July 29, 2010: Casino gambling

; 07/29/10 7:30 PM

;

;;;;GREATER BOSTON

>> TONIGHT ON "GREATER BOSTON,"

WITH THE DEADLINE LOOMING, A

CASINO COMPROMISE APPEARS NEAR.

>>> PLUS, DOCTOR'S NOTES.

WOULD OR SHOULD YOU WANT TO KNOW

WHAT YOUR PHYSICIAN HAS WRITTEN

ABOUT YOU.

>>> AND THE SCORCHING TRENDS IN

BOSTON.

IT'S "STUFF" MAGAZINE'S HOT 100.

Closed Captioning

brought to you by AFLAC:

Ask about it at work.

>> GOOD EVENING.

TONIGHT BEACON HILL'S HIGH

STAKES POKER OVER CASINO

GAMBLING LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A

PAYOFF.

THEY'LL WORK INTO TOMORROW ON A

COMPROMISE BILL THAT WOULD

REPORTEDLY LICENSE THREE CASINOS

AND TWO SLOT MACHINE PARLORS IN

MASSACHUSETTS, BUT THE DETAILS,

LIKE WHETHER OR NOT THE SLOTS

WILL GO TO THE STATE'S RACETRACK

OWNERS ARE STILL A CRAPSHOOT.

JOINING ME NOW ARE "GREATER

BOSTON'S" PRODUCER ADAM RILEY

AND CLYDE BARROW.

ADAM, YOU WERE UP THERE FOR A

SECOND DAY IN A ROW GETTING A

FEEL OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

WHAT'S YOUR SENSE?

WE HEARD THERE'S A FRAMEWORK IN

PLACE WITH A THREE AND TWO.

>> THEY'VE BEEN APPARENTLY

WORKING ON A BILL SINCE LAST

NIGHT.

THEY'VE HAD A BROUGHT AGREEMENT

SINCE YESTERDAY EVENING.

THEY'VE CONTINUED WRITING THE

BILL TODAY.

IT'S UNCLEAR EXACTLY WHAT

DETAILS HAVEN'T BEEN HAMMERED

OUT, BUT AS YOU SAID IN THE LEAD

THE QUESTION IS GOING TO GET THE

SLOT PARLORS IS THE RACETRACKS,

AN OPEN BIDDING SITUATION.

I THINK THEY NEED TO WORK THAT

OUT.

THEY'RE ALSO TRYING TO FIGURE

OUT HOW TO PREVENT GOVERNOR

PATRICK FROM POSSIBLY LINE ITEM

VETOING THE SLOT MACHINE

COMPONENT.

IT'S TECHNICAL HERE, BUT IF IT'S

AN APPROPRIATION BILLS THAT THEY

GIVE HIM, MEANING ONE THAT DRAWS

ON REVENUE FROM THE STATE, THEN

THE GOVERNOR HAS LINE ITEM VETO

POWER.

IF IT ISN'T, HE DOESN'T.

THERE'S TECHNICAL FINE-TUNING

GOING ON TO KEEP HIM FROM BEING

ABLE TO REJECT.

>> WE TALKED LAST NIGHT AT THE

TOP OF THE SHOW, WE TALKED ABOUT

HOW THE BIG THREE WERE ALL AT A

BIG IMPASSE.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE INTERVENING

HOURS?

>> IT'S NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR.

I THINK THAT THERE IS JUST SO

MUCH PRESSURE RIGHT NOW TO GET

SOMETHING DONE.

I THINK THERE'S A BROAD

AWARENESS THAT IF THEY DON'T,

EVERYONE'S GOING TO LOOK BAD.

YOU KNOW, THE DEMOCRATS AS A

WHOLE ARE GOING TO LOOK BAD.

AND THE FACT THAT TIME HAS, YOU

KNOW, ALMOST RUN OUT.

