While there are positive elements to the proposal, including the promise of new jobs and new revenue for a state facing a cash crunch, the good is not enough to overcome the bad.

We are not opposed to prospects of a resort casino in Maine. We are opposed to this particular casino deal. The initiative process is ill-suited to deal with such complex and tangled propositions.

Given the popularity of casinos as a forum of entertainment and the state’s growing dependence on tourism, a casino may well be necessary for us to hold onto our market share of vacationers. It may even be desirable as a way to improve the state’s fiscal health.

We cannot, however, abide by the terms of this particular casino deal. The proponents of the casino initiative talk as if they’re doing the state a favor. They promise $100 million a year of revenue for the state, and the legislation they are presenting earmarks that money for property tax relief, education funding and scholarships for state students. They also promise more than 2,000 construction jobs, as many as 5,000 jobs at the resort and another 5,000 jobs in ancillary and support industries. If these projections are true, the resort casino would create a major economic impact on the entire state.

Even if the job and revenue projections are overly optimistic, the project would bring thousands of new jobs and millions of new dollars into the state. For the more than 17,000 workers who have lost manufacturing jobs in Maine during the last two years, a job that pays, on average, $31,000 with benefits probably sounds pretty good.

But the state can do better.

A better deal

Investors are willing to spend $650 million to build a casino in Southern Maine. They are willing to concede 25 percent of the revenue generated by slot machines, the most lucrative profit center in a casino, to the state if voters guarantee a monopoly. The tribes seek no public money for infrastructure and have agreed to pay property taxes and reimburse the state for its expenses related to monitoring the casino and providing law enforcement support. Make no mistake, that leaves a great deal of money for the tribes and their Las Vegas backers

A state-granted monopoly on casino gambling – which is exactly what the tribes seek – is an incredibly valuable commodity. It should not be bartered away lightly.

We would like to see a ballot question asking Mainers to decide, yes or no, whether they support the idea of a resort casino. If successful, that question would authorize the state to accept bids on the development of a resort casino and allow the state to negotiate the most favorable terms possible.

An old problem, a new approach

We are not nave. We know the alternative we suggest will face opposition from the governor and a reluctant Legislature. But that should change.

We need to recognize the reality of the situation. The state needs a new approach to job creation and to break from the failures of the past.

The Maine way of life for a lot of people is low-wage work or underemployment. A new economic strategy that takes advantage of market conditions and a demand for gambling opportunities in the Northeast should be adopted. By being proactive, lawmakers could bring a quality operation to the state, on the state’s terms.

The deal we are being offered is deficient. There are too many flaws. If voters approve this casino, they place the state in a tenuous position, forced to deal with the consequences of the project without the freedom to negotiate. The legislation was written by lawyers and is designed to favor the tribes in any dispute with the state. It is ambiguous, confusing and open to different interpretations. It provides the tribes with a host of protections that are not available to other businesses and ties the hands of lawmakers.

The Legislature cannot change the terms of the deal for 20 years unless the tribes also consent. That is too long. The tribes estimate that they will be able to repay the initial investment of their backers in as little as five years and certainly before 10 years. A five-year moratorium on changes to the compact would be more reasonable.

Supporters of the casino say the payment in lieu of taxes is generous and mirrors the arrangement that Foxwoods and the Mohegan Sun have made with Connecticut. The biggest difference: In the early days, Foxwoods set a minimum for the revenue the state would receive during the first years of operation. Any casino deal in Maine should include a guaranteed minimum. Casinos are about gambling; deals that grant private industry exclusive entry into a market are not. Developers should have to pay to play.

The unique relationship that a casino would enjoy with the state should open it to increased scrutiny of its records and activities, not less. The deal currently before voters keeps the business operations of the casino shrouded from public view. Privately held companies are not required to open their ledger books. The state and publicly traded companies receive no such protections, and they shouldn’t. Because of the incredible amounts of money at stake and the potential for mischief, any casino deal should include sunshine provisions that allow for public review. The value of the casino inherently comes from the state; freedom of information laws should apply.

Costs and benefits

Much has been made of the social costs associated with a casino and the damage that could be done to Maine’s image. A casino would not bring about the end of the state as we know it. Katahdin will remain as magnificent; the coast will be as pristine; the lobster as sweet; the snow as white; Funtown as fun; and the people as welcoming.

Like any industry, a casino has a downside. Textile mills and paper plants, even as their numbers decline, provide workers good jobs, good benefits and good pay. But there has been a price. The air was made dirtier, even malodorous. The water was polluted, sometimes to unsafe levels. People got hurt.

Crime near a casino would go up. How much is open for debate. But as 21,000 or more visitors were drawn each day to the resort, they would bring their wallets. The pickpockets, muggers and scam artists would follow.

There would be more traffic, more noise and more people. But we could expect similar side effects from almost any large-scale economic development project.

On an individual level, some studies have indicated that problem gambling and bankruptcy follow a casino into a community. We don’t completely discount those effects, but there are many gambling opportunities in Maine already, from scratch tickets and the lottery to bingo halls and off-track betting. Addicted gamblers can find an outlet for their illness.

And we are sensitive to the economic plight of the Passamaquoddy and Penobscot Indians. But the prospect of easy money will not solve all the problems that have left Maine’s Indians want for opportunities. A check every month might make life easier, it might provide for more material possessions, but it is no guarantee of a better life or more vibrant culture.

Take it or leave it

Mainers have been presented with a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. That is the weakness of trying to do complicated things by referendum.

Voters should say no, this time.

Lawmakers should understand, casino proposals will keep coming. The state should get on board now and make the best deal possible.

[email protected]