No one expects the Task Force to Study the Impact of a Maine-based Casino to hold four meetings and come up with a precise assessment of every conceivable impact of a proposal that, though reasonably specific, cannot at this time be precise. No one, it seems, but some members of the task force.

The expectation of lawmakers when they created this committee last session is clear from its very composition. The 18 task force members, representing the Legislature, law enforcement, social service agencies, business leaders, municipal officials and opponents and proponents of casino gambling, are to assemble a list of issues the Legislature should consider when it takes up a gambling bill next session and to describe, based upon information gathered from experts and the experiences of the 26 states that already have casinos, how those issues have – or, in some cases, have not – been addressed elsewhere.

The expectation of the Penobscot Nation and the Passamaquoddy Tribe, the developers of this proposed project, also is clear.

Call it fairness. The tribes have been as specific as is reasonably possible under the circumstances regarding the location, size and scope of this enterprise; they have stated unequivocally that they will not build a casino in a town that does not want one. A couple of prospective host communities currently are giving the project thorough consideration, but until a location is determined – in particular, the proximity to the key Boston market – a precise description of the size and scope cannot be known.

For some members of the task force to suggest they cannot proceed without knowing exactly what turnpike exit gamblers will use demonstrates, at best, confusion. At worst, it’s obstructionism.

Before its next meeting – Sept. 30 – task force members should dampen the anti-gambling alarm (amazingly loud in a state that already has a $250 million lottery and horse racing gambling industry) and consider that it actually is considering two separate impact issues.

The first is the impact from any large development that draws large numbers of people – whether a casino, a sports arena, a vacation resort or an amusement park. There are thousands of such developments throughout the country, each a case study of impacts on transportation, public safety, utilities and local businesses, and how they can be alleviated. Task force members who are indignant over not knowing precisely how many gallons of water the project at hand would consume might ask themselves if they’d be quite so vexed if the project at hand were a Northern Disneyworld and not an Indian casino.

Then there are the issues specific to casinos – the incidence and degree of problem gambling, the effects upon divorce, child welfare, personal debt, substance abuse and work absenteeism. With more than 400 casinos operating in 26 states, there is an enormous amount of data available on these issues, plus a wealth of information on measures taken to address them. (Maine, curiously, contributes nothing to this database – despite having a $250 state-run gambling industry, its social impact has never been measured by state government.) The record casinos have built on job creation and tourism enhancement, and the various revenue-sharing arrangements worked out between casinos and the states is readily available as well.

The sort of data gathering and assessing needed is something academics do all the time – the University of Maine has many faculty researchers who could perform this task quickly and objectively. If this committee cannot focus upon what it can reasonably expect to accomplish, perhaps the Legislature should consider this a false start and commission such a study. The result would be a legislative debate that would be informed and honest, which is what Maine people expect.