The Governor's -- and Fitchburg's -- Big Gamble

When asked yesterday about casinos, gambling, and whether or not she like Gov. Deval Patrick's plan, Mayor Lisa Wong begged off on an opinion, but noted the city needs to look locally for new revenue.

It would have been nice (in terms of news value) if Wong had either sworn off casinos or discussed a grand vision for a casino in Fitchburg and all it's gaming goodness, but instead she stayed out of it. But she does make a point: The city shouldn't be relying on casino revenue anytime soon. And that's not good news.

When Patrick unveiled his budget yesterday, he also stuck his stake in the ground on his priorities, both how important he thinks casinos are to the state, and where new money should go for cities and towns.

For Fitchburg, Patrick's local aid funding includes an increase of about $1 million for the schools. It is, roughly, a 2.5 percent increase. Not great, but not bad, either. I think if the School Department was given a take-it-or-leave-it choice, it would take it, no questions asked.

But the other side of the coin, the government side, isn't as rosy -- and the school situation isn't exactly "stand up and cheer."

Local government aid would be dead-level funded, but that includes $1.3 million in "gaming revenues for lottery gap" or whatever Patrick is calling it. In short, lottery proceeds are tailing off, and Patrick is filling the gap with casino (license) revenue. Overall, Patrick is looking at $124.1 million to fill in the gap.

So, now it's on to the Legislature, which will most certainly make, uh, some changes. I think casinos are a good idea for Massachusetts -- why send all that money out of state -- but Patrick's plan is very, very flawed. Additionally, Patrick is going up House Speaker Sal DiMasi, who is not only anti-casino, but has taken his effort to prove he is the biggest gun in the State House to inferiority complex levels this week (if you missed it, check out DiMasi's outburst here). That's a long way of saying, casinos aren't happening right now.

So, what happens next? Does the House fill in the $124 million somewhere else? In a $28 billion budget, you're talking moving around one-half of one percent of the available money. But there's a $1 billion that hole that already needs filling. How much will the House fill in the gap at the expense of state services? Will it slide out some of that Chapter 70 increase and dump it in the government aid?

Wong was smart enough to say yesterday that she expects the numbers to change, and it sounds like she'll be taking a conservative, small-number approach to the budget. But the fact of the matter is, the math doesn't look too good in the early going. Even if Patrick's big casino gamble comes through, the city does no better than even. Not good times.