By Jeff Messer

Chairman, Scarborough Town Council

   The citizens of Scarborough will have a very important decision to make in the upcoming election concerning the Scarborough Village proposal.  This concept is for an integrated downtown development on the 535 acre parcel of Scarborough Downs. A racino is part of the proposal, hence the referendum vote for a zoning ordinance change to reverse an ordinance passed by the town council in 2002 that prohibited gaming in the B2 zone.  

 There are many steps in the process before a racino could ever be built. The first step is the referendum vote for the zoning ordinance change.  If the majority are in favor then the State Legislature and Gov. Baldacci would need to approve an extension to the deadline to allow racino operations at commercial race tracks. If all three of these hurdles are cleared then a host agreement must be negotiated between the town council and the operators outlining the financial guarantees to the community, security measures and other issues. This host agreement would be subject to a referendum vote by the citizens of Scarborough.

 I was a strong supporter of the ordinance change the town council approved in 2002. I’ve been asked on several occasions in recent weeks to take a similar position on this referendum. I’m neither a proponent or opponent at this point in time because the landscape is significantly different in 2008 concerning this issue. Let me take a moment to outline the differences from the proposal of six years ago.

 The numbers I used to form my position in 2002 indicated the annual revenue to the town would be $550,000. The question on the table guarantees the town $8 million a year. Quite frankly, the town council can negotiate this number significantly higher. The impact on quality of life is often mentioned as a primary reason to reject this proposal.  This must be balanced with the benefits to our quality of life that could be obtained using this revenue to enhance services to the residents of our community.

 The fact of the matter is five consecutive referendum questions for public projects have failed and this trend is likely to continue. People are rightly concerned about tax burden in these uncertain economic times. We have $68 million in school building projects in the five year C.I.P budget. There is no debate that the Wentworth Intermediate School needs to be replaced.  Does building a new school to enhance the education of our children improve our quality of life?

 For many years folks have desired a community center with a pool. Does having a building designed to meet multiple needs of our diverse population enhance our quality of life? As the town continues to grow so do our public safety needs. A committee is working on a proposal for a new public safety complex to meet the needs of the community for the next century. Would building this complex enhance our quality of life?

 There are several other key differences from six years ago. There was no integrated downtown development proposed in 2002. Now there is a very attractive design for the entire 535 acre parcel, which will further increase the tax base. Unemployment was at a historic low in 2002. I’m not sure we’re in the position to say no to jobs of any kind, in particular jobs, which increase the tourism industry, which is a vital part of the future economy in Maine.  It’s projected the racino alone would add 500 jobs with health benefits with an average wage of $34,000 a year. There would also be many other jobs as the rest of the development is built out.

I’ve listened intently to the arguments to vote against this question.  We don’t want gambling in our community is at the top of the list. However, we’ve already had gambling at Scarborough Downs for 50 years. In addition, lottery tickets and bingo are as part of the Maine way of life as lobster. There are 37 states that have gaming, including Maine, so we’re not exactly reinventing the wheel here.

 Claims have been made that it would harm economic development. If that’s the case then why is Fairchild building there Eastern Region headquarters right across the street with another major tenant likely to do the same in the coming months? It’s my belief that economic development could prosper with a racino serving as a catalyst. The racino project would pay for the expensive infrastructure costs for the Downs property, thus opening it up for further development.

 Another point of contention is that money is leaving the state.  The fact is over 50 percent of the net revenue goes directly to local and state government.  After calculating in labor and other expenses, the percentage leaving the state is likely on a par with Walmart (Arkansas) or Cabela’s (Nebraska). Information on crime is inconclusive, at best, according to the voluminous report filed in 1999 by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, an independent body appointed by Congress. 

 Don’t make a quick decision based on emotion without first weighing the perceived impacts to our quality of life with the potential benefits to our quality of life that the revenue from the racino could provide. In addition, it’s very likely a neighboring community would vote in favor of hosting the project (should Scarborough decide against it) so some of the perceived impacts would occur anyway. There is much to consider as we individually deliberate on how to vote on this issue.  Let your conscience be your guide, but please take a few minutes to consider all aspects to what is a very complex question.