MA Casino Developments

whighlander said:
"Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.," -- Suffolk's traffic consultant -- is a very reputable consulting firm.
Click to expand...

Agree. They've done fine work for my employer.

whighlander said:
That said -- the direction of the consultant's work might be guided by the customer who is of course paying the bill.
Click to expand...

Truth.

whighlander said:
So Suffolk might have said give me your best solution to the traffic problem that doesn't cost more than X -- where as the optimum solution might have been 2X+7
Click to expand...

Not 2X + 7. It's closer to 12X.

whighlander said:
One would need to see the results of the simulations for all of the alternatives which were considered to see why they chose this particular amelioration
Click to expand...

Perhaps my state senator has a copy of that in a dusty filebox somewhere...

GW2500 said:
...more than just those two intersections need to be addressed?
Click to expand...

Winner, G-dub.

They've essentially created a more efficient way for traffic to get clogged at Bell Circle in Revere.

The traffic scheme, like the rest of their proposal, is a farce.
 
Beton Brut said:
The traffic scheme, like the rest of their proposal, is a farce.
Click to expand...

Agree..........They know Traffic a big problem in that area.

If the Casino development does get a approved hopefully some group hires an independent auditor for the real costs of any upgrades to the traffic grid and MBTA. I'll throw out this number minimum of 250Million to 500Million
 
TheRifleman said:
Agree..........They know Traffic a big problem in that area.
Click to expand...

Look, I know that The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys may not be Beton's favorite song in the world but I doubt they are that big of a problem.
 
The people of Taunton have spoken. They want a casino.

TAUNTON, Mass. (AP) -- The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe won a vote of confidence from Taunton residents for plans to develop a $500 million resort casino in southeastern Massachusetts.

Saturday's referendum is nonbinding, but marks the first time local residents have expressed support for a casino project at the ballot box since Gov. Deval Patrick signed the state's new gambling law last year.

The law allows the state to license up to three resort-style casinos and gives exclusive rights to a federally recognized Indian tribe to develop one of the casinos if the tribe can reach a compact with the state by July 31. That casino would have to be in southeastern Massachusetts.

Patrick says he thinks negotiations can be completed by the July deadline.

Voters in Freetown and Lakeville previously rebuffed casino proposals.
(Copyright (c) 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Read more: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/...-city-say-yes-to-tribal-casino/#ixzz1xRjB0pYS
Click to expand...
 
I'm confused. I thought the whole deal was that there was to be one resort, with a few slot parlors?

Because the whole thing about Foxboro rejecting their casino was that it was assumed Eastie would then be the definite place to have it. However, if Taunton WANTS it, then wouldn't they yank that away?

I'm just confused here, since Foxboro's rejecting seems to have no impact on Eastie based on that.
 
There are 3 full casino licenses allocated for the whole state. One of them is for Greater Boston, which in their definition includes Foxboro.
Taunton casino will be applying for south-east region license.
There's one more for Western Mass.
 
TheRifleman said:
Can somebody tell me why this wasn't done for the SEAPORT DISTRICT?
Click to expand...

The answer to this is a little complicated.

I (like some of you) am on TEAM CASEANO, i.e. having a casino hotel in the Seaport/SBW/FPC/Innovation District.

Seeing how the BCEC is failing to lure larger conventions due to the scarcity of hotel rooms immediately adjacent to their property, the BRA and City have already identified sites adjacent to the convention center to construct THOUSANDS of hotel rooms. A major reason none of these new hotels have broken ground yet is due to the construction costs associated with the parcels--they're air rights over the I-90 extension to Logan.

