Dept. of Buried Ledes: What the Chamber Study Missed

Hell of a header on this Globe story today – “Casino Study Backs Patrick.” The lede’s even better: “Governor Deval Patrick’s promise of thousands of new jobs and billions of fresh dollars would come true if three state-licensed resort casinos are opened across Massachusetts, according to a long-awaited Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce study released yesterday that largely bolsters the governor’s economic case.”

But, for a better summary of what the Chamber’s much-discussed report actually says, you’d have better luck looking to Dan Kennedy – “Casino Supporters Support Casinos.”

I understand that some of the issues we’re dealing with here are tricky. And I’m a reporter, so math does scare me, too. But you can’t write off the costs just because the Globe editorial board does.

If you chase down half the “opponents say” caveats in today’s front page story, you’ll find a much different scenario at play than all the governor’s promises being fulfilled.

The Hill and the Hall Week in Review

(Cross-posted from Boston Daily)

Hey, guess what, everybody? Governor Deval Patrick wants to build three casinos in Massachusetts. He’s been saying that they’ll bring 30,000 jobs in tow. Turns out, they won’t. Shocking, we know. But it’s this revelation that gripped Beacon Hill this week. All other concerns were crowded out.

Most close observers (depending on whom you read) have known for several months now that the governor’s casino research is compromised and his economic assumptions shaky. And now that the town’s paper of record has spoken on the subject, the fan is really covered in it.

The administration has even stopped citing its 30,000 jobs figure, and taken to speaking of “tens of thousands” of jobs instead.

That’s a significant fact, because it marks the first time in this whole gambling debate that reporting has been able to knock the administration off its talking points.

Outside Job

Deval Patrick’s administration has finally hired an outside firm to evaluate the basic assumptions behind its casino gambling proposal, four months after filing legislation to legalize casino gambling, five months after initially backing the legalization of Class III gambling, and a mere seven months after the governor first disappeared into the Berkshires with an armful of industry-authored research to decide whether or not casinos made good fiscal sense.

Patrick’s people see no problem with the timeline at work here, nor with the credentials of the firm looking over the gov’s numbers; Sue Tucker begs to disagree.

But for my money, all you need to know about Spectrum is that Clyde Barrow likes their resume – they’re “one of the most notable private sector gaming analysts in the Northeast,” the guy who virtually made the Patrick administration’s pro-gaming case for them tells the Herald.

Something tells me Dan Bosley won’t be happy with these guys.

UPDATE: From Bosley: “I don’t know how anyone could call [theirs] an unbiased viewpoint. I don’t think they’ve ever done a report that says you shouldn’t do gambling. But we’ll take a look at it.”