MA Casino Developments

Environmental issues aside, the Everett site is almost a perfect spot if you're a casino developer/politician trying to sell a casino to a town. It's basically a forgotten industrial area located a fair distance away from the town's population base.

While it's unclear how much the casino might end up costing Everett in services, the reality is - given the proposed casino location - if you live in Everett and don't travel on Route 99 below Route 16 very often, your day-to-day interaction with the casino and its effects will probably be pretty minor. Now if you live in Charlestown or the northen part of Somerville, it's a whole other story.

I think Saturday's margin of victory is reflective of this.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Are you alright. The area is a nightmare already for traffic. Sullivan Square, Route 16, Route 99...........

The traffic will only get worse coming in 93N/S. This location is a major cluster fuck for everybody.
Also is WYNN going to pay 500 Million for infrastructure upgrades? No the taxpayers will be stuck that bill.

I hate to say this but the only area that would have made sense is the Seaport near the Convention center.
Click to expand...

Did you actually read anything I wrote??
 
I'm not a big fan of this idea, but I also don't see why it would have any noticeable effect on Charlestown.
 
Ron Newman said:
I'm not a big fan of this idea, but I also don't see why it would have any noticeable effect on Charlestown.
Click to expand...

Its getting from the surrounding areas to Charlestown coming from Everett, Sullivan Square, 93N/S. Think about it. What happens when a billion dollar casino that is hosting major events. The entire area will be grid lock because its not that accessible.
 
TheRifleman said:
Sorry I misread what you said. I just deleted the post.

I also believe traffic will increase over 30% on 93n/s
Click to expand...


I'm admittedly struggling on what the traffic impact of these things will actually be. We're all working with a paradigm based on Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut, or to a lesser extent Atlantic City and Vegas. The problem is the two casinos in Connecticut have historically had what is - in essence - a monopoly in an area between northern NJ and Maine. At the peak of their business, those casinos drew thousands of cars a day from NYC, Connecticut, western Mass, Rhode Island, and Eastern Mass - with a smattering from upstate NY, NH, VT, and Maine.

If all goes as planned, this casino in Everett - or East Boston for that matter - will compete with both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, an expanded Twin River in RI, a casino in the Taunton/New Bedford corridor, a casino in the Springfield area, plus a slot parlor in a yet to be determined locale. This assumes that NH and Maine don't add any gambling establishments in their states.

For his part, Wynn is planning 100,000 square feet of gaming space in Everett. (Foxwoods gaming space is somehwere in the neighborhood of 340,000 square feet and Mohegan is a bit over 300,000). So obviously, he is not expecting volumes anywhere near Connecticut.

This "Boston casino" simply will not draw the numbers that we've seen in Connecticut. The volumes probably won't be anything close. Generally speaking, people are not going to be coming here from NYC, Western Mass, or the Cape to gamble. There will certainly be additional trips added to those roadways over the course of a day. On nights when there are special events or shows, there will certainly be a spike, just like we see around Fenway or the Garden during games/events. I just don't know if the net affects will ultimately be anything more than a new shopping mall.

EDIT: The only info I could find on performance venues in Everett is a 600-seat outdoor amplitheter. If that's the case, that's hardly enough to cause a blip in traffic on a Saturday evening.
 
I'm surprised that the casino proposal hasn't floated a GL or OL spur across the Mystic on the existing ROW. That's got to be a relatively simple undertaking, especially if Wynn foots a good deal of the bill.

I'd venture to say that it's actually cheaper to bring rail rapid transit to this site in Everett than it would to the Seaport (i.e. convert SL to light rail and connect it into the GL). I may be wrong, but it doesn't look out of the question in any case.

My feeling is that if Wynn were truly serious he'd be putting it on the table... or perhaps Everett should be putting it on the table now.
 
I live in Somerville a few minute bike ride from this place. (Actually run through it while trying to do a full Mystic River run loop.)

I don't want a casino--but I don't want massive brown fields and square miles of underutilized property to remain derelict for another 50 years. What other economically feasible option does this area have to clean it up and offer some modicum of integration into the greater Boston area?

This project would 1) encourage further pedestrian development across and along the Mystic 2) encourage more T development in the future 3) encourage more Mystic River clean up projects as boaters and kayakers consider this as a Charles alternative for rec activities 4) encourage spending on new mixed use development in Sullivan Square 5) be a kickoff spot for the Northern Strand community trail to the Atlantic, which currently has no logical origin point. Not to mention that Everett would actually get a tax base to work with for the first time in... well...

It would lead to more addiction and crime problems, and it would increase traffic. However, 1) this area of Everett is not exactly a beacon of safety to begin with--and more people in an area means a safer area; and 2) there are more people on the floor of Costco and Target on the other side of those train tracks then there will be 90% of the time on the floor of this casino. Do we want to tear down Costco for slogging your evening commute?
 
jdrinboston said:
Environmental issues aside, the Everett site is almost a perfect spot if you're a casino developer/politician trying to sell a casino to a town.
Click to expand...

Actually, the environmental issues are the most compelling part of this proposal. This site is so very contaminated. That anyone would take it on is remarkable. Unfortunate that it is a casino that has the money to do it.
 
jdrinboston said:
I'm admittedly struggling on what the traffic impact of these things will actually be. We're all working with a paradigm based on Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in Connecticut, or to a lesser extent Atlantic City and Vegas. The problem is the two casinos in Connecticut have historically had what is - in essence - a monopoly in an area between northern NJ and Maine. At the peak of their business, those casinos drew thousands of cars a day from NYC, Connecticut, western Mass, Rhode Island, and Eastern Mass - with a smattering from upstate NY, NH, VT, and Maine.

If all goes as planned, this casino in Everett - or East Boston for that matter - will compete with both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, an expanded Twin River in RI, a casino in the Taunton/New Bedford corridor, a casino in the Springfield area, plus a slot parlor in a yet to be determined locale. This assumes that NH and Maine don't add any gambling establishments in their states.

For his part, Wynn is planning 100,000 square feet of gaming space in Everett. (Foxwoods gaming space is somehwere in the neighborhood of 340,000 square feet and Mohegan is a bit over 300,000). So obviously, he is not expecting volumes anywhere near Connecticut.

This "Boston casino" simply will not draw the numbers that we've seen in Connecticut. The volumes probably won't be anything close. Generally speaking, people are not going to be coming here from NYC, Western Mass, or the Cape to gamble. There will certainly be additional trips added to those roadways over the course of a day. On nights when there are special events or shows, there will certainly be a spike, just like we see around Fenway or the Garden during games/events. I just don't know if the net affects will ultimately be anything more than a new shopping mall.

EDIT: The only info I could find on performance venues in Everett is a 600-seat outdoor amplitheter. If that's the case, that's hardly enough to cause a blip in traffic on a Saturday evening.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you.

As for the Casino I think it will do quite well in this location. Remember Foxwoods and Mohegan are out in the woods hours away. 34% of business is generated from Mass.

This area is very accessible to a city that is very wealthy. I'm not sure on the population to suffolk/Plymouth Population but having a casino this centralized in a city should do very well.

The only problem for the Casino Operator & developer is how many groups they have to pay-off.
 
Beton Brut said:
"Wanting something" and understanding the downside of your desires are two very different things, my friend.
Click to expand...

True enough. The numbers are staggering though of those who turned out to vote. Are they all so uneducated? Are they all blinded by jobs?

Maybe. Not sure who's fault that is.

The Taunton residents voted as well, and were in favor (although not by quite this landslide.) The people spoke and said they want it, but the State still hasn't given it to them. They do a good job of setting deadlines for proposals, but sure can drag their feet about making any decisions.
 