A casino hotel at the seaport, however, would solve a few of the following issues:
1) It would give a financial incentive to casino moguls to build BIG and construct fast.
2) The potentially thousands of new hotel rooms (like 2,000) would be a boon for business to the BCEC, especially if they had gerbil tube connectors like the Westin Seaport currently does.
3) Unlike many of the expenses associated with the BCEC, a casino hotel could be built with 0 expense to the taxpayers.
4) Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but the casino hotel would be adjacent to reliable mass transit infrastructure (Silver Line) directly linked to Logan Airport and the rest of the city. It would generate fewer vehicle trips and (likely) more business than a Suffolk or Taunton Casino.
5) JOBS! Literally THOUSANDS of jobs. And the best part is they would be Boston jobs! Not Taunton. Not part Revere. Boston!

Now, I had the pleasure of discussing this CaSeano idea with other developers and economists very familiar with the city. Their rebuttal included some of the obvious counter-issues (Crime, Noise Pollution, Light Pollution, etc.), but also some that I overlooked. The City and the BRA are really working hard to lure high-skill, high-paying jobs to the Innovation District. The kind of businesses they want to see filling up the neighborhood are tech companies or pharmaceutical giants. The residents and shoppers they want there would possess masters' degrees, fit in the 20-34 demographic, and shop at Whole Foods... white collar.

A casino hotel at the seaport would certainly generate THOUSANDS of new jobs, but not the kind of jobs the city/BRA/business interests want to have in the neighborhood. The mayor is on board with sending casino-related blue collar jobs to East Boston/Revere because East Boston is already a blue collar neighborhood.

Personally, I don't see the overall threat having a 10-acre casino hotel adjacent to the BCEC presents to the city's white collar plans for ID. Now that the world has seen how successfully LV Sands integrated the Marina Bay Sands Resort with the rest of downtown Singapore--this destination resort concept--you'd think Boston, one of the most liberal cities in the country, would be a little more open to a casino "in town".
 
With the current residential developments in the Seaport and how fast rents are rising in South Boston I don't think it would be an issue at all for the BRA to have a casino in the Seaport since anybody who would work there wouldn't be able to afford to live there and would likely be commuting anyways.

Peterborough
http://www.bostontipster.com
 
dshoost88 said:
The answer to this is a little complicated.

I (like some of you) am on TEAM CASEANO, i.e. having a casino hotel in the Seaport/SBW/FPC/Innovation District.

Seeing how the BCEC is failing to lure larger conventions due to the scarcity of hotel rooms immediately adjacent to their property, the BRA and City have already identified sites adjacent to the convention center to construct THOUSANDS of hotel rooms. A major reason none of these new hotels have broken ground yet is due to the construction costs associated with the parcels--they're air rights over the I-90 extension to Logan.

A casino hotel at the seaport, however, would solve a few of the following issues:
1) It would give a financial incentive to casino moguls to build BIG and construct fast.
2) The potentially thousands of new hotel rooms (like 2,000) would be a boon for business to the BCEC, especially if they had gerbil tube connectors like the Westin Seaport currently does.
3) Unlike many of the expenses associated with the BCEC, a casino hotel could be built with 0 expense to the taxpayers.
4) Perhaps it's a bit of a stretch, but the casino hotel would be adjacent to reliable mass transit infrastructure (Silver Line) directly linked to Logan Airport and the rest of the city. It would generate fewer vehicle trips and (likely) more business than a Suffolk or Taunton Casino.
5) JOBS! Literally THOUSANDS of jobs. And the best part is they would be Boston jobs! Not Taunton. Not part Revere. Boston!

Now, I had the pleasure of discussing this CaSeano idea with other developers and economists very familiar with the city. Their rebuttal included some of the obvious counter-issues (Crime, Noise Pollution, Light Pollution, etc.), but also some that I overlooked. The City and the BRA are really working hard to lure high-skill, high-paying jobs to the Innovation District. The kind of businesses they want to see filling up the neighborhood are tech companies or pharmaceutical giants. The residents and shoppers they want there would possess masters' degrees, fit in the 20-34 demographic, and shop at Whole Foods... white collar.

A casino hotel at the seaport would certainly generate THOUSANDS of new jobs, but not the kind of jobs the city/BRA/business interests want to have in the neighborhood. The mayor is on board with sending casino-related blue collar jobs to East Boston/Revere because East Boston is already a blue collar neighborhood.

