Critics say social costs glossed over

BOSTON - Massachusetts Senate leaders defended their decision not to commission a study of the social costs of casinos, saying there's no way to do so without knowing the exact location of each gambling venue.

Sen. Stanley Rosenberg, D-Amherst, responded Monday to casino critics who said an $80,000 taxpayer-funded report released by the Senate last week only focused on the economic benefit to the state and not the social costs to cities and towns, such as gambling addiction treatment, increased crime, bankruptcy, and foreclosure.

That report found the Senate's plan for three resort-style casinos would create up to 12,000 jobs and bring in up to $460 million each year, but said little about social costs.

Rosenberg said the locations of the casinos would have to be decided before a social cost analysis could be completed.

"It's totally situational," Rosenberg told reporters. "I've met with academic experts and they say there is no proven reliable methodology to predict in advance what the community impact is going to be on an economy."

Rosenberg said that under the Senate bill, casino operators seeking one of the three licenses would have to submit a cost-benefit analysis with their proposal. They would also be required to outline what steps they are taking to ease those effects on the local economy.

He also said that if opponents want a cost-benefit analysis they should pay for one on their own.

United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts said the Senate needs a fuller analysis before rushing ahead. Kathleen Conley Norbut, the group's president, said Rosenberg's contention that no social cost study could be done without knowing a casino's exact location was "absolutely false."

"It is very possible to come up with a model for a rural, for a suburban or for an urban casino," Norbut said during a Statehouse press conference following a meeting with Rosenberg.

Norbut said she helped put together a study that focused on the effects a casino would have on western Massachusetts and that casinos in Connecticut could provide a model for such an analysis.

"I think the timeline has been dictating more of the work than what is real and what could possibly be done," Norbut said, referring to the rush to pass a gambling bill before the end of the legislative session July 31.

Norbut also cited a 2008 report commissioned by the Patrick administration as an example of a report on casinos that considered social costs. However, the report produced by Spectrum Gaming Group of Linwood, N.J., did not quantify those costs and said they "typically take much longer to emerge."

Norbut said her group would not be conducting a social impact study because the state should be able to compile one.

The Senate's report doesn't quantify the social costs associated with casinos, but advises that a small percentage of gambling revenues should be devoted to offset community costs and "potential negative social impacts."

The Senate's casino report was compiled by The Innovation Group, which bills itself as the "premier provider of consulting and management services for the gaming, entertainment and hospitality industries." A spokeswoman for The Innovation Group referred all questions back to senators.

Also Monday, former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, a casino opponent, sent a letter to Senate President Therese Murray urging the Senate to create an escrow account to pay for the social costs associated with expanded gambling.

In the Senate's current gambling proposal, 10 percent of gambling revenues the state receives will go into a special fund devoted to offsetting the impact of casinos on local communities. About 35 percent of that money would pay for services such as addiction prevention.

The Senate is to debate the bill this week.