TREES MURRAY, THE SENATE

PRESIDENT, YESTERDAY GAVE AN

8:00 P.M. ULTIMATUM FOR

AGREEMENT, SAYING SHE WAS GOING

TO CUT THINGS OFF IF THERE

WASN'T AN AGREEMENT BY 8:00 P.M.

IT SEEMS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A

CATALYST FOR THE BROAD

AGREEMENT.

>> CLYDE, TWO YEARS AGO YOU

PREDICTED THAT IT WAS GOING TO

COME DOWN JUST LIKE THIS, WITH

THE THREE MAIN CASINOS, TWO

EITHER SLOT PARLORS OR RACINOS.

>> YOU'D HAVE FOUR TRACKS,

REALLY THREE, BIDDING ON TWO

SLOT PARLORS.

THE OTHER POSSIBILITY IS YOU

OPEN THE PROCESS UP TO NONTRACK

COMPETITORS AS WELL, WHICH

OSTENSIBLY WOULD HELP TO

INCREASE THE LICENSE FEE IF YOU

GET MORE BIDDERS.

BUT I THINK THE THREE AND TWO

MODEL AS YOU SAID WAS ONE THAT I

SUGGESTED IN 2008 AFTER THE END

OF THE LAST DEBATE, AND THAT WAS

PRIMARILY NOT BASED ON MARKET

CONSIDERATION, BUT BASED ON

POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THE TRACKS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN

STRONG ENOUGH TO BLOCK CASINO

LEGISLATION THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE

THEM, BUT THEY'VE NEVER BEEN

STRONG ENOUGH TO PUSH SLOTS AT

THE TRACK BY ITSELF.

I THINK IN TERMS OF THE

COMPROMISE, THIS IS PROBABLY THE

ONLY ONE THAT'S POLITICALLY

FEASIBLE.

>> DELEO HAS BEEN SO STRONG IN

THIS, IF YOU READ THE POLITICS

BACK AND FORTH THIS WEEK, IT

SEEMS INCONCEIVABLE ANYWHERE BUT

THE RACETRACKS.

>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT MADE OF

THE FACT HE HAS TWO TRACKS IN

HIS DISTRICT, BUT THERE'S TWO

CONSIDERATION IN HIS MIND A LOT

MORE.

ONE IS THE SPEED WITH WHICH YOU

CAN START TO GENERATE REVENUE,

BECAUSE THE EXISTING TRACKS

EXISTING NATIONALLY COULD HAVE

GENERATING REVENUE WITHIN SIX TO

NINE MONTHS.

IN THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT CAME

OUT OF THE HOUSE, THE SLOTS AT

THE TRACKS WERE GOING TO BE

TAXED AT 40% COMPARED TO 25% FOR

THE CASINOS.

SO IT'S JUST NOT THE SPEED OF

THE REVENUE, IT'S THE FACT THAT

THE STATE WOULD BE TAKING A

LARGER SHARE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT

EXPECTED TO MAKE THE SAME LEVEL

OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

>> IT'S REALLY INTERESTING TO

THINK ABOUT WHAT MIGHT BE GOING

ON IN THE SPEAKER'S HEAD AS THIS

ALL PLAYS ITSELF OUT, BECAUSE ON

THE ONE HAND AS BOTH OF YOU HAVE

SAID HE'S BEEN SO PASSIONATE

ABOUT THE TRACKS IN HIS

DISTRICT, ABOUT SAVING THE JOBS

FOR THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO WORK

THERE AS HIS FATHER USED TO.

SO TO IMAGINE A RESOLUTION IN

WHICH WONDERLAND AND SUFFOLK

DON'T GET SLOTS, IT'S HARD TO

CONCEIVE OF THAT HAPPENING.

AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE HE'S

BEEN SO OUTSPOKEN ABOUT LOTS, TO

IMAGINE A FINAL RESOLUTION IN

WHICH THERE ARE NO SLOTS,

PERIOD, IS ALSO HARD TO IMAGINE.

