Governor Deval L. Patrick ’78 wants to bring gambling closer to Harvard. He has announced a plan to open three casinos in Massachusetts—one for the western half of the state, one for the South Shore, and one for metropolitan Boston, the last of which could set up shop near Logan Airport. Some Harvardians might gasp to think that such vice could soon be only a Blue Line ride away. But such opponents of Patrick’s casino plan must realize the greater good that it figures to do for the Commonwealth as a whole.

Massachusetts faces a number of problems with which Harvard students rarely, if ever, concern themselves. Many residents are being pushed out of the state by mounting costs, including Massachusetts’ notorious property tax. Furthermore, casinos in nearby Connecticut already drain huge amounts of gambling money from Massachusetts pockets. Patrick’s plan would keep that money within the commonwealth, filling the State House coffers with up to $400 million per year.

The proposal would thus provide ample revenue for plugging the state’s holes—beginning with the high property tax. Patrick ran for governor on a platform of reducing this squeeze on homeowners, and we are heartened to see a concrete plan to accomplish that promise.

As Patrick has pointed out, the funds can also go toward fixing the Commonwealth’s infrastructure problems—not least of which is the Big Dig. Bay Staters deserve to have safe roads and tunnels without having their taxes raised even further. Indeed, the plight of many Massachusetts families who cannot afford to see taxes get any higher should outweigh the personal qualms of the anti-casino lobby.

However, it is not unwarranted to take reasonable steps to counteract the potential ills of casinos on the areas surrounding them. Many cities and towns are understandably opposed to a casino in their jurisdictions; traffic problems and a touristy atmosphere would almost certainly accompany the thousands of day-trippers. Therefore, we favor building the casinos as resorts, removed from locals who understandably do not want a casino in their backyard. When considering developers’ proposals, Patrick should consider their impacts on communities and reject any plan that alters a town at the expense of its residents. No one should be expected to sacrifice quality of life for casinos any more than to sacrifice quality of life for a casino moratorium.

With proper implementation, expanded gambling will inject Massachusetts with much-needed energy and money. It is narrow-minded to deny these benefits to the Commonwealth while pointing to overblown social consequences. For instance, the argument that casinos will bankrupt poor people who trust their fortunes to fate neglects their free will and assumes that they cannot think and act for themselves. And to maintain a social conscience, part of the new revenue will also be used to treat gambling addictions—which, thanks to Connecticut’s casinos, are nothing new. Though the plan may disgust a sheltered few, it looks to be a jackpot for Massachusetts and its citizens.