Stan Rosenberg a key architect of legislation enabling casino gambling in Massachusetts?
That’s how news accounts last week described the veteran Amherst lawmaker, a Democrat, in the wake of a 25-15 state Senate vote to license three resort-style casinos in the Baystate.
Apt as the description may be—Rosenberg served as the Senate’s point man on the gaming issue at the behest of Senate President Therese Murray, D-Plymouth, a staunch proponent of casinos in Massachusetts—it may still strike many Western Mass. residents as surprising. Under Senate leadership that stood steadfastly against gaming, Rosenberg had long opposed casino gaming here, criticizing previous efforts to legalize casino gambling as running counter to the state’s longterm social, cultural and economic interests.
For more than a year, Rosenberg has been sending a clear message that he believes casino gaming in Massachusetts is inevitable and, given the precedent of the state’s Lottery, no longer particularly vulnerable to moral objections. Despite continued criticism from casino opponents who insist that the Legislature and Gov. Deval Patrick have pushed gaming without adequate study or public debate, Rosenberg worked hard to frame legalized gaming in Massachusetts as a fait accompli. The question in recent months appears not to have been whether to legalize gaming, but rather how to do it.
Like many proponents, including Gov. Patrick, Rosenberg argued that the state was losing billions in revenue to out-of-state casinos, particularly those in Connecticut. While he expressed faith that potential harms from casinos will be limited by careful regulation and a significant set-aside of tax revenue from casinos to assist affected communities and to fund addiction programs, Rosenberg also argued that casino development would provide much-needed jobs at a time of high unemployment. “For a significant number of people who do not have jobs right now,” Rosenberg said in a WBUR radio interview last month, “there will be employment opportunities, so that is a social good&We want to make sure that the state garners a significant amount of revenue that can be used not only to mitigate the negative social implications, but also support other services and programs.”
As well as Rosenberg may have understood the politics surrounding the issue so far, the Legislature itself has appeared in recent weeks to get bogged down in a series of contentious if at times parody-worthy side debates over such issues as smoking in casinos, limits on wagering and the use by the casino industry of pheromones pumped into the air to keep gamblers upbeat and betting. Some proponents mocked efforts to make casinos smoke-free as a symbol of Massachusetts as a “nanny state,” while a faction of Republicans lawmakers pushed a plan to use all casino revenue for tax relief for property owners—a swipe at Gov. Patrick for what GOP adversaries see as a failure to deliver on his campaign promise to ease the tax burden on residential and commercial property owners.
While Senate leadership managed to pass a bill without knuckling under to pressure for liberalized smoking policies for casinos and earmarks for property tax relief, it is still unclear exactly how, and how many, casinos will operate in Massachusetts. The State House of Representatives passed its own gaming bill in April, approving a plan that would allow for two resort casinos and legalize slot machines at racetracks. The House bill will now have to be reconciled with the Senate bill, which continues the ban on slots at the tracks.
Also still unclear is what impact the gaming issue will have, if any, on politicians who either supported or opposed gaming. Has Rosenberg, for example, championed gambling with the support of his constituents, or merely with their forebearance? To a lesser degree, the same question can be asked about other senators in the Western Mass. delegation. Locally, Senators Stephen Buoniconti (D-West Springfield), Gale Candaras (D- Wilbraham), and Michael Knapik voted with Rosenberg in favor of legalizing gaming, while Stephen M. Brewer (D-Barre) and Benjamin Downing (D-Pittsfied) voted against the Senate bill.