THAT WOULD MAKE HIM LOOK

TERRIBLE.

SO IF HE HAS A CHOICE BETWEEN,

YOU KNOW, WE'LL DO COMPETITIVE

BIDDING ON SLOTS OR WE'LL DO NO

SLOTS AT ALL, I THINK HE'D GO

FOR THE FORMER.

>> GOING BACK TO THE VETO FOR A

SECOND, DOES THE GOVERNOR

ALSO -- I KNOW PEOPLE ON THE

HILL ARE TRYING TO PRACTITIONERS

THIS OUT, BUT DOES THE GOVERNOR

HAVE AN OVERALL VETO REGARDLESS

OF WHAT THE BILL IS AND WHETHER

IT'S AN APPROPRIATIONS BILL OR

NOT?

>> HE COULD VETO IT ENTIRELY IF

HE WANTED TO, AND THEN, YOU

KNOW, THE HOUSE AND SENATE WOULD

HAVE A CHANCE TO OVERRIDE.

STATEHOUSE NEWS SERVICE WAS

REPORTING EARLIER TODAY THAT IT

WOULD BE TOUGH TO OVERRIDE A

GUBERNATORIAL VETO, BUT THE FACT

IS HE'S PRO GAMING.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT'S LIKELY.

THE SENSE I GOT TALKING TO

PEOPLE UP THERE IS THAT THE

HOUSE AND SENATE WILL DO

EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO NOT GIVE

HIM LINE ITEM VETO POWER, AND

THAT HE'S PROBABLY -- OR THAT HE

MIGHT EXERCISE A LINE ITEM VETO

ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO.

IF THAT HAPPENS, IT COULD SET UP

AN INTERESTING THING WHERE IN

THEORY YOU COULD SEE THE HOUSE

AND SENATE CHALLENGING IN COURT

THE GOVERNOR'S AUTHORITY TO

EXERCISE A LINE ITEM VETO.

WHETHER THEY WOULD GO THAT FAR

IN AN ELECTION YEAR, YOU KNOW,

MAYBE NOT, BUT IT'S FUN TO THINK

ABOUT, FUN TO WATCH.

>> YEAH.

I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER ISSUES

THAT'S SOMEWHAT BEEN MISPLACED

HERE IS THE TRADEOFF BETWEEN

SLOT PARLORS AND CASINOS.

IT'S TRUE THAT THE SLOT PARLORS

OR RACINOS DON'T CREATE AS MANY

NEW JOBS.

IN FACT FACIALLY THEY CREATE

THREE JOBS FOR EVERY MILLION

DOLLARS IN GAMBLING REVENUE

COMPARED TO SEVEN OR TEN FOR A

CASINO.

THE JOB POTENTIAL IS THE THIRD

OF A RESORT CASINO, THOUGH THERE

IS SOME, BUT THE TRADEOFF IS THE

40% TAX ON THE REVENUE.

BALANCING REVENUES AND JOB

CREATION, THAT'S ONE OF THE

CONSIDERATIONS THAT'S AT PLAY.

>> ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS

THAT I THINK CAME OUT OF

NOWHERE, BECAUSE I HADN'T BEEN

AWEAR OF IT, THEY ADVANCED A

BILL FOR INTERNET GAMBLING.

DOWN THE ROAD WHAT IMPACT WILL

THAT HAVE?

>> OUR STUDIES HAVE SUGGESTED

THAT INTERNET GAMING DOESN'T

REALLY COMPETE WITH CASINOS.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS A LOT OF

PEOPLE USE INTERNET GAMING TO

SUPPLEMENT OR MANY TIMES THEY

USE IT TO GET COMFORTABLE WITH

THE GAME, TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY

POKER, TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY

BLACKJACK, SO IT BECOMES A

FEEDER SYSTEM INTO THE CASINOS.

THAT'S REALLY A FEDERAL ISSUE IN

TERMS OF THAT.

