MA Casino Developments

Heck, why not...gambling, strip clubs, state officials in bed with casino bosses............
Let's legalize weed and prostitution while we're at it, "esp. in Fall River."

Have any of you been to a bar in Fall River? It may as well be legalized already. Jittery cops watching doors with visible coke residue on their noses (not an exaggeration) turn a blind eye to the prostitution (rampant in probably 90% of nightlife venues in the city) and drugs anyway. Everyone's in on it. Bartenders and owners don't mind shady business in the bars because it brings in customers who pay for drinks too. They'd otherwise be doing "business" in a dark alley somewhere. I know of more than one place that gets a cut of the money from solicitation occurring within a bar. The Cops? Please... as long as the shady business is going down, they get paid detail money to stand out there and turn a blind eye. Occasionally they'll make an arrest on someone who's too drunk to stand and starts a fight, but 99 times out of 100, they're just enjoying the ride.

One night out at one of my favorite local dives (the nightlife options in FR are seedy dives or Guido "lounges") in Fall River and I see more meth-head/ crackhead nipple than anyone should see in a lifetime. If I leave a bar without having a hooker try to sell herself to me, it's a weird night.

Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.
 
Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.

Four reasons "Why not":
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.
b) Making F.R. a home to legalized illegitimate industries may result in a quick boost to the city's coffers, but who would want to live there?
c) We have some of the best universities in the country (world?); we are home to Putnam, Fidelity, and State Street Bank among others. With all this incredible brain power resident in the Commonwealth, making money off of people's weaknesses is a massive financial cop-out. Is this really the best plan that we can come up with?
d) Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.
 
Have any of you been to a bar in Fall River? It may as well be legalized already. Jittery cops watching doors with visible coke residue on their noses (not an exaggeration) turn a blind eye to the prostitution (rampant in probably 90% of nightlife venues in the city) and drugs anyway. Everyone's in on it. Bartenders and owners don't mind shady business in the bars because it brings in customers who pay for drinks too. They'd otherwise be doing "business" in a dark alley somewhere. I know of more than one place that gets a cut of the money from solicitation occurring within a bar. The Cops? Please... as long as the shady business is going down, they get paid detail money to stand out there and turn a blind eye. Occasionally they'll make an arrest on someone who's too drunk to stand and starts a fight, but 99 times out of 100, they're just enjoying the ride.

One night out at one of my favorite local dives (the nightlife options in FR are seedy dives or Guido "lounges") in Fall River and I see more meth-head/ crackhead nipple than anyone should see in a lifetime. If I leave a bar without having a hooker try to sell herself to me, it's a weird night.

Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.

LRfox, I might have to start hanging out with you....
 
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.

Democracy tends to favor this philosophy; it's not good for the law to be substantially different from people's everyday practice.
 
Four reasons "Why not":
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.

My perspective is obviously different as a single guy in my mid-20s. I don't even necessarily disagree with you to a degree. "Everybody's doing it!" isn't always a good philosophy. But prostitution, gambling and marijuana have been around for centuries. They're not "trends." They're going to continue to be around for centuries. Why not capitalize? I cringe at the waste of money involved with persecuting pot smokers, gamblers and people who pay for sex.

Furthermore, legalizing these things would obviously lead to regulations. I'd much rather see people buying uncut, regulated weed from authorized sellers than some soulless back alley dealer. The health benefits of selling a regulated drug vs. an unregulated one are obvious. What's not as obvious are the benefits of being able to but weed in a safe setting vs. an unregulated dealer.

With prostitution, you can enforce health regulations (STD testing being the big one) and ensure cleaner circumstances for transactions.

If you have an issue with profiting from these things, I can understand (I don't love the idea of it either). But I see it like this... with legalization you're also saving money by reducing health risks and not wasting money chasing "criminals" who aren't guilty of anything significant. Who really cares if a guy wants to pay for a hand job after a massage or smoke a bowl after work? I'd rather see my money spent chasing rapists and murderers.

b) Making F.R. a home to legalized illegitimate industries may result in a quick boost to the city's coffers, but who would want to live there?

Who wants to live there to begin with? I have a lot of nostalgia for the area. I grew up around there. I have family and friends around there. I have no desire to live there. Everyone's already trying to get out. As I said before, most of these things are already happening on a large scale to begin with in Fall River and similar cities.