Personally, I don't see the overall threat having a 10-acre casino hotel adjacent to the BCEC presents to the city's white collar plans for ID. Now that the world has seen how successfully LV Sands integrated the Marina Bay Sands Resort with the rest of downtown Singapore--this destination resort concept--you'd think Boston, one of the most liberal cities in the country, would be a little more open to a casino "in town".
Click to expand...

That's a good analysis, and the rebuttals are easily debunked. A casino - especially if you scrap the concept of "resort" casino - can easily coexist in a broader business/entertainment district. But the response about "not the right type of jobs" is perhaps the dumbest thing I've recently heard. You know what an entire neighborhood full of nothing but white collar office worker-bees is called? An office park. A neighborhood is made lively by the proximity of different people, working different and diverse jobs - and yes having different skills and pay grades - and sustaining each other through economic interdependence. As Selcoe's new group has pointed out, better entertainment options would enhance the appeal of a district like the Seaport, not diminish it.

So you can see that there are perverse incentives at work here. BRA's stated goal: create specifically white collar jobs in the Seaport. Rather than create a functioning mixed neighborhood that might better lure and keep businesses.
 
Shepard said:
Who's going to pay for the MBTA expansion he proposes? This should have been linked into the process, right? So, who dropped the ball here?
Click to expand...

Dunno. He doesn't work for the state anymore so he, like all of us on this board, is free to come up with crazy-ass ideas.
Still, he does essentially recommend that free parking at Suffolk Downs come to an end. If this proposal passes (and I offer no value judgments) then the host community agreement could demand that parking fees be used to fund the transportation improvements.
 
Wow I'm shocked (and not really at the same time) by that response from the BRA about jobs. That statement right there shows that their vision for the Seaport is an office park with high-end retail. It's really too bad how the city is continuing to throw away the Seaport's potential. The caSeano could be the focal point of the Seaport District. It would make it a destination for everyone. With this kind of planning though, it will never become a destination. Really sad.
 
Shepard said:
BRA's stated goal: create specifically white collar jobs in the Seaport. Rather than create a functioning mixed neighborhood that might better lure and keep businesses.
Click to expand...

Whenever someone mentions this about the Seaport, I have to wonder if they realize the dramatic changes and constant residential development that is happening in South Boston. It seems that the Seaport is designed to be Southie's business district - yes there will be upscale residential housing like any other primary business district.. but the mixed neighborhood already exists just a few blocks away.. much of it within walking distance.. and it is rapidly growing.
 
I'm not sure I agree, ParkerChris. BRA always talks about this as a new neighborhood, and they do indeed treat it as such (although with flawed treatment). It may turn out that residential Southie will provide the bedrooms for Seaport workers, but I don't know if we're seeing that yet.

In any case, the proximity of residential Southie should not be an excuse for stagnant residential development that creates a real mixed use community.

Pulling this back to the casino, a real urban casino here would be the bridge and the tipping point that actually makes it a real live/work/play zone and spur the kind of hotel development the convention center requires.
 
Semass said:
Editorial by Jame Aloisi RE: Suffolk Site, transportation improvements, transit, fees, and the folly of the "flyover"...
http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org...rtation-needs-for-Suffolk-Downs-gambling.aspx
Click to expand...

Classic Beating a busted-down-horse with a over-cooked noodle by a an incompetent DukaKoid -- rehashing the same laundry list of "Greenyness" and a few of the old standards: Blue Line to Lynn, Red/Blue Connector

Almost nothing new here -- nearly time to move along with one minor contribution:

"Re-designing Route 1A is a critical necessity. The highway today barely functions during an increasingly extended period of time each day. Careful planning, including some strategic land takings and creative engineering, needs to take place.....every vehicle entering the complex should be charged a user fee that will initially be dedicated to paying debt issued for these transit and roadway improvements, and over time can be dedicated to a transportation maintenance fund dedicated to asset management for those improvements."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top