Newton lawmakers split 50/50 on gambling

“From the point of view for those of us who oppose the whole thing, the stalemate is a positive development,” said state Rep. Ruth Balser, who’s long opposed slot machines and voted against the recent gambling bills.

In contrast, Rep. Kay Khan, who opposed casinos when the proposal came up two years ago, supported the measure, saying holding off on casinos would cost the state money it should be getting now.

“I think casinos are going to happen eventually anyway … we’re already losing $1 billion to Connecticut and Rhode Island,” Khan said.

In the final minutes of this year’s legislative session on Saturday, the House and Senate approved a proposal that would bring three casinos and two slots-only racetrack “racinos” to the state.

Gov. Deval Patrick, who supports the casinos but is against racinos, returned the bill with an amendment which some observers predict will end up killing the entire bill for at least another year.

“I am done with that,” Patrick said Monday in reference to his original willingness to compromise by allowing one racino as long as lawmakers moved forward on other legislation.

Newton’s other state representative, Peter Koutoujian, voted yes, while state Sen. Cindy Creem voted against the casino/racino legislation.

“I’ve been against it consistently,” Creem said. “I don’t feel it’s the economic development we ought to be looking for … I’ve been supportive of biotech and stem cell research [instead].”

Koutoujian could not be reached for comment.

The bill would have limited bids on the racinos to the state’s two racetracks and two former dog tracks. Patrick’s decision to send the bill back requires the legislature to reconvene and muster a two-thirds majority to vote on any unfinished matters, such as overriding his amendment.

But the Legislature, especially the Senate, is not likely to reconvene, Balser said. Even if they do, they won’t reach that two-thirds majority.

“If the governor either amends or vetoes the bill, he essentially kills it,” she said.

Khan said the Legislature had reconvened only once in her 16 years, to change the succession of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, and she doubted it would take up Patrick’s amended bill. Which was too bad, she said — casinos would provide money for local aid needed by children, families and people with disabilities, the focus of the House committee Khan chairs.

“I think we need to think about the money we’re losing; there’s no interest in raising taxes and we’re really not in good shape,” Khan said. “I feel a huge part of the budget is human services related, and I’m concerned about not having money to take care of needs in the state.”

The House and Senate initially approved by respective votes of 115-36 and 25-15.

Creem said casinos would prey on gambling addicts and take away customers from local businesses, views shared by Creem’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Charles Rudnick.

“I think it’s bad economic development policy and social policy, there’s too many social costs,” Rudnick said. “It will increase domestic violence … and it will be a regressive tax on those least able to afford it.”

But Rudnick also blamed sitting legislators for the bill’s lengthy journey since casino gambling was first proposed two years ago.

“The whole process by which we’ve gotten to a stalemate highlights the dysfunction on Beacon Hill,” Rudnick said. “The legislature has had all year to deal with the issue, but they waited to midnight to send the bill to the governor and then go on recess.”

Khan said the down-to-the wire session was exciting.

“It was like being at a Celtics game in the last inning with the score 95 to 94, wondering what the last play is going to be,” Khan said.