The Legislature will decide this week whether to conduct a study exploring the impact of a casino in Maine. Put another way, the Legislature will decide this week whether the next Legislature and the next governor will be able to conduct an informed discussion on this important issue.

The bill to authorize and fund ($6,280) this study, LD 2200 has cleared the committees on Business and Economic Development and on Legal and Veterans Affairs by a combined vote of 20-5. On most issues, such a hearty committee endorsement of gathering facts usually bodes well for action by the full House and Senate. Given the opposition earlier this session, from the governor’s office on down, to even talking about the Penobscot/Passamaquoddy casino proposal, that thirst for knowledge cannot be taken for granted.

This study is necessary because it will provide the public and the next generation of lawmakers with the closest thing possible to an objective analysis of a casino’s impact on matters that are of legitimate state concern – the economy, transportation, revenues, employment, municipal and social services, housing, crime, existing businesses and other forms of gambling. The 19 members of the study commission would include legislators (including the two tribal representatives), local and state police, the attorney general’s office, neighborhood advocates, the business community, harness racing, tourism and, of course, the public. In addition to there being four members of the public on the study

commission, hearings would be held in

different parts of the state for further public involvement.

Those opposed to a state study suggest that the casino backers should do their own study. That would be a fine idea if the goal was to have a study that opponents could disregard because it was done by those with a vested interest. That is not the goal here.

Nor is it accepted practice. Twenty-seven other studies have been approved, or are in the process of being approved, by the Legislature this session. The subjects include regional jails, school funding, hunger, health care, fatherhood, bus drivers, salmon, community preservation and truck weights. The total cost of these studies for the 2002-03 fiscal year is $116,685. While these 27 other subjects may not be of interest to all in the state, most are, to varying degrees, of interest to the state and are deserving of a modest state investment to collect information. Casino gambling, now legal in half of the states and spreading, certainly deserves such an investment – especially in a state that already has substantial legal gambling through state-run lottery games and off-track betting parlors.

It also has been suggested that voters already made their views on casino gambling clear in the 2000 election when they rejected a proposal to allow slot machines at harness tracks. The comparison is seriously flawed. That referendum question was deceptive, slyly worded to apply to only one track, Scarborough Downs, while claiming to benefit the entire racing industry; the issues this proposed study would explore were utterly unexamined. Here’s how different these two situations are: Former Gov. Kenneth Curtis was honorary chairman of the coalition against the 2000 referendum question; he already has agreed to serve on the board of directors of a tribal casino.

Additional reasons this study is needed are suggested by a just-published opinion poll on casino gambling in Maine. Statewide, the public essentially is split on the question. Only in York and Cumberland counties, the state’s most affluent, did opponents significantly outnumber proponents. That finding was reversed in poor counties.

These findings refute assertions by opponents of the tribal casino that the public was on their side. They indicate the longstanding and widening disparity between the have and have-not regions of the state is not just about income levels and property values; it affects attitudes on social issues as well. They certainly call for more information, the kind of information that this study would provide.