A Worthless Gamble

This election, the people of Massachusetts will be voting on four ballot questions, the first of which, if approved, would expand a five-year old casino to allow a second slot parlor in the state. Currently, a 2011 casino law limits the number of casinos and slot parlors are to three and one, respectively—with two of the three casino licenses awarded. The ballot proposal would allow opening of one more slot parlor. The man behind this petition is Eugene McCain, a real estate developer who made his fortune in luxury hotels in Thailand. While the Mayor of Revere, Brian Arrigo, is campaigning against the ballot and the people in Revere have expressed disapproval of the plans in a non-binding referendum, the real estate developer seems intent on steamrolling his way through these local objections.

The narrow wording of the ballot question deeply concerning, and borders on the farcical. The proposed question would not open a statewide competition for licenses. Instead, it specifically would allow a slot parlor to be built on a property that it at least four acres in size, with a race track within 1500 feet of the property and not separated from the race track by a highway or a railway. This description points to some properties that Mr. McCain owns, or at least plans on owning, near Suffolk Downs in Revere. The specificity of this question leaves little doubt that it is intended primarily for one very specific private intent. It seems to be an instance of a wealthy individual trying to bend state laws and regulations for very particular benefits.

Another troubling aspect of this question is the opacity behind McCain and the proposal. Though McCain had previously filed for bankruptcy, he has refused to disclose his fellow investors or the source of seed money for the project. Arrigo has called the plan a "fly-by-night" operation, and it certainly seems like it.

Earlier research that helped draft the 2011 casino law showed that one slot parlor together with three casinos would maintain economic competition without over-saturating the market. Since all three casinos are not operational yet, the economic merits of the added slot parlor are difficult to assess. Furthermore, relatively high unemployment from the recession helped catalyze the 2011 effort. Since the local economy has become better since then, the economic impetus that backed the 2011 legislation is no longer as pressing.

The proposed plan is not popular among local residents either. In a non-binding referendum in Revere, the residents voted to reject the opening of the gambling facility. While local residents can still stop the construction if Question 1 passes, the people of Massachusetts would do well to take account of the local opinion in their vote.

Moreover, gambling facilities like the proposed slot parlor have disproportionately detrimental effects on people from lower income class. Given the regressive nature of gambling, it is important that we prevent private motives like McCain’s from exploiting people who are struggling to make ends meet.

We, therefore, stand with the people of Revere in rejecting this ballot question. Not only is the opacity and the sloppiness of the proposal disturbing, but the plan doesn’t carry much economic merit either. The inclusion of this question in the ballot seems to be primarily an instance of a wealthy individual using the referendum process for essentially private motives. We oppose such a finagling of regulations, and urge a "No" vote on Question 1.