Three of Stoneham's state legislators tentatively support a revived casino bill that Massachusetts lawmakers are expected to debate as they return from summer break this week, but are still reviewing how any gambling revenues would be distributed.

A joint committee of the Legislature has crafted a bill that would permit three casinos in three regions of the state, and a single slot parlor with 1,250 machines.

Sen. Katherine Clark, D-Melrose, who represents Stoneham, told Melrose Patch that she's leaning in favor of the bill.

"I think we have never needed jobs and revenue for the state more than we do now," Clark said. "I am, however, still reviewing the 155-page bill with a real focus on how the different revenue streams are being designated and trying to get the back up dollar amounts for those."

State Rep. Jim Dwyer, D-Woburn, who represents Reading, Stoneham and Woburn, wrote in an email to Stoneham Patch that he approves of the bill.

“I support expanded gaming legislation because it creates jobs and brings much needed additional revenue to the Commonwealth," he wrote.

State Rep. Jason Lewis, D-Winchester, who represents Stoneham and Winchester, also wrote to Stoneham Patch and voiced his support for the bill.

"With the unemployment rate in Massachusetts still above seven percent -- and much higher in some industries like construction -- we need to capitalize on every opportunity to put our residents back to work," he wrote. "I support the proposed casino bill because it requires winning bidders to make a capital investment of at least $500 million each, and it is estimated that this investment will create thousands of new construction jobs and permanent service jobs once the resort casinos are up and running."

Through the bill, all state revenue from the slot parlor would be transferred to a local aid fund, while a quarter of the revenue realized from the three casinos would be reserved for local aid.

The remaining casino revenue would be distributed to various funds and organizations. For example: Two percent would go to the Massachusetts Cultural Council; 10 percent to the state's rainy day fund; and 10 percent to debt reduction.

Maintaining local aid levels

In one of her first votes as a state representative in 2008, Clark voted against a casino bill. Last year, as a member of the House, she voted for a casino bill, citing the addition of an amendment that required any new gambling revenue used for local aid to be in addition—not supplanting—current local aid spending on education.

However, Clark expressed skepticism about 3,000 slot machines spread across four racetracks included in last year's bill, saying she did not believe they were job creators. Are the 1,250 slot machines at a single location more palatable to her?

"It is more palatable," she said. "I think they’ve come up with a better bill this time. The slots now are guaranteed to also be competitively bid, which is a concern that I heard from a lot of my constituents."

Dwyer voted for the expanded gaming legislation last session.

"The revenue generated will enhance education and local aid funding," he wrote. "The legislation also will generate more tourism in the Commonwealth.”

Meanwhile, Lewis wrote, "The bill would also generate significant new revenue for the Commonwealth, much of which would be directed to our communities for education and local aid."

What about crime, gambling addictions, impacts on local businesses?

While opposition to Massachusetts casinos has thinned according to the Boston Globe, the arguments are still there: a feared rise in crime; possible impacts on the poor and working class, such as gambling addictions; and business drawn away from local businesses, such as theaters or restaurants.

Clark noted that the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling gave a favorable review of the bill.

"We know that expanded gaming in Massachusetts will create more problems for addicted gamblers and compulsive gamblers," she said. "So that I felt was a very positive sign about this bill."

In a press release, the Council "commended the Massachusetts State Legislature for including key provisions to address the serious issue of problem gambling in its latest bill that would expand gambling in the Commonwealth."

The bill establishes a state subcommittee on addiction services that will include one representative from the Council. It also establishes a Public Health Trust Fund that will receive five percent of the state's casino revenues. The state Secretary of Health and Human Service would spend those funds, with the state gambling commission's advice and approval, to combat problems related to gambling, among other related social health initiatives.

With regard to increased crime from casinos, Clark said that "we also have to be frank and acknowledge there will be more crime. When you build any big public entertainment area, it is going to draw crime." She cited her co-sponsoring of a bill filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley that she said intends to give law enforcement agencies more tools to combat organized and enterprise crime "that often comes with casinos and gambling."

Clark also acknowledged "there may be some effect on restaurants and some of the smaller theaters," but added that the bill looks to put funds towards smaller theaters to give them the ability to attract "some of the more major headline acts that they’re afraid the casinos will monopolize."

Lewis sees the bill as being thoroughly crafted and addresses several important issues.

"I believe the bill takes a careful and thoughtful approach to licensing casinos, regulating the industry, supporting essential programs for gambling addiction and public safety, and preventing political influence and corruption," he wrote. "I also plan to file a number of amendments to strengthen the bill even further in addressing gambling addiction and the serious social problems that accompany this illness."

Will casinos stem tide of state budget cuts?

The debate over expanded gambling in Massachusetts came about due in large part to a sluggish economy and eventual recession that depressed state revenues and, according to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, led to over $3 billion in budget cuts and savings.

So with the introduction of casinos to the Bay State seemingly inevitable, can the state make enough money off casinos to halt or reverse the cuts seen in the state budget every year for the past couple of years?

Clark said that "it remains to be seen" whether expanded gambling revenues will slow the state budget cuts seen in recent year, but she added that she doesn't believe casinos to be a panacea for jobs or restoring cuts.

"What I’m really looking for in my review of this bill is after we have funded the regulatory bureaucracy that is going to be necessary, if we bring expanded gaming in, will we have a significant enough revenue on all projections to make it worthwhile?" she said. "I believe the answer to that is going to be yes ... I think it’s something that’s time has come, that has great support on Beacon Hill, and I want to do what I can do to ensure the bill is in the best position to create jobs and make sure our local communities are well-funded."

Melrose Patch Editor Daniel DeMaina contributed to this report.