Point: There’s more good than bad to casino gambling

As printed in the Eagle Tribune March 23, 2008

The extremes in the casino debate have hijacked the reality of the debate itself. Those in the opposing camp predict economic devastation predicated by catastrophic social costs. Those in the camp favoring casinos point to them as a panacea for all of the commonwealth’s current fiscal difficulties – the solution to local aid and the myriad other costs currently crippling communities and families. Putting aside these polarizing views, neither of which is likely to happen, let’s take a look at the facts.

Opponents argue that casinos will bring skyrocketing rates of problem gambling, crime, and personal bankruptcy to our state. They envision a scenario with addicts roaming the streets, and thousands of young children left in cars to fend for themselves for hours while their parents gamble away their life savings. In fact, studies have shown that less than 3 percent of the population is afflicted by problem and pathological gambling, compared with 10 percent of adults who are problem drinkers, and 18 percent of adults who are addicted to cigarettes and tobacco. Gov. Deval Patrick is right when he says that we don’t ban these types of behaviors – we regulate availability of these products, and provide services to help those in need.

Indeed, the number of people who may be negatively affected by casinos is dwarfed by those individuals whose mental and physical health would potentially be improved due to increased employment and opportunities for health care where they would not otherwise have those benefits. Employee impact studies of casinos across the country indicate that gaming facilities draw 15 percent to 30 percent of their initial work force directly off welfare and unemployment rolls, which translates into 6,000 people off public assistance rolls in Massachusetts. That is a social savings that far offsets any social costs.

The governor’s proposal to create three casinos would generate $3 billion in new capital investment and at least 10,000 construction jobs. The casinos would generate $2 billion annually in gross gaming revenues, $400 million in gaming tax revenues, and 20,000 permanent jobs for state residents. Others will argue that none of these projections will come to fruition, but even if these numbers are cut in half, they will provide the state with an unprecedented number of new jobs and revenue that we would be hard pressed to find elsewhere.

Some critics have questioned whether casinos constitute “real” job growth opportunities for low-income workers. At present, Massachusetts is one of only three states in the nation to still have fewer jobs than at the end of the last recession. We live in a state where two-thirds of our residents do not have a bachelor’s degree. This opportunity is about providing jobs for people who do not have jobs. It means converting part-time jobs into full-time jobs, and jobs without benefits into jobs with benefits. Resort casinos will do all of those things for real people looking for advancement in their quality of life. These individuals deserve good paying full-time jobs with benefits that provide an opportunity for financial security and growth.

Despite the action taken by the House of Representatives this week in voting down the governor’s proposal, if I was a betting man, I’d wager this is not the last we’ve heard of the casino debate.

Sponsors cite a recent attack

By Erin Ailworth, Globe Staff | February 8, 2008

A group of lawmakers filed legislation yesterday to give prosecutors power to demand that juries decide whether offenders nearing the end of their prison terms should be placed in a state treatment facility.

The proposal was filed a week after convicted Level 3 sex offender Corey Saunders was arrested on charges he raped a 6-year-old boy in a New Bedford library. Level 3 is the most dangerous category and is considered likely to reoffend.

The lawmakers, along with community activists and Middlesex District Attorney Gerard T. Leone Jr., said the legislation would give more power to prosecutors and community members to decide which sex offenders are released.

Under current law, prosecutors can ask that offenders who have served most of their sentences be tried to determine if they are sexually dangerous, a designation that would commit them to the Massachusetts Treatment Center in Bridgewater. Offenders and their lawyers can choose whether a judge or jury hears their case.

“My son and I were driving along on the highway when we heard that a 6-year-old was raped in a library in New Bedford; we both gasped audibly,” said Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., a supporter of the legislation who appeared at a press conference yesterday at the State House.

The legislation “is a step in a direction that can make a difference,” she said. “The more transparent we are, the more opportunities we have for communities to be involved, the more likely that a sexual offender will be held accountable.”

Critics said the proposal would make it harder for offenders to get a fair hearing.

“They’re trying to take it out of the hands of the judges to reach the emotions of the jurors,” said Michael G. Cashman, a lawyer who has represented sex offenders. He added that judges are better equipped to make decisions based on the law.

