ST. PAUL, Minn. - A group of lawmakers and religious leaders is voicing its opposition to any gambling expansion for revenue to help fund a new stadium for the Minnesota Vikings. Brian Rusche, executive director of the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, says once all the glitter is gone, the social ills will remain if a state-authorized casino is approved.

"I don't doubt that there would be some razzmatazz and a wonderful ribbon-cutting ceremony with searchlights and stars and all that stuff – but my concern is, three to five years down the road, what does it do to a community? What's it like to have pawnshops and check-cashing storefronts, and more drug trade and more prostitution? I mean, that's what you get when you have a casino sited in the center of an urban area."

Rusche believes approval of new gambling facilities, or even a single casino, would open the door statewide.

"If they authorized a casino in downtown Minneapolis, what would be the rationale for saying 'no' to the Brainerd Lakes Area, or to Worthington or to Crookston? My concern there is, I don't think it would be possible for them to authorize just one."

In addition to the coalition, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle also are opposing the idea of using gambling expansion or revenue for the stadium. State Sen. Dave Thompson (R-Dist. 36, Lakeville) thinks the state would be on the losing end, financially.

"The studies that have been done have demonstrated that, as gambling expands and more and more people get into it, the social cost is so high. Depending on what study you look at, it's about a two or three-to-one ratio of losing money because of the fact that your human services demands go up so dramatically. So, it really isn't a good budget solution."

Others point out that there's already gambling in Minnesota and that the state should share in the proceeds. They also note the plan would create jobs.

The Vikings want to build a $1.1 billion stadium in Arden Hills with $300 million from the state. Gov. Mark Dayton is expected to call a special session for consideration of a plan next month.



get more stories like this via email

Today, groups working with lower-income families in Connecticut are raising awareness about the state's "benefits cliff" with a day of action.

The benefits cliff is when a person might get a raise, have a kid with a part-time job, or some other income increase which then makes them ineligible for certain benefits. The changes can have severe impacts on communities and disproportionately affect families with children.

Stephen Monroe Tomczak, professor of social work at Southern Connecticut State University, said it is part of a larger workforce problem.

"People, particularly people of low income, are in a sense disincentivized to participate in the labor force and denied adequate jobs and income when they try to do that," Tomczak explained.

Several General Assembly budget bills could have dealt with the issue but most failed, which inspired today's action, a mock funeral procession to the governor's office to eulogize the bills, including the refundable Child Tax Credit, a housing voucher funding boost bill, and a bill eliminating the asset limit on the HUSKY C medical insurance program.

Social service advocates know the bills will resurface in next year's budget process.

Rose Ferraro, program lead of health justice policy advocacy for the Universal Health Care Foundation of Connecticut, said people are taking alternate steps like going to food banks or avoiding medical care to cover lost benefits.

"Folks will lose their rental assistance and then, they will sort of have to make some tough decisions," Ferraro noted. "'Do I put food on my table or do I make sure to pay rent?' And, so it becomes a sort of untenable position."

Ferraro added interwoven state and federal funding makes it hard to reach the core of the issues leading to benefits cliffs. One eulogized bill would have established a benefits cliff pilot program. For two years, it would have provided subsistence for people who've reached the benefits cliff.

New York towns are reaping many benefits since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed.

Along with funds for larger clean energy projects, the state was awarded $158 million for the IRA's Home Energy Rebates program.

Smaller towns and villages use these grants to implement their climate action plans.

Brighton Town Councilmember Robin Wilt said an IRA grant they applied for will help upgrade the town's HVAC system.

"We will be implementing geothermal and then use a solar array to make the system close to net zero, not quite," said Wilt. "I think we'll get 55% of our energy back with the solar panels."

The bureaucratic process to access the funding was challenging, but some groups are working with the Department of Energy to improve it.

Wilt said feedback on the clean energy projects has been positive. Future projects using IRA funding include increasing walkability and sustainable redevelopment.

Critics have said the IRA includes multiple provisions to increase fossil fuel production.

Towns nationwide are using IRA grants to bolster clean energy projects.

Joel Hicks is a council member for the Borough of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

They've just applied for a grant to work on energy efficiency and solar projects with Harrisburg. He said this will have positive impacts beyond establishing clean energy.

"We were really excited at this potential," said Hicks, "because we saw that the cost savings we would have for putting in substantial solar projects on our public property would actually fund many of our other public municipal goals."

These include purchasing an electric vehicle fleet and having more efficient solid waste programs.

One thing Hicks said he wants to see in future is state and local governments helping small towns and municipalities with putting together their IRA grant proposals.

A new report analyzes Pennsylvania's existing voucher programs, that divert public funds to private schools.

This comes on the heels of Gov. Josh Shapiro's plan to create a new voucher program for K-12 students.

Diana Polson - senior policy analyst with the Keystone Research Center - said last year's Commonwealth Court decision ruled that Pennsylvania's system of funding public education is unconstitutional, therefore the state doesn't have a dollar to waste on expanding existing private-school voucher programs or creating a new one.

"The basic-education funding commission estimated the state must pay $5.1 billion over the next seven years to make sure our public schools are funded equitably and adequately," said Polson. "Meanwhile, our report finds that existing private-school voucher programs are siphoning millions from taxpayers with little to show for it."

Supporters argue that vouchers let children leave under-performing public schools and get a better education at private schools.

Polson said Pennsylvania's voucher programs have no "meaningful educational or financial accountability," so they really have no way of knowing if these programs operate as intended or are beneficial to low-income or moderate-income students.

Polson said the report reveals that the programs have grown, and just this year they will cost the state nearly $500 million.

However, these voucher programs exclude students in rural areas, because there are few if any participating private schools in these regions.

Local public schools remain the primary option for most rural families.

"We also found that private schools receiving these funds are allowed to - and do - routinely discriminate against students for reasons including disabilities, sexual orientation, religious beliefs and more," said Polson. "These programs are also exclusive. They subsidize the state's most elite and expensive private schools as well as affluent families."

Polson said the report reveals that the Independent Fiscal Office estimated that the average EITC program scholarship was $2,314, while the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit was slightly less at around $2,000.

The cost of attending one of the top 25 private schools in Pennsylvania is around $41,000 per year. This means these schools are still out of reach for many low- and moderate-income families.