In the fall, voters will have another opportunity to cast a vote against expanding the gambling industry in Maine. Plans for a resort casino in Oxford County will again appear on Maine’s referendum ballot.
Plans are proceding as expected by the entrepreneurs of Black Bear Entertainment. The Legislature declined to approve the company’s proposal, so it now heads for a referendum vote, thanks to a 2009 petition drive.
Gaming companies and developers are pressing for casinos and slot machine parlors thoughout much of New England, confident of ever-growing demand. Many in government and business are also excited about the potential profits in gambling but others question the optimistic scenarios and the heartfelt promises of jobs and economic benefits.
Unlike other states, Maine has left the planning and economic analyses up to those who hope to rake in the profits. Black Bear Entertainment’s partners are well-known and respected, but before Maine votes to grant an exclusive gaming license, the state should undertake an independent analysis of gambling’s long-term economic prospects here and its potential costs. Officials should also ascertain that laws, regulations and social service agencies are sufficient to deal with any problems that might result.
This, of course, is not likely to be accomplished before November.
Maine voters have repeatedly rejected gambling proposals, but in 2003 one referendum succeeded. It was generally described as providing aid for faltering harness racing tracks, allowing them to install a few slot machines. As it turned out, Hollywood Slots became a much more ambitious enterprise.
Maine’s ad hoc approach to gambling proposals stymies any public planning for this potential new industry. To be fair to potential developers, neighbors, gambling opponents, and the public interest, the state should have a formal process for planning and evaluating gambling’s future in Maine.
— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less