Do They Think They Had An Embarrassing Week?

Sure, politicians should be allowed to change their positions on any issue; having an evolving opinion is only natural and should happen from time to time to a reasonable politician. But the Mass. House of Representatives' vote Wednesday to establish two casinos and slots at racetracks only reeks of unprincipled legislating, flimsy beliefs and easily bent standards to conform to their boss' preferences.

Two years ago, with Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston, a staunch opponent of casinos, as the speaker, state representatives voted 108-46 against a bill to license three casinos in Massachusetts. Now that Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, who supports casinos much more vociferously, is the speaker (DiMasi resigned last year shortly before a federal indictment on corruption), they approved them 120-37. Representatives are using the explanation that a prolonged recession and plunge in state tax collection changed the circumstances so significantly to merit Wednesday's approval. But a 70-vote swing, when the chamber's make-up has barely changed, is more than a change in policy; it's simply following the boss' orders in a system that concentrates power at the very top, no matter what one legislator's personal opinion is. Arguing differently is too difficult. Here are the votes from 2008 and this week, to compare who changed positions. Even DeLeo voted against casinos back then!

I used to be agnostic about casinos because I don't gamble and likely won't live near a suburban highway exit -- casino companies' preferred location -- anytime soon. No longer, though: They're simply poor economic development policy. They create lots of temporary construction jobs and service jobs, but not of a kind that aids the regional economy in any other manner. Casinos are designed to trap all spending inside their walls, meaning there's no throw-off to other nightlife in the area; it more likely chokes it. They divert tourism dollars from more attractive locales -- in Massachusetts, Cape Cod, the Berkshires and Boston -- rather than expanding the pie.

They're also inefficient suburban development. The Boston Phoenix's support of a defeated amendment to Wednesday's bill requiring "renewable sources for 10 percent of the casinos’ energy, and meeting of other targets for mitigating automobile pollution and water use" only highlights how wasteful of a form they are, an entertainment version of an office park, accessible only by car. When they're located in urban settings, they're in poorer neighborhoods that have traditionally carried a region's mega-project burden, as could be the case here with the racetrack Suffolk Downs in East Boston. Their customers are typically the elderly and the low-income, people who are probably having fun while there but aren't spending in their best interests, to put it mildly.

Luckily, the state Senate is acting with the same skepticism it showed two years ago. A top senator said yesterday they'll move slowly and hold public hearings on the matter -- something the House skipped, at DeLeo's request. At least Rep. Ellen Story, D-Amherst, was frank about how her chamber voted. “My sense," she told the Globe, "is that there may well be consequences for people voting against this bill — particularly people in his [DeLeo's] inner circle." Not much more needs to be said about their true motivation.