Careful the way Question Three is worded can be confusing. Here’s the details.
This proposed law would (1) prohibit the Massachusetts Gaming Commission from issuing any license for a casino or other gaming establishment with table games and slot machines, or any license for a gaming establishment with slot machines; (2) prohibit any such casino or slots gaming under any such licenses that the Commission might have issued before the proposed law took effect; and (3) prohibit wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races.
The proposed law would change the definition of “illegal gaming” under Massachusetts law to include wagering on the simulcasting of live greyhound races, as well as table games and slot machines at Commission-licensed casinos, and slot machines at other Commission-licensed gaming establishments. This would make those types of gaming subject to existing state laws providing criminal penalties for, or otherwise regulating or prohibiting, activities involving illegal gaming.
[polldaddy poll=”8382484″]
Ok Newton, so here’s your chance to show your Democrat colors — remember that Barney Frank was a chief supporter of anti-Puritan rules on gaming entertainment. He introduced legislation that, among other things, would have connected the United States with the rest of the internet world with on-line card play and other forms of entertainment which are now completely legal in the US with horse racing.
Not only is a No vote rejecting puritan ideals which for some love of tax money will not let go of scratch tickets in mega billions type loto, it upholds the public promise Massachusetts has with investors that thought that just maybe Massachusetts was trustworthy enough to spend many millions on a casino license. There is no refund, but will certainly be legal battles should the Republican right want to tell us were we can have fun.
Point of Information on Question 3.
I found that the Democrat Establishment candidates for Governor (Coakley and Grossman) and the Republican Establishment candidate Governor (Charlie Baker) all support casinos whereas the grassroots Democrat candidate (Don Berwick) and the grassroots Republican candidate (Mark Fisher) both opposed the casino deal.
I will be voting YES on 3, Yes to Repeal the Casino Deal because casinos are like 40B developments in that they privatize profits for their operators but socialize costs to taxpayers.
http://www.repealthecasinodeal.org/images/documents/2013_Why_Casinos_Matter_FINAL.pdf
I will be voting Yes on 3. There is ample evidence that casinos both are just poaching people who game already, but also significantly increase crime in and around the communities where they are built. I am liberal through and through but this is a no-brainier vote for me.