QUESTION 1: Expanded Slot-Machine Gaming
Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 3, 2016?
SUMMARY
This proposed law would allow the state Gaming Commission to issue one additional category 2 license, which would permit operation of a gaming establishment with no table games and not more than 1,250 slot machines.
The proposed law would authorize the Commission to request applications for the additional license to be granted to a gaming establishment located on property that is (i) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track's additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns, auditorium, amphitheatre, and bleachers; (iii) where a horse racing meeting may physically be held; (iv) where a horse racing meeting shall have been hosted; and (v) not separated from the race track by a highway or railway.
WHAT YOUR VOTE WILL DO
A YES VOTE would permit the state Gaming Commission to license one additional slot-machine gaming establishment at a location that meets certain conditions specified in the law.
A NO VOTE would make no change in current laws regarding gaming.
See full text of Question 1
ARGUMENTS
As provided by law, the 150-word arguments are written by proponents and opponents of each question, and reflect their opinions. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts does not endorse these arguments, and does not certify the truth or accuracy of any statement made in these arguments. The names of the individuals and organizations who wrote each argument, and any written comments by others about each argument, are on file in the Office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
IN FAVOR: Voting YES allows one additional slots parlor in Massachusetts, providing millions of dollars to Massachusetts communities and creating thousands of jobs. In 2013 alone, Massachusetts residents who played at neighboring state gaming facilities gave those states over $240 Million that could have stayed in Massachusetts.
Under the Gaming Law, nearly half the revenue collected benefits all Massachusetts residents. Over the past year, the existing slots parlor contributed over $60 million for Massachusetts communities, plus additional funds paid to the host-community. (The Gaming Law ensures that a slots parlor will only be licensed in a community that votes for it.)
About $1 of every $5 collected goes to our State's horse racing industry, sustaining jobs at racetracks and breeding farms. A second slots parlor, together with the existing parlor, will assure that the long tradition of horse racing in Massachusetts survives while bringing thousands of new jobs to Massachusetts.
Authored by:
Eugene McCain
Horse Racing Jobs and Education Committee
353 Broadway
Revere, MA 02151
978-972-8156
www.Massachusettsquestion1.com
AGAINST: Legalized casino gambling in the Commonwealth is too new and unproven to expand at this time.
Only one slot parlor has opened in Massachusetts, and it is significantly underperforming.
Five casinos are expected to open in Massachusetts by 2019. The Wall Street Journal warns that New England already has more casinos than the market wants or needs.
This ballot question was written by one casino developer, for one purpose: his own financial gain. It disrupts the process and limits established by the Legislature to protect communities and existing businesses.
Proponents of the 'Act Relative to Gaming' have traveled across the globe to exploit the Commonwealth and send a message to other casino developers – they can come to Massachusetts and do the same.
Vote "No" to postpone the question of gambling expansion until a review of the costs and benefits of existing Massachusetts gaming establishments is completed.
Authored by:
Celeste Ribeiro Myers
Chair, Committee for Responsible and Sustainable Economic Development
256 Marginal St
Boston, MA 02128
MaCasinos.net