Should a town that doesn't sell lottery tickets take in less lottery revenue?

Feb 24, 2017, 1:11 pm (11 comments)

Massachusetts Lottery

HARVARD, Mass. — A steady flow of customers pulled up to the Harvard General Store one recent afternoon, picking up groceries, beer and wine, or prepared foods like quiche lorraine and split pea and ham soup.

But lottery tickets, a lucrative staple of convenience and liquor stores in nearly every corner of Massachusetts, were nowhere to be found. In fact, the entire town forgoes the scratch-ticket business, standing on the sidelines of a nearly $5 billion enterprise.

At least when it comes to playing. One of just a handful of towns east of Worcester where no lottery tickets are sold, this well-to-do community of colonial farmhouses and apple orchards still received $1.3 million in state lottery aid last year, more than the total of a half-dozen surrounding towns.

Stores in those towns along the Interstate 495 beltway, including Ayer, Boxborough, Lancaster, Littleton and Shirley, sold almost $25 million in lottery tickets last year, and most are larger and less affluent than Harvard.

But in an anachronistic quirk of the lottery aid formula, a complex calculation that determines how $1 billion in lottery proceeds is divvied up among cities and towns, Harvard receives credit for population it had in the 1990s, when Fort Devens was an active duty military base.

"We're lucky," Harvard Selectman Stu Sklar said of the town's lottery aid, which last year fully financed the town's police department. "Those are the rules. We didn't make them up."

While an outlier, Harvard's lottery subsidy speaks to a broader problem, critics say. By not accounting for ticket sales, the formula generally favors wealthier towns, where residents buy fewer tickets. Towns with high per-capita lottery spending wind up receiving less in aid than they paid in.

"I don't think that's fair," said state Representative Steven Howitt, a Seekonk Republican. Howitt and state Senator James Timilty, a Walpole Democrat, are sponsoring legislation that would cut lottery revenue to any town that "does not provide opportunity for sales" of lottery tickets.

Seekonk, a town of 13,500 on the Rhode Island border, is more than twice Harvard's size and has much lower property values, Howitt said. Its lottery sales, $20 million last year, ranked among the top 20 percent in the state.

Yet Seekonk received $1.1 million in lottery aid, $200,000 less than Harvard.

"I just think there should be some weight given to sales," Howitt said.

But the likelihood of change may be slim. The lottery formula has come under criticism for years for shortchanging the towns that play the most. But legislators have been reluctant to overhaul the system, realizing some communities will be incensed.

By giving weight to population and real estate values, the formula seeks to distribute money to the communities that need it most. But lawmakers have long upheld the principle that cities and towns that have come to rely on a certain level of lottery funds should not be penalized for circumstances beyond their control, like a base closing.

As a result, Harvard still receives credit for thousands of personnel once stationed at Fort Devens, which also lies in Ayer and Shirley.

Timothy Bragan, the Harvard town administrator, said he has heard grumbling about the town's lottery share before, but doubts lawmakers will do much tinkering with the formula. Opposition, he said, would be swift.

"Of course Harvard would fight it," he said. "We would be on the phone immediately with our state senator and state representative."

A town of about 6,000, Harvard has only three retail outlets, which choose not to sell lottery tickets.

"It's not up to the town to peddle lottery tickets, or push it on retailers," Bragan said. "We don't say it's not good for the community. We take no position."

Geoffrey Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, which represents cities and towns, dismissed the idea of considering sales in the distribution formula.

"These are communities that are rural and have no commercial base," he said. "But their residents play the lottery someplace else."

Revising the formula would pit communities against another, he said, describing Harvard as an anomaly.

"It's a big state," he said. "You will always be able to find an outlier or two."

Scott Hayward, owner of the Harvard General Store, said he has been meaning to add lottery sales, even though he can't recall a single customer asking for tickets in recent years. But it's a pretty low priority, and he hasn't gotten to it just yet.

Joe Hutchinson, a Harvard resident who stopped at the store, said lottery sales would run counter to the "authentic" character of the store, which stands between Harvard Common and an 18th century cemetery.

Plus, in a state with 351 towns, the next one over is never too far.

"Not many people in Harvard want to buy lottery tickets," said Kenneth Morin, who works at the store. "And if they do want them, they can just drive up the road to other towns."

News story photo(Click to display full-size in gallery)

Boston Globe

Comments

music*'s avatarmusic*

 Freedom of the Press. Freedom of Speech. Freedom of assembly. Plus more freedoms. 

The good people of Massachusetts must exercise these rights when they want to change.

 I am happy that I can read this story here on Lottery Post.

Stack47

"I don't think that's fair," said state Representative Steven Howitt, a Seekonk Republican.

