BestCraps.com

Governor rejects “no-bid contract” for slot parlors

Posted on August 5th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

After weeks of compromise, the bill supported by both the House and the Senate has been returned to the legislature for ammendment last Monday. “I’m never going to agree on a no-bid contract for the slot parlors”, Governor Patrick said of the expanded gambling bill passed by on Saturday. The bill allows three casinos in different locations all around Massachusetts and two slot parlors . The bill limited the bidding for the lot licenses to the owners of the state’s four existing racetracks. But Suffolk and Wonderland have collaborated on a joint venture on a casino, thus leaving only Raynham and Planridge as uncontested bidders for the two slot licenses. “That’s an inside deal. That’s a no-bid contract. And I won’t support it,” the democrat governor said during his monthly appearance on WTKK-FM. “Lawmakers are risking the tax revenues and jobs by demanding to create slot machine parlors guaranteed to the state’s racetrack owners,” the governor added.

Saturday was the last day of the regular session. If the Governor stands on a veto, the future of the bill will be now up to the legislators. “We have got to stop doing this thing, that has characterized the business on Beacon Hill for a long time, of making sure the fix is in for a couple of our friends, a couple of powerful friends, and letting the best long-term interests of the commonwealth take the backseat”, Governor Patrick said.

According to Massachusetts law, casino operators need to secure licenses in order to operate. The three casinos from the propsed bill alone would earn the state $85 million in licensing fees. Furthermore, operators would be required to make a capital investment of at least $600 million. Meanwhile, Foxwoods Resort Casino and Mohegan Sun heaved a sigh of relief as the new delay in the coming of a formidable competition in the Bay State presents itself. Failure in Massachusetts is another lease on life for Connecticut, whose casinos attract a considerable number of players from the Bay State. About 36 percent of Foxwoods gamblers are coming from Bay State, according to estimates by the Center for Policy Analysis at the Univesity of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.

I would suspect that they hope it all goes down in flames,” says Clyde Barror, director of the Center and an expert on gambling in New England. “At least another year of no competition from Massachusetts,” he added. However, the legislature is set to reconvene on January—a four-month period. The only chance would be for a special session to be conducted but plans for such have been stopped as the Senate refuses to convene. The bill appears to be all but dead at this point. House Speaker Robert DeLeo, the relentless proponent of the slot parlors, said that the governor’s rejection is unacceptable. “The bill will either die or Patrick has vowed to veto it if the Legislature rejects the amendment”, Speaker DeLeo said.

This would be the second time in the last two years that Massachusetts has come close to expanding legal gambling operation in the state but halted on the final stage. In 2008, the legislature blocked a bill proposed by then Representatice Patrick. The propsed bill allowed three csasinos and no slot parlors—much like what Gov. Patrick pushes for today. Governor Patrick has been opposing slots-only venues as economically less valuable than resort casinos, and says of them as inviting only greater social ills. The governor last week offered a ammendments to the propsed bill that he would accept; He said he is willing to support one slot parlor as long as it goes under a competitive bid and not restricted to a racetrack site. He made this compromise to induce lawmakers to pass on other pending bills.

“This was a big step for me because I don’t believe that slot parlors are right for us. I think we get much, much more social harm relative to the jobs and the revenue, but the point was to try to move this thing, so we could get the casino debate out of the way and move all this legislation that was stuck behind it.” he admitted. Governor Patrick’s political career, which is due for re-election this fall, is said to have been hurt by his gambling advocacy. Now, with this move observers believe he has distanced himself from most of his gambling supporters—one that he had gained at the loss of his prevous supporters.