Critics said any economic benefits from expanded gambling would be temporary and marginal compared to the addiction, increased crime, divorces and bankruptcies that will be left in the wake of casinos.
Associated Press photoFormer state Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover, holds a map as she speaks against casino gaming at a rally outside the Statehouse in Boston, Tuesday. House Democrats caucused behind closed doors to discuss legislation that would license three resort style casinos and a slot machine parlor.
BOSTON - Opponents staged a last-minute protest against expanded gambling on Tuesday, saying casinos would damage the state's economy and create enormous social and political problems.
The protest came as members of the state House of Representatives plan to vote on Wednesday on a bill to permit three casinos in three regions around the state including one for anywhere in the four counties of Western Massachusetts. The bill would also create a single slot house with up to 1,250 slot machines.
"In the long term, the bill will only create more economic turbulence, more problems for families, and more new addiction than our state can afford," said Alison Digman, a social worker who spoke on behalf of the state chapter of the National Association of Social Workers during the event outside the Statehouse.
Digman was among a series of speakers from religious, civic, political and other groups who called for state legislators and Gov. Deval L. Patrick to kill the bill, unveiled last month.
Critics said any economic benefits from expanded gambling would be temporary and marginal compared to the addiction, increased crime, divorces and bankruptcies that will be left in the wake of casinos.
Opponents said casinos will create short-term jobs, but will also take jobs from restaurants and other businesses.
"Slots will bring new costs to every citizen, even those who never set foot inside a slot parlor or casino," said the Rev. Laura Everett, associate director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.
Thomas Larkin , of Bedford, president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, said opponents are doing everything they can to defeat the bill. "We're not going gently," Larkin said. "This is about standing up for social justice. That's what we are doing."
The bill is backed by top state legislators and the governor.
State Rep. Joseph F. Wagner, D-Chicopee, said there is strong support in the state House of Representatives for casinos. Wagner said the bill is a good one.
"As an economic-development initiative, this bill will create thousands of jobs and yield hundreds of millions annually in revenues for the commonwealth," said Wagner, who is co-chairman of the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies, which approved the casino bill last month, setting the stage for the debate on Wednesday.
Opponents said they expect the casino bill will be approved again this year in the Legislature. Last year, the Senate voted 25-15 in favor of casinos; the House , 120-37.
The governor rejected last year's bill because he said it contained two slot licenses that were slated for two race tracks in the state. Patrick has voiced support for this year's bill, which includes one slot license that would be competitively bid and could be located anywhere in the state.
Wagner said some key critics failed to attend his committee's public hearing on casino bills on May 4. He said they should have been engaged earlier in the legislative process.
"Where have they been?" Wagner asked. "What is their answer for new jobs and new revenues? I haven't heard mayors and boards of selectmen complaining."
Former Monson selectman Kathleen C. Norbut, an adviser to United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts, said some opponents may not have been able to attend the public hearing at the Statehouse because of work or family commitments. Norbut said opponents have offered scientific data and credible information that have often been ignored by proponents.
Norbut said the May 4 hearing was a sham. "The public was told in plain English that the bill would be crafted behind closed doors," she said.
The governor met privately with House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray to help develop the casino bill. Wagner said the three leaders meet regularly behind closed doors to discuss all major issues.
Wagner said all casino bills that were submitted this year received a hearing and that many members of the House weighed in with suggestions.
"I don't know how it could be any more transparent," Wagner said.
So far, two companies are proposing casinos for Western Massachusetts.
The Mohegan Sun, which operates a casino in Connecticut, is proposing a casino for Palmer, to be located off Exit 8 of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
A group called Paper City Development wants to put a casino at the Wyckoff Country Club in Holyoke, which borders Interstate 91. Paper City estimated the casino would create 1,500 permanent jobs and 2,000 construction jobs.
In addition to Tuesday's press conference by opponents, opponents released an analysis of the casino bill that included a "top ten problems" with the casino bill.
The problems, spelled out in a press release by former Attorney General L. Scott Harshbarger, include a division of oversight that could create a communications nightmare. Harshbarger also cited a lack of prohibitions against legislators, former legislators or their family members from being hired by casinos or applicants for casino licenses.
"This bill is troubled, it was negotiated in secret by the big three leaders and is being shoved in front of legislators for a high-pressure leadership vote with little analysis and less time to consider," Harshbarger said in a prepared statement.
Wagner said it is appropriate that various agencies, including the state auditor, the state treasurer, the attorney general and a proposed five-member gaming commission, possess regulatory oversight.
The governor would appoint the chairman of the commission, while the treasurer and attorney general would each appoint one member. The commission would choose the other two members.
Wagner also questioned if relatives of public officials should be barred from working in a private industry simply because the industry is regulated by the state. By that standard, no such relative could work at a bank or an insurance company, he noted.