BestCraps.com

Another casino bill proposed in Massachusetts

Posted on June 22nd, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

To address the present economic situation, different states in America adopted different legislation. Many of these deal with taxes, general appropriations, budgets and such. One such, among these issues of concern, have been in constant debate in the State of Massachusetts—casinos. The basic contention is that casinos would very much be a boon the the state’s economy, thus eliminating most budget-related problems plaguing the State. Those opposed to the construction of casinos believe that having these establishments in the state would have severe social impacts like addiction.

Despite these fears though, legislators believe that they can’t just stand back and let residents who aren’t addicts, and are in no danger of gambling addiction spend money on Connecticut casinos—money that could very well have been state revenue if spent in Massachusetts. For this purpose, the House and Senate drafted different bills. The bill passed by the House authorizes two casinos—complete with full amenities such as hotels, entertainment, retail and more. The bill would also allow slot machines at different horse and dog tracks across the state. Under this bill, bidders for the two casinos would have the choice of where to construct the casinos, anywhere in the state.

The bill forwarded by the Senate, which is scheduled for debate this week, though also allowing casinos, have significant differences from the bill passed by the House. The Senate bill, will allow three casinos in three different regions scattered around the state. Bidders will not have the choice as to the location of the casinos. Furthermore, the bill also allows special favors for race tracks. If approved, the locations of the casinos will roughly correspond to western, eastern and southeastern Massachusetts. The bill disallows bidders the choice of the location of the casinos for the purpose of spreading the job opportunities ensuing from the construction and operation of the casinos all over the state.

Both bills, while in essence competing with each other, have other concerns where competition is concerned. Massachusetts is home to a couple of federally recognized Indian tribes. These tribes, being federally recognized, will be able to construct casinos with or without the State’s express permission. The only difference is that the federal process of obtaining the authority to construct casinos is a long and daunting one as compared to having a state-licensed casino. The tribes, though not needing a license from the state would be able to benefit from one since almost all processes are shortened. On the other hand, if the casino is state-licensed, the state will have a share of the revenue.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has already undertaken steps to secure the authority of constructing a casino in Fall Rivers. Though obtaining a license from the state will boost the process significantly, the tribe argues that under federal law, that the revenue that their casino generate should not be taxed. While it is beneficial for the state to have the tribe-operated casino licensed, officials believe that this is unlikely. Furthermore any bill introduced that would propose for the construction of casinos will be met with opposition by the tribe members.

So it is with these issues that the bill proposed by the senate will be debated upon this week. Not only will the bill be in competition with an already existing proposal, but will also clash with the Wampanoags’. The following months will probably not see an end to these issues. As the budget gap worsens and the the revenues fall, more issues will be addressed. That means more bills, proposals and debates in the coming months. We might very well see another proposed casino bill in Massachusetts joining the melee the following months.