Why not? If people from Mass are going to spend at a casino the state may as well get some piece of the pie rather than watching all that $$$ go south of the Mass border...

I think the tribes have done a good job in Conn with creating very nice facilities so I think I'd support going that route. I don't think it should be in East Boston as the article seems to suggest as a possibility but should be in a more remote location as the casinos in Conn are. Devens would seem to make sense.

I can see the argument of the folks who don't want casinos here but since people don't have to go very far to get to them then Massachusetts ought to be going ahead with this sooner rather than later. Maybe we can start to draw some of the fights/concerts that the casinos draw as well???

Teddy.

I think you know where I stand on this. It would've been a N0-BRAINER to put a casino in Salem, NH. Oh well, Mass beat NH to the Punch.

I happen to think the best location is Salisbury Beach.
Plenty of space and def room for improvement. JMO - that way the people in Northern Mass that love to gamble don't have to travel over an hour to get to a casino.

As I read the article, the State of Massachusetts is apparently losing a great opportunity to leverage its estimated 33% (MA-RI-CONN) share on 1.1 Billion dollars per year if it doesn't get on the bandwagon and support a luxury resort site.

All gambling arguments aside, I'd have to assume that the proposal put on the table will necessitate another expenditure by the state for permitting, infrastructure, and design feasibiliity studies; even if the developer picks up the tab, when does anyone think the state will break even?

Swimming pools, movie stars, and an affordable golf course just seem to be all to good to be true.

I originally loved the Salisbury Beach idea, but then I started to think about the lack of major access roads in and out. Your commute might just end up being as long as Connecticut, except you'd spend that extra hour stuck in traffic.

I would prefer Salisbury Beach to New Bedford. Foxwoods and Mohegan would be a better trip than that one.

KSM, we may not see all of that 33% cut (remember, a lot of Southern and Western Mass gamblers might still see it as more convenient to head to Conn), but you also have to factor in what we're going to pick up from NH, Vermont and Maine. We'd grab most of that money, I'm sure.

Plus, throw in the proximity to Boston (especially if you put it in Devens) and all the historic, touristy sites in Mass, and you could pick up people from even farther away (NY? PA?) who want to make a longer stay or family vacation out of it.

And as LK said, it would behoove our politicians to act quickly, before Southern New Hampshire jumps in and establishes its spot in the market first.

It will never happen because it will take away from the scratch ticket monies. Plus the state and local governments will get less money. (meaning, they cant give themselves raises.) It will be an excuse for raising taxes.

Ted, How about Pease Tradeport. There are ACRES upon ACRES of land and RIGHT near an Airport near the beaches and in TAX free NH.

NO BRAINER.

SSSHHHHhhhhh! Don't give them any ideas, LK. I want that first casino right here!

Then again, the way our fed up residents are flocking north, we've turned your state into an extension of Massachusetts. Seriously, have any two other states suffered from such governmental paralysis?

I found a link to an article in the Providence Journal which references state revenues from current gambling operations for the year 2005.

http://www.projo.com/news/casino/content/projo_20061105_casi05.374c719.html

To summarize, in 2005 alone, RI casinos paid roughly $250M into the state coffers, CT casino operations brought in slightly less at $225M.

Personally, I agree with RD that the casino(s) will hurt the sales of lottery tickets; they should just tweak the current system to keep the profits rolling in.