Skip to Content


SENATE DOCKET, NO. 339         FILED ON: 1/19/2011

SENATE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  No. 150

 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

_________________

PRESENTED BY:

Stephen M. Brewer

_______________

To the Honorable Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in General
              Court assembled:

              The undersigned legislators and/or citizens respectfully petition for the adoption of the accompanying bill:

An Act relative to an independent analysis of expanded gaming in the Commonwealth.

_______________

PETITION OF:

 

Name:

District/Address:

Stephen M. Brewer

Worcester, Hampden, Hampshire, Franklin

Barry R. Finegold

 

Thomas P. Conroy

13th Middlesex

Patricia D. Jehlen

 

Ellen Story

3rd Hampshire

William N. Brownsberger

 

James J. Lyons, Jr.

18th Essex

Frank I. Smizik

15th Norfolk

Michael R. Knapik

 

Carolyn C. Dykema

8th Middlesex

Ruth B. Balser

12th Middlesex

Susan C. Fargo

 

Elizabeth A. Malia

11th Suffolk

Ryan C. Fattman

18th Worcester

Richard T. Moore

 

Cynthia S. Creem

 

George N. Peterson, Jr.

9th Worcester

Jonathan Hecht

29th Middlesex

Angelo M. Scaccia

14th Suffolk

James B. Eldridge

 

Benjamin B. Downing

Berkshire, Hampshire, and Franklin

Todd M. Smola

1st Hampden

Brian M. Ashe

2nd Hampden

Denise Provost

27th Middlesex

Carl M. Sciortino, Jr.

34th Middlesex

Kathleen Norbut

95 Mayhill Road


SENATE DOCKET, NO. 339        FILED ON: 1/19/2011

SENATE  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  No. 150

By Mr. Brewer, petition (accompanied by bill, Senate, No. 150) of Stephen M. Brewer, Barry R. Finegold, Thomas P. Conroy, Patricia D. Jehlen and other members of the General Court for legislation relative to an independent analysis of expanding gaming in the Commonwealth [Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies].


The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
 

_______________

In the Year Two Thousand Eleven

_______________

 

An Act relative to an independent analysis of expanded gaming in the Commonwealth.
 

              Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
 

              SECTION 1.  His Excellency the Governor is hereby directed to commission a comprehensive, independent analysis of the costs and benefits of (a) legalizing Class 3 gambling in the Commonwealth, generally, and (b) siting new Class 3 gambling facilities within the Commonwealth or on tribal land within the Commonwealth, should federal law allow; provided that:

              (1) the organization conducting the analysis shall be drawn from a list of qualified research institutions which are acceptable: (a) to the lead House and Senate sponsors of this Bill, (b) to the proponents of expanded gambling, as represented by the sponsors of pending legislation authorizing the legalization of Class 3 gambling; and (c) to the Governor;

              (2) said analysis shall describe the costs and benefits: (a) to the Commonwealth as a whole, (b) to the host communities where any Class 3 gambling facility would be sited, and (c) to the communities within a 25 mile radius or direct impact of any such Class 3 gambling facility;

              (3) said analysis shall explicitly and distinctly discuss the costs and benefits anticipated: (a) over the short term (0-2 years from the passage of legislation legalizing Class 3 gambling and licensing one or more facilities where Class 3 gambling would occur), (b) over the medium term (2 to 5 years from the passage of such legislation), and (c) over the long term (over 5 years from the passage of such legislation), taking into consideration the impacts of: (i) the likely subsequent siting of competing Class 3 gambling facilities near the Massachusetts border in surrounding states, (ii) the likely subsequent siting of competing Class 3 gambling facilities on tribal land within Massachusetts, and/or (iii) the federal legalization of Internet gambling;

              (4) said analysis shall describe: (a) the anticipated increases in employment associated with the development and operation of Class 3 gambling facilities, and the development and operation/expansion of so-called "ripple-effect" businesses, in terms of the types and numbers of jobs that will be created, the salaries and benefits paid, and the anticipated duration of such jobs, as well as (b) the anticipated adverse impacts on jobs whose existence pre-dates the introduction of Class 3 gambling, including jobs associated with businesses that compete for the entertainment spending of Massachusetts residents and so-called "ripple effect" businesses, in terms of the types and numbers of jobs that will be lost or that will experience reduced hours, and the lost or diminished salaries and benefits;

              (5) said analysis shall describe: (a) the anticipated increase in revenues to the Commonwealth, including the sources and anticipated magnitudes of such revenues, and the anticipated duration of such revenues at the stated magnitudes, using the fee and tax structures proposed in authorizing legislation enacted by the General Court in July 2010 and subsequently returned by the Governor with proposed changes, and (b) the anticipated loss or diminution of revenues to the Commonwealth, from businesses and employees that are adversely affected by the introduction of Class 3 gambling facilities, and from reduced Lottery sales;

              (6) said analysis shall describe the anticipated increase in costs to the Commonwealth and/or host communities: (a) of creating and maintaining the necessary regulatory/enforcement infrastructure for overseeing the lawful operation of Class 3 gambling facilities; (b) of investigating, prosecuting, and adjudicating criminal activities associated with the operation or use of such Class 3 gambling; (c) of incarcerating and rehabilitating persons found guilty of criminal activities associated with the operation or use of such Class 3 gambling facilities; (d) the costs of creating and maintaining the physical infrastructure (e.g., roads, utilities, water, sewage, etc.) needed to accommodate such Class 3 gambling facilities; (e) of the impact on employers, families, and persons/organizations doing business with individuals who gamble away the money they would otherwise use to meet necessary expenses and satisfy ordinary financial obligations; (f) of any increased bankruptcies attributable to the siting of Class 3 gambling facilities; (g) of the public health, public safety, and corrections-related costs associated with increases in compulsive gambling and the increased use of alcohol or drugs, including prescription drugs, by customers of such Class 3 gambling facilities; (h) of the publicly and privately insured  health care costs associated with increases in compulsive gambling, increased use of alcohol or drugs, including prescription drugs, and/or with increased incidence or severity of depression, anxiety, suicidality, and/or other mental health problems experienced by customers of such Class 3 gambling facilities; and (i) of the costs associated with any increases in domestic violence or family dysfunction, associated with use of such Class 3 gambling facilities.

              SECTION 2.  The General Court shall not enact, nor shall the Governor sign, any legislation authorizing Class 3 gambling and/or licensing the use of slot machines or other instruments associated with Class 3 gambling, at casinos or other such facilities, until the comprehensive, independent cost benefit analysis described herein shall have been completed and delivered to and accepted by the Governor, the Senate President, and the Speaker of the House, and made public on the websites of the Governor and the General Court; provided, however, that in the event that the Governor, the Senate President, and the Speaker of the House do not affirm in writing their belief that said analysis clearly demonstrates, in both the short-term and medium-term, that the benefits with respect to jobs and revenues outweigh the costs to the Commonwealth, to the host communities of any Class 3 gambling facility, and to the communities within a 25-mile radius or direct impact of any such facility, then enactment of any legislation legalizing Class 3 gambling or licensing facilities at which Class 3 gambling activities are authorized to occur shall require a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate.

The information contained in this website is for general information purposes only. The General Court provides this information as a public service and while we endeavor to keep the data accurate and current to the best of our ability, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

Error