|
Volume CXXXIII, Number 7 |
 |
Casinos not so bad, look at CT
To the Editors:
In an episode of 3rd Rock From the Sun, Dick asks Mary if there is a place in existence where families have perfect and harmonious Thanksgiving dinners. Mary replies with a wistful look in her eyes "Connecticut."
Now, Connecticut is by no means perfect, but it's not a bad place to live. There definitely is an aura, supported by pop-culture, of wholesome country living that causes young and old to flock to the state and set down some roots. Connecticut is very much perceived as being "THE" place to raise a family, because it is just close enough to cosmo-urban centers to not be the boon-docks, yet far enough away to be untainted by the "evils" of city-living.
Some CT stats to wet your whistle:
There are 94-plus state parks which equals close to 30 percent of the state.
In some areas there are more horses than people.
There are 2 casinos: Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods.
Casinos? CASINOS? In CT?!! Absurd!
But so very true.
In the recent debate regarding Proposition 3 in Maine, there has been some allusion to the fact that Connecticut, a state not all that dissimilar from its New England cousin, happens to have some of these controversial Native American-run establishments of their own.
The fact that Connecticut has not one but TWO casinos has not deterred families from wanting to settle down. The two casinos in CT have neither statistically stimulated crime in the towns, nor increased reports of gambling related problems as a result of the casinos. The two casinos in CT are the two biggest taxpayers in the state. The two casinos in CT have in fact provided much needed jobs. The two casinos in CT have reached out to the community by supporting local projects and creating one of the finest Native American Heritage museums in the country.
As the anti-proposition 3 folks depend on statistics to bolster their cause, I don't see that it will hurt to throw out a few statistics to pad the other side. In light of some previous opinions published in the Orient, I especially thought that it might be helpful to bring in the perspective of a person who lives in a state with casinos and feels that the quality of life has not appreciably diminished.
Naturally there will be concerns about building a casino. In voting yes to proposition 3 the state would be changing status quo. Change is a scary thing especially when on such a huge level.
However, what will not be changed is the character of Maine. The state will still be a good place to live and visit. 1 casino, and even 2 casinos, especially under the context in which they will be built, will not so drastically change the character of Maine that it can be considered anything like Atlantic City or Las Vegas. Casinos haven't deterred all that many people from CT and I doubt that it will happen to Maine. If anything, the quality of life will be improved for residents, especially those that are unemployed.
Of course CT is not Maine. However, the parallels the circumstances are terribly striking and thus legitimate for the sake of this argument. So, looking beyond the negatives, is voting yes on 3 really a rose-colored view, or is it a realistic view?
Sincerely,
Sue Kim '05
|
FastCounter by bCentral |