MOST OF THE INTERNET GAMING AT

THIS POINT GLOBALLY IS OFFSHORE.

IT'S IN PLACES LIKE ANTIGUA, THE

UNITED KINGDOM.

>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT

HAVE YOUR STUDIES SHOWN ABOUT

INTERNET GAMBLING AND SLOT

MACHINES?

I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE

MORE POTENTIAL FOR CANNIBALISM

THERE.

>> YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T LOOKED

AT THAT ISSUE.

WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT IN

MASSACHUSETTS, ABOUT 4% OF THE

POPULATION DO INTERNET GAMBLING,

EVEN THOUGH IT'S ILLEGAL.

ABOUT 31% OF THEM VISIT CASINOS

AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR.

SO IT'S COMPARATIVELY SMALL

PIECE OF THE MARKET RIGHT NOW.

NOW, IF IT'S LEGALIZED IT MIGHT

GROW.

AND WHAT IMPACT IT WILL HAVE

WE'LL SEE.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW.

>> ADAM, UP ON THE HILL, WE'VE

TALKED A LOT THIS WEEK ABOUT

REPUBLICANS BEING MARGINALIZED.

HAS THAT CHANGED?

>> IT HAS, IT HAS.

YESTERDAY ALL THE REPUBLICAN

CONFERREES WERE PART OF THE

DELIBERATIONS THAT HAPPENED

AGAIN TODAY.

>> DID THEY PUSH THEIR WAY IN?

HOW DID THAT SUDDENLY CHANGE?

>> YOU KNOW, THEY HAD BEEN

EXCLUDED FROM THE ONE

CLOSED-DOOR MEETING IN THE

SENATE PRESIDENT'S OFFICE, AND

THEY IMMEDIATELY -- I HAPPEN TO

THINK QUITE JUSTIFIABLY --

KICKED UP A FUSS, SAYING, YOU

KNOW, WE SUPPORT GAMBLING, WE

SHOULD BE A PART OF THIS.

I THINK PLAIN AND SIMPLE, THE

DEMOCRATS CAVED.

I THINK THEY REALIZED THIS IS A

PR LOSER.

IT FOSTERS THE NOTION THAT

THERE'S A DYSFUNCTIONAL

ONE-PARTY RULE THAT HAS

SOMETHING TO HIDE GOING ON AT

BEACON HILL.

THEY'RE AT THE TABLE NOW.

HOW MUCH THEIR OPINIONS ARE

BEING HEEDED NOW, I DON'T KNOW,

BUT THEY'RE PART OF THE PROCESS.

>> AND ANOTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUE

IS EVERYTHING NOT BEING DEALT

WITH.

IF THE 8:00 DEADLINE IS MET FOR

FRIDAY, DOES THAT GIVE TIME TO

BRING UP OTHER ISSUES LIKE

ECONOMIC REFORM AND --

>> I THINK THEY'RE ALREADY USING

ON THAT STUFF.

TODAY THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO

INTO THE CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION TO LOOK A WHOLE BUNCH

OF PROPOSALS, AND THEY CANCELED

THAT.

IT'S NOT HAPPENING, BECAUSE THE

SENATE PRESIDENT, WHO HAS

AUTHORITY OVER THE CONVENTION,

JUST WANTS TO GET STUFF DONE.

SHE'S, I UNDERSTAND, VERY

INVOLVED IN A FEW BILLS, IN

PARTICULAR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

TO BUILD A CONTROL SMALL

BUSINESS HEALTHCARE COSTS AND --

OH, COURT REFORM AND SENTENCING

REFORM.

SHE WANTS THOSE TO GET DEALT

WITH.

I THINK SHE'S WORKING ON THEM.

>> WELL, WE SHOULD SEE, MAINLY

BY TOMORROW, A DYNAMIC SHIFT.

CLYDE AND ADAM, THANKS, AS

ALWAYS.

AND IN A MOMENT, WHAT DOCTORS

HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WE, THE

PATIENTS.