But that's assuming the Harvard residents spend little or nothing on lottery tickets. The only thing obvious here is those people don't purchase lottery tickets in their town.

Every state has towns and a few stores selling a much larger than average, but that doesn't prove it's the citizens of those towns are buying all those tickets.

ckrakowski

I say if you do not sell lottery tickets you should not get any revenue from it.

 

  • Harvard receives credit for population it had in the 1990s, when Fort Devens was an active duty military base.

Someone needs to say since you have less population then you did you will get less revenue then you use to.

 

  •  By not accounting for ticket sales, the formula generally favors wealthier towns, where residents buy fewer tickets. Towns with high per-capita lottery spending wind up receiving less in aid than they paid in.

 

So wealthier towns that do not need the money get more of it and poorer towns that need the money get less of it. That is completely screwed up.

 

  • "Of course Harvard would fight it," he said. "We would be on the phone immediately with our state senator and state representative."

 

And of course we all know that the rich get their way no matter who they hurt.  Of course if it was a poorer town and they called their senator and representative they would still get rid of it because that is what the rich people would want.

 

  • Scott Hayward, owner of the Harvard General Store, said he has been meaning to add lottery sales, even though he can't recall a single customer asking for tickets in recent years. But it's a pretty low priority, and he hasn't gotten to it just yet.

 

Of course no one has asked for tickets since you do not sell them. Of cours it is a low priority why do the work of selling something when you are already getting paid for it. Why would you want to give up getting free money from the lottery when you do not even sell it?

KY Floyd's avatarKY Floyd

I'm pretty confident in claiming that there's not a single village, town or city on Massachusetts that sells lottery tickets.

Of course a lot of those villages, towns and cities have stores that sell lottery tickets. Maybe the geniuses in the state legislature should pass  a law requiring stores to sell lottery tickets.

American Indian's avatarAmerican Indian

He Says that Massachusetts Is a Large State, Maricopa County In Arizona Is Larger than that entire State!

It's the same Big Stink AZ had when the City of Mesa, AZ put a Ban on Smoking In the entire City, you were only allowed to Smoke Inside your Home, But they could still sale Cig's everywhere an collect the Revenue & Taxes for selling them. That's NOT FAIR IN EITHER OF THESE CASES IF THE TOWN DOESN'T SALE TICKETS WHY SHOULD THEY RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE PROCEEDS? He also said It's a WELL TOO DO Town so they don't need the Money as Much as the other Places In the State. NOT ONLY that their going by the 1990 CENSUS when the BASE was still open In that area, This Is 2017 re-do the Census, Really they haven't did 1 In 27YRS?

Saylorgirl's avatarSaylorgirl

Quote: Originally posted by KY Floyd on Feb 24, 2017

I'm pretty confident in claiming that there's not a single village, town or city on Massachusetts that sells lottery tickets.

Of course a lot of those villages, towns and cities have stores that sell lottery tickets. Maybe the geniuses in the state legislature should pass  a law requiring stores to sell lottery tickets.

That is a slippery slope!  Stores should never be required to sell any particular item especially something like lottery tickets!  Where would it end??

NJJim's avatarNJJim

Seems to make sense in this case.  Not that it has to be applied to every other facet of life.  While its hard to imagine where a town would "require" lottery to be sold by independent merchants so it can get revenue, if you are a town that is preventing merchants from selling them, you should not reap the benefits.  Every 7-11 and other convenience store that can seems to want to sell tickets.

Saylorgirl's avatarSaylorgirl

Quote: Originally posted by NJJim on Feb 25, 2017

Seems to make sense in this case.  Not that it has to be applied to every other facet of life.  While its hard to imagine where a town would "require" lottery to be sold by independent merchants so it can get revenue, if you are a town that is preventing merchants from selling them, you should not reap the benefits.  Every 7-11 and other convenience store that can seems to want to sell tickets.

In reading the article I did not see where the town was "preventing" the merchants from selling lottery tickets. It sounded like there are only three retail stores in the town and none of them are interested in selling the lottery.

Raven62's avatarRaven62

Human Nature being What It Is: The Fine Folks of Harvard are Buying Their Lottery Tickets Somewhere! So Why Shouldn't the Town of Harvard receive their Share of the Lottery Revenue? They Should!

haymaker's avatarhaymaker

If based on the census then it should be adjusted accordingly.

Seattlejohn

While they definitely need to change their formula to favor those towns with higher ticket sales, here's an idea: if your town decides not to sell tickets, then they don't get any money from the state lottery funds distribution.  Why should towns that opt out of ticket sales receive a percentage of the ticket revenues?  Seems fundamentally inequitable to me...

End of comments
Subscribe to this news story