Furthermore, if you legalize these industries (maybe concentrate them in a "red light district" of sorts), you take the drug dealers and hookers off of neighborhoods streets and put them in legitimate regulated businesses in a concentrated area. In a city where these things run rampant, you can literally clean up the streets by legalizing certain things that are currently considered "crimes." Then of course, the boost to the coffers couldn't hurt an economically depressed city.

c) We have some of the best universities in the country (world?); we are home to Putnam, Fidelity, and State Street Bank among others. With all this incredible brain power resident in the Commonwealth, making money off of people's weaknesses is a massive financial cop-out. Is this really the best plan that we can come up with?

Fall River has none of those things (and again, neither do many of the secondary cities in the state). What they have is crime, unemployment, a complete lack of education, and maybe the occasional state school or community college. In Boston, sure it's a financial cop-out. No one even said it's the BEST plan, but it's A plan and it sure won't hurt these smaller cities financially. They're desperate for money. The investments aren't exactly pouring in to Fall River.

Connecting Fall River to Boston via commuter rail will be a big step forward. Investing in its seaport and waterfront is another. But legalizing some of these so-called crimes will be a nice boost. Possibly even a way to raise a little money to make better investments. Just like parts of a gas tax go to offset infrastructure upgrades, prostitution and weed taxes can help to fund better education programs. Turn a negative (that will be there regardless of legality) into as much of a positive as possible.

d) Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.

I don't buy this. Sure, it's a nice thought; but I don't buy it.

Morals are highly subjective. Frankly, I don't care what other people do on their own time so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (rape, murder, assault, etc) or directly cost anyone money (theft). I don't care if a lonely older man goes to a brothel to pay for sex. In fact, I almost take more of an issue with anyone who wants to sit there and judge or tell him that he is not allowed to do it because they don't like the concept of it.

Beyond that, all of these things (prostitution, marijuana, gambling) already exist in our society. they always have and they will continue to. I just believe that we should stop wasting time and money by trying to punish those who participate in these activities.

For what it's worth, I don't gamble (not even scratch tickets), I rarely ever smoke weed, and I would NEVER pay for sex. But I don't have an issue with people who do like those things.


LRfox, I might have to start hanging out with you....

Trust me, it's not as cool as it sounds. You should see the "women" selling themselves in these bars.
 
Hey Lrfox, I hadn’t noticed that you replied until today.
Funny how so many of these posts have turned into a discussion of social and/or political issues…a sign of the times??? Anyhow - a few thoughts in return:

a) “so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else” Prostitution is not a victimless crime. You’re speaking from the perspective of the buyer not of the seller. Regulating prostitution will, by no means, reduce the health risks to the prostitute; nor will there be a sudden increase in prostitutes’ sense of enduring purpose and self-worth.

b) "all of these things (prostitution, marijuana, gambling) already exist in our society. they always have and they will continue to” ...an argument from the edge of a slippery slope…why stop at just these three then? Why not legalize cocaine and heroine? Why not lower the age of consent to 13 or 14? There’s a lot of crap that has always been a part of society; legitimizing it won’t take the what-makes-this-crap and turn it into something good or beneficial.

c) "put them in legitimate regulated businesses“ ….call me after a decade of these being “legitimate” and “regulated” and let me know how clean these industries have become. Pennsylvania’s current gambling-corruption issues being my case in point.

d) "Morals are highly subjective” …no, no. They are not subjective. They are, in fact, timeless and unchangeable. Murder is wrong; theft is wrong; bullying is wrong; cheating on your wife is wrong; child abuse is wrong; tax evasion is wrong; lying is wrong; demeaning another person for your own personal gratification is wrong; abusing or endangering your own body with drugs is wrong; …etc.

I repeat “Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.” Why? Although you and I may benefit from a decent upbringing or a decent sense of self-confidence or a reasonable dose of self-control with an even-handed tolerance and respect for our fellow citizens, there is a percentage of our fellow citizens who do not benefit thusly. It is this simple fact that creates this need for laws and regulations based on enduring morals and compassion. What else would they be based on??? I, for one, don’t want my country/state/city to profit from others’ weaknesses. That too is morally wrong.
 
Tom Menino, Robert Kraft all in on casino site showdown
Foxboro, Suffolk Downs expected to go head-to-head
By Dave Wedge and John Zaremba
Saturday, December 3, 2011 - Updated 1 day ago

A billion-dollar brawl for lucrative Bay State casino licenses is unfolding as Mayor Thomas M. Menino digs in his heels in support of a gaming palace at Suffolk Downs while wealthy Patriots [team stats] owner Robert Kraft wines and dines a Las Vegas titan hoping to crush the track’s dreams by building a gambling mecca in Foxboro.

“Everyone’s assuming there’s going to be a casino in Foxboro. The media is assuming that it’s a done deal. It’s not a done deal. There’s a long process to go,” Menino told the Herald last night. “The traffic issue is a serious issue out there. You go to a game it takes you two-and-a-half-hours to get out. There’s a real history of issues with Gillette Stadium.”