In making a case for changing the law, Leone said that since 1999, 25 of the 47 trials to determine if a convicted sex offender is sexually dangerous in Middlesex County have gone before judges. In 60 percent of those cases, offenders were ruled sexually dangerous. In 22 cases heard by juries, 68 percent were ruled sexually dangerous, Leone said.

Lawmakers supporting the bill include state Senator Steven Baddour of Methuen and state Representative Charles A. Murphy of Burlington.

“It’s outrageous that convicted sex offenders have a say over . . . their future,” Baddour said.

Between 2004 and 2007, judges and juries released more than half of the 181 sexual offenders who prosecutors and psychologists argued were sexually dangerous, according to the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association.

Saunders had been released from the Bridgewater center by a judge in 2006, despite arguments by prosecutors and two court-appointed psychologists that he posed a threat to children. Saunders is being held at the Bristol County House of Correction.

New Bedford police Lieutenant Jeffrey P. Silva lauded the legislation.

“I think what it gives citizens is the opportunity to be represented at the table,” Silva said of yesterday’s proposal. “If the sex offender and his or her counsel are the only ones who dictate the forum [of judge or jury] you no longer have equipoise. . . .

“I think it was a lopsided system of justice, and I think this will level the playing field.”

Erin Ailworth can be reached at eailworth@globe.com.

© Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

By Katie Farrell
Staff writer
—

MERRIMAC — Some elderly residents had to wait so long they missed their doctor appointments. Others say they found drivers inconsiderate and impatient. And there were others who waited for buses that never arrived.

For more than two hours yesterday, area Council on Aging directors took turns telling Beacon Hill lawmakers about the problems bus passengers face when taking public transportation with the Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority and urging legislators to fix it.

The meeting, held in a crowded room at the Merrimac Senior Center, was chaired by Sen. Steven Baddour, D-Methuen, co-chairman of the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Transportation.

Joe Costanzo, the regional administrator of the MVRTA, attended the session with several members of his staff.

And it’s not just seniors who face obstacles, said Jim Lyons, director of Northeast Independent Living Program in Lawrence. Their patrons, often folks with disabilities under age 60, face the same issues, regardless of their age, he said.

One of the biggest problems they have is that they can’t get a ride to work because of the hours the rides operate, Lyons said.

“Employment is really the biggest need,” he said, adding that his program is willing to work with MVRTA to help develop new programs.

Staff is also willing to provide sensitivity training for drivers on how to work with patrons with disabilities, he said.

Council on Aging directors sat before the legislators, describing the problems they see every day and offering suggestions that MVRTA drivers should take sensitivity training or change the length of time they wait for riders to come outside.

Numerous directors all told similar stories: seniors stranded at the senior center waiting for a ride home long after the doors officially closed, nervous elders waiting for their MVRTA ride to pick them up and take them to the doctor on time, seniors sharing stories about impatient drivers who hurry them along, worried seniors forced to wait an hour or two after their scheduled pickup time, or cases of seniors left waiting for a ride home from the doctor or an appointment.

The MVRTA provides two main services for seniors and disabled riders, Ring-and-Ride and EZ-Trans. Both require seniors to call ahead to reserve space and share the rides with other people. The Ring-and-Ride provides curb-to-curb service, and drivers are obligated to wait only five minutes for a passenger to come outside.

Lynne Stanton, Groveland Council on Aging director, questioned why MVRTA drivers can’t help passengers to their door or into their house. The majority of the elders who use the Ring-and-Ride are in their 80s, “somewhat frail” and have health issues and could use a helping hand, she said.

It also takes the average senior longer than five minutes to get ready and come outside, particularly if they have a walker or cane, she said.

“Patience is an issue,” she said.

One woman from Merrimac, who is legally blind, shared her story of arguing with bus drivers about bringing her seeing eye dog on the bus with her, waiting for buses that never show up at their scheduled stop, battling with cab companies over reduced fare, and having to walk everywhere or even ask her 80-year-old neighbor for a ride to the pharmacy, due to transportation problems with MVRTA.

Legislators called for the formation of an advisory board, made up of Council on Aging directors, Lyons and MVRTA representatives.

“Clearly, there’s a desire to want to make the system better,” Baddour said.

Copyright © 1999-2006 cnhi, inc.