I am writing in regards to the recent proposals to legalize gambling in Massachusetts, a decision which I oppose for a number of economic, environmental, cultural and social reasons. This has been mostly a theoretical concern for residents of the Pioneer Valley, who may have grumbled, but felt no need to take immediate action in contacting their state representative. Lately, though, one of the "destination casino" sites has been proposed for a country club in Holyoke, where Route 141 intersects I-91: a potential local disaster that hits far closer to home. The local communities of Easthampton, Northampton and Southampton, a dense mix of residential and commercial, will have no opportunity to mitigate the social, commercial and environmental damage that will surely result from such a decision.

As a small business owner myself, I am aware that the economic impact of casinos goes far beyond the immediate benefits of taxation income for the commonwealth. Some of the economic costs of legalized casinos include harm to local business, including music venues who will see touring groups lured to the larger audiences at the casino complexes; shopping venues and customer shopping habits that will be displaced by the construction of these destinations; and the residential economic harm of loss of area property values in an already weak real estate economy.

One must additionally remember the cultural damage that will result from large "destination" casinos; as a former chair of the local cultural council, I have firsthand knowledge of the vibrancy provided to the community by a thriving arts scene. One of the strengths of Massachusetts is the encouragement provided to area musicians, artists and other performers whose audience is best served through smaller venues for entertainment, music and art. Both the venues and the performers/artists will be harmed as audiences are siphoned towards more homogenized offerings at major entertainment complexes, and the intimate, local feel of small town arts and culture will be irrevocably damaged as the area reflects the large-scale surface glitz of a "destination casino."

The impact of gambling is also observable from an environmental standpoint, which must be considered as the notions of "smart-growth," carbon-offsetting and global warming move from intellectual issues to real problems requiring a long-term commitment to lifestyle change. Environmental costs are not merely an immediate problem, but one that will resonate far into the future. Issues such as the carbon footprint of large entertainment complexes, the energy requirements for operating flashy buildings, resulting light and noise pollution from the locations, and the increased automotive pollution and need to increase road capability will become major considerations in the local environment. Additionally, both the site of building and the new construction for displaced businesses and restaurants and related venues will affect local green areas, potential conservation lands and wetlands in the community.

Finally, and perhaps most oft-documented, are the social costs of gambling, which include gambling addiction, the loss of residential and mixed-use neighborhoods to new building needs, and the gain of only low-wage jobs, rather than the high-skilled jobs which encourage an area to flourish economically.

It is inconceivable that the short-term tax benefits of making a change on this scale, which would provide a minimum of three destination casinos throughout Massachusetts, can possibly be justified in terms of their much greater social, economic, and environmental costs. That such a creation could happen, quite literally, in our backyard, with no community feedback or input, can only be described as horrifying.

Stephanie Gibbs lives in Easthampton.