The mayor has always maintained the best location for a resort-style entertainment destination would be Suffolk Downs. The local Hub racetrack has long been a worthwhile neighbor, Menino said.

“Suffolk Downs has been doing this kind of business for years,” Menino said. “Suffolk Downs has a record of working with the community. Not just 12 days a year, but 365 days a year.”

The Kraft Group said last night in a statement that the family “never ruled out any development options that would be significant economic generators for Foxboro and the region.”

Kraft is hosting casino king Steve Wynn at tomorrow’s Patriots game. The Kraft Group statement called Wynn Resorts “a company that stands alone in quality and character. Their properties are much more than gaming. They are integrated destination resorts.”

The NFL bars team owners from owning a casino but has no rules against owners leasing land for gambling parlors. While Kraft commands lots of respect throughout the league (he is widely credited with brokering the new players union agreement), he could face an uphill battle with the NFL.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who is believed to favor a Suffolk Downs-backed resort casino in his district of East Boston, took a conciliatory stance, saying he is “encouraged” by the Foxboro casino gambit.

“More competition is better for our state,” he said. “It will be entirely up to the independent gaming commission to determine which plan best serves the commonwealth.”

Suffolk Downs spokesman Chip Tuttle said: “We understand we’re going to have to earn a license on the merits of a proposal to spend more than $1 billion to develop a world-class destination resort befitting the city of Boston.”

The Herald first reported in September that gaming moguls were eyeing the Krafts’ Route 1 land and had spoken to town officials about possible zoning changes.

Kraft got a helping hand from the governor and the state Legislature this year when Norfolk County was shifted out of the southeastern Massachusetts casino region and into the same region as Boston and Suffolk Downs — assuring the billionaire wouldn’t be blocked by rules requiring a casino for American Indian tribes on the coast.

Patrick’s camp declined to take sides last night.

“We do not have a position on any individual proposal,” Patrick spokeswoman Kim Haberlin said. “The independent gaming commission will conduct an open, transparent and competitive bidding process to determine which projects move forward.”


Foxboro or Suffolk...............The Battle Begins.
Investors involved in Foxboro (Kraft Group)
What heavy hitter investors are involved in the Suffolk site besides Vornado (Roth)?

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1385497

If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District. It would have been money machine for the city of Boston.
 
Good, let it go in Foxboro. This thing belongs either in the woods or a very glitzy high-end fancy pants block in the Seaport. Due to the very likely possibility of Menino and the BRA screwing it up, I say ditch it in the woods.
 
Every casino associated with the word fox is a success. A casino at Foxboro is an even better idea than a stadium in Southie!

Gulp!
 
If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District.

You've said this about 177 times; nobody else here appears to agree with you. Time to give it a rest.
 
Like it or not, it seems the casino thing is a done deal. So we'll be looking at Suffolk or Patriots Stadium.

I'm really curious about informed opinions on these specific projects -- not generalizations about gambling or concerns about impacts evident at existing casinos (because it's a done deal, we're getting one). The Boston Globe article earlier this week about Wynn and the two racetracks competing for slots was insightful.

Do people have any factual info or insights on Suffolk Downs v. Patriots Place?

The paper suggested Suffolk Downs would have better attendance due to proximity to Boston. It is also true that the Ted Williams Tunnel often seems to have a much greater bandwidth than used by current traffic.
 
Foxboro or Suffolk...............The Battle Begins.
Investors involved in Foxboro (Kraft Group)
What heavy hitter investors are involved in the Suffolk site besides Vornado (Roth)?

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1385497

If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District. It would have been money machine for the city of Boston.

There's more to the story than ever will be published. Menino was not the only player .....Kraft rolled over plenty of people over the years. Mugar, Sarkis, Karp and Speaker Finneran's office are power players that must be considered. I privately believe Kraft had no true intention of locating it anywhere except for the lot next to Sullivan Stadium though.

And one story in particular from those days pairs nicely with Menino's vehemence against a casino in Foxborough. The tat for Boston's earlier tit.
 
Both Suffolk and Foxboro would be a disaster for the Traffic scenarios..........

I'm completely against the Casinos coming to Mass. I would say that Foxwoods and Mohegan will be bankrupt once they are built since Mass is 33% of the revenues for those casinos. The Indians always get screwed.

Why is Menino even involved when the casino is heading to Revere?

If Kraft gets the ok I believe that we will see another highway in the future.

I would love to know the power players involved in the Suffolk Play.
 

Back
Top