Maybe you can’t wait to bet on the Celtics or Patriots, or maybe you don’t particularly give a hoot. But either way, if we’re going to legalize sports betting in Massachusetts, could we just pass a bill and get it over with and not spend years pointlessly debating it?

Beacon Hill spent a decade tirelessly debating the ins and outs of Las Vegas-style casinos before finally authorizing four of them in 2011.

It didn’t end there, though, with more debates over the past several years over online gambling, fantasy sports and which casino giants to give licenses to, with the first full-scale casino finally set to open this fall in Springfield.

To be fair, our state lawmakers have been egged on every step of the way by local media – Globe, Herald, local papers and TV and radio stations, private and public – that see instant interest in anything related to gambling. File a bill on housing and you are likely to be met with a collective yawn. But if it’s a gambling proposal that’s sure to stoke “controversy,” your chances of getting precious clicks from readers are much higher.

Endless gambling debates on Beacon Hill over the past two decades – and the intense media attention focused on them – have come at a cost.

While our elected representatives were busy spouting off on the merits or evils of slot machines or online gaming, the housing market has gone from bad to catastrophic while a New Economy has left far too many communities on the losing end in Massachusetts while richly rewarding a select few.

Now history appears poised to repeat itself, with House Speaker Robert DeLeo flatly ruling out any sports betting legislation this year and laying the groundwork for what could be another years-long debate.

“The more we talk about it, the more questions that we get,” DeLeo told the State House News Service.

But Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, is it really that complicated?

The major sports leagues, which have the most to lose from any corruption that sports betting might spawn, are now well along the way to working through their concerns. And while sports betting can certainly be addictive, so is all gambling, with scratch tickets having been reported as a major source of trouble.

A sizable minority in our state still dislikes gambling and probably always will due to a mix of religious and societal concerns. But that ship has sailed. The Legislature legalized casino gambling nearly a decade ago and, for good measure, the law survived a repeal referendum at the ballot box a couple years later with a wide margin of victory.

Prohibition didn’t work with booze, apparently has failed with pot, and certainly won’t work with gambling, which was already ancient when Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ clothing.

More Important Issues

If we are truly headed towards another long, drawn-out debate over gambling legalization, it’s worth asking who benefits from the delay.

I am sure there are more than a few lawmakers who dread having to debate gambling as other, far more vital issues, such as the extravagant cost of housing in Massachusetts, get short shrift.

But for lawmakers content to wallow in endless gambling debates, there are certainly career benefits, such as political donations from gambling operators, lots of attention from casino and sports betting lobbyists, and an increased public profile. Just take Stan Rosenberg. The former Senate president served as point man for the chamber on gambling legislation before ascending to the top job. It may not have made him Senate chief but it certainly helped pave the way.

Illegal bookmakers also benefit as the state drags its feet on sports gambling. There’s a sizable underground sports betting industry already across the country and in Massachusetts and it’s just the sort of thing mobsters love to rake in the profits from.

I admit to being somewhat of a hypocrite on this topic. I spent years dogging every new gambling bill and casino proposal as a reporter for the Boston Herald, and after I left a decade ago to freelance full-time, I did work for several more years for a niche news service that covers casino proposals and regulations.

But I have also covered the housing market for more than two decades. And I know from experience that gambling stories are a far easier sell than housing stories, especially if they deal with issues like zoning, which is considered boring and wonky.

The best way to ensure gambling issues don’t once again suck up all the oxygen on Beacon Hill is to get the issue of sports betting out the way quickly.

If DeLeo truly wants to help struggling middle-class families, he shouldn’t waste everyone’s time with an epic debate over the ins and outs of sports betting. Pass it and move on to far more important issues, such as finding a way to make housing affordable again in Massachusetts for more than just a fortunate few.

Scott Van Voorhis is Banker & Tradesman’s columnist; opinions expressed are his own. He may be reached at sbvanvoorhis@hotmail.com.