Editorial

Yes on Casinos, No on Question 3

Voters will head to the ballot box early next month to decide, among other things, whether to allow casinos in the Bay State.

Putting aside the issue of our state’s highest court hijacking the legislative process by allowing this question to see the light of day, the ballot initiative attempts to circumvent a years-long process by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its elected officials, not to mention the casino operators who thought they were playing on a level field, having invested tens of millions of dollars in an open and competitive process to obtain the necessary permits and licenses to operate.

It also attempts to undo the will of the people by invalidating elections held in several Bay State cities and towns, including Springfield, where voters overwhelmingly voted in favor of allowing a casino to be built.

While we believe voters will see the light and vote down this initiative, we are concerned that many people may think they are voting in favor of allowing casinos when their vote may accomplish just the opposite. Question 3 is poorly written and confusing on many fronts, and voters need to understand what ‘yes’ and ‘no’ really mean. In this case, ‘no’ means you actually support the state’s plans to allow casinos by voting not to undo what has rightfully been approved by the state Legislature and cities like Springfield. A ‘yes’ vote means just the opposite — throwing away nearly three years of diligent, hard work by government and business, with government, for once, being a productive partner in a process that was open, competitive, and, we think, fair (or as fair as it can get on Beacon Hill).

Casinos have gotten a lot of bad press this summer and fall — and not just in the Bay State. The headlines out of Atlantic City have been downbeat to say the least, with several casinos, some with price tags well north of $1 billion, going out of business, leaving thousands out of work, and the future of that city in question. Some of these properties have new owners who have made promises to reopen, but the picture on the boardwalk remains bleak. Meanwhile, closer to home, business at Connecticut’s two casinos has slowed, and there is no shortage of analysts saying the Northeast is already oversaturated with casinos, even without the Bay State’s planned facilities — up to three resort casinos and a slots parlor.

But we believe MGM’s plan to build a resort casino in Springfield’s South End is strong and multi-faceted and does not rely mainly on gaming revenues, like its struggling counterparts in New Jersey, to stay profitable.

BusinessWest joins the chorus of voices, including area business and economic-development agencies (and, yes, unions) saying that voters in the Commonwealth should support the already-approved plan to allow casinos in Massachusetts.

Why? Primarily because of what it means for Springfield. MGM’s plan represents a unique opportunity — an opportunity for thousands of new jobs, an opportunity to perhaps spark a long-overdue revitalization of Springfield’s downtown and riverfront, an opportunity for this proud city to be relevant again and noteworthy for more than its high poverty rate and fiscal woes. Allowing a casino in Springfield builds on the region’s growing tourism industry, adding yet another successful venue to the many that already exist, like Six Flags, the Basketball Hall of Fame, and the Eastern States Exposition.

We understand the risks. Those who say the Northeast is oversaturated with casinos may be right. But we fully believe this is a risk worth accepting. Before MGM entered the picture, no one had ever come forward with a plan to invest $800 million in Springfield, and it’s highly unlikely we will see a proposal involving that many zeroes again.

We don’t fully know what’s going to happen over the next several years if the pro-casino forces prevail on Nov. 4 — no one does. But we have a pretty good sense of what will happen if they don’t. A decade from now, Springfield’s South End will look much like it does now — is there any incentive for anyone to invest there? — and the downtown will continue to struggle. And the all-important fight for new jobs, well … that will suffer a devastating setback, because, as we’ve said many times, there is simply no plan B for this city.

Considering what’s at stake, we believe it’s clear that the logical step for the state’s residents is to say ‘yes’ to casinos — or, more to the point, vote ‘no’ on Question 3.

Springfield’s future rests in the balance.