinos in 2008.
Consistency, however, is something many of their colleagues are struggling with.
"I'm trying to find my way to yes," said Rep. Thomas Golden, D-Lowell. "If I do support the bill it will be because of the job creation that comes with it."
The authors of DeLeo's gambling bill estimate that each new casino will create 3,500 new, permanent jobs and 6,000 to 7,000 construction jobs.
The bill would also require a private investment of at least $500 million in each casino and $75 million from each racetrack, two of which are in DeLeo's district.
The casino licenses would deliver $260 million in upfront licensing fees, and are expected to bring in $300 million to $600 million a year in increased tax revenue. Much of the new revenue would be returned to cities and towns as local aid.
[Back to News]
|
|
|
