Gambling and morality

Our state legislature may soon be voting on whether to allow up to 2000 slot machines at each of the state’s four race tracks. If permitted, the slot machines would turn each race track into what is called a “racino”, thus giving casino gambling a foothold in Massachusetts.

Proponents of the slot machine describe it as a harmless form of entertainment whose time has come. Some lawmakers, seeking new revenue, see the device as a goose whose golden eggs will help to balance the state budget.

However, a federal study in 1999 found that people living within 50 miles of a casino were twice as likely to be problem or pathological gamblers. According to the study, these gamblers burden their communities with social costs that include unemployment benefits, welfare benefits, physical and mental health problems, theft, embezzlement, bankruptcy, suicide, domestic violence, and child abuse and neglect. Everyone in the Sun Chronicle circulation area lives within a 50-mile radius of at least two of the proposed racinos.

I read recently that the leading opponent of more gambling in Massachusetts, Rep. Daniel Bosley, had said that his opposition was based on the economic and social costs of gambling, but not on moral arguments. While I agreed with his position, I thought he should not have given up the moral high ground, and began to look for moral justification for my opposition to slot machines.

I looked first to the clergy and found that the Roman Catholic bishops of Massachusetts oppose the slot machine bill. Cardinal-elect O’Malley once said that he would rather see church bingo banned than have casinos allowed in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts Council of Churches, speaking for seventeen Orthodox and Protestant denominations with more than 1700 affiliated congregations, also opposes slot machines. However, when I looked closely at the arguments of the clergy, I found that they, like Rep. Bosley, focused mainly on the social costs of problem gambling.

Continuing my search for a moral argument against slot machines, I turned to the Greek philosopher Aristotle, who said that the secret to living a virtuous life was moderation in all things. According to Aristotle, I would have to conclude that there is nothing wrong with gambling, as long as it is not taken to an extreme.

Then I came across two news items that gave me more to think about:

Item #1: In December 2005 it was reported in the Sun Chronicle that a woman with a gambling addiction had pleaded guilty to stealing over $13,000 from the Attleboro High School Band Parents Association while serving as its treasurer.

Item #2: In May 2003, William Bennett, a former Cabinet member and author of the bestseller The Book of Virtues, acknowledged that he was a high-stakes gambler who liked to play slot machines. Bennett denied that his gambling was a moral issue, that he had put his family at risk, or that he had a gambling addiction, despite press reports that he had lost $8 million over a ten year period.

While both stories troubled me, I still could not put my finger on what it was about expanded gambling that I found morally objectionable. Then I realized it was not just one thing, it was everything. Morality for me is not a set of rules etched in stone by sage or deity. It’s a nagging inner voice that asks, “What is fair? What is just? What is best for the common good?”

Massachusetts residents already have many choices if they want to gamble: the lottery, scratch tickets, Keno, simulcast betting. To go beyond that would be excessive, and immoral in my opinion, because of the additional social and economic harm we would inflict upon ourselves and our communities. Let Connecticut and Rhode Island choose a self-destructive path. We don’t have to follow.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 19 March 2006

Old zoning promotes addiction

Over the past few years I have participated in several public forums where Attleboro residents were invited to contribute their ideas on how city government should plan for future growth.
Some residents saw growth as an opportunity-- to revitalize the downtown with new investment dollars, to make housing available to the city’s sons and daughters, and to make it affordable for those on moderate incomes. Others saw growth as a threat--with new homes consuming open space, outstripping the city’s capacity to provide services such as education and fire protection, yet priced too high for someone with the income of a teacher or firefighter.

So which is it: an opportunity or a threat? I think it’s both. And it falls to city officials, guided by local and state laws, to manage growth in a way that takes advantages of promising opportunities, while minimizing the threats.

However, growth in Attleboro and surrounding communities is governed largely by zoning laws that date back at least fifty years, to a time when a home in the suburbs was the fulfillment of the American Dream. From drive-ins to drive-thrus, the automobile has been an essential ingredient of that dream ever since. The resulting sprawl means that many of us must migrate daily, often at a crawl, from homes in residential zones to stores in commercial zones and to workplaces in industrial zones. Addiction is not too strong a word for the dependence on petroleum that is caused in part by our outdated zoning laws.

There is a better way, and some call it smart growth. Smart growth is a collection of policies and strategies for making communities more livable, with an emphasis on walkable neighborhoods, public transit, and conservation of open space. It’s goals are not really controversial; smart growth has caught on at all levels of government, and on both sides of the political aisle. But smart growth is often hard to put into practice, because it often relies on developers who are willing to go the extra mile to incorporate smart growth principles into their plans.

I have a simple, two-part prescription for smart growth in Attleboro. First, within a ten-minute walk of the downtown, new housing of every kind--single-family and multi-family--should be encouraged, even if it means cutting down trees or building next to the river. The downtown area is the best place for affordable housing, because the central location, close to essential services and transit, makes it possible for an individual or a family to get by without a car. The townhouses built by Joe Caponigro off Dennis Street would qualify as smart growth in my opinion. So would 42 Park Street, with its shop in front and townhouses behind.

Second, for developments in other parts of the city, where automobile dependence is unavoidable, conservation of open space should be the top smart growth priority. For each acre of land cleared for development, I would like to see one acre preserved. In fact, this is what the city’s Open Space and Recreation Plan calls for.

Victoria Estates off Read Street is my nominee for best smart growth subdivision in the city. It’s a very walkable neighborhood with sidewalks on curving streets and islands of green in the center of each cul-de-sac. Best of all, eight of its twenty acres are set aside as conservation land. It doesn’t quite reach my goal of a fifty-fifty split, but it comes close. This subdivision was built by W.B. Construction and Development under a little-used zoning ordinance as an Open Space Residential Development (OSRD). The city should update and promote this ordinance as a key component of smart growth in Attleboro.

The urban core and suburban outskirts of Attleboro are both ripe for growth, as long as it’s smart growth.

--Published in the Attleboro Sun Chronicle, 23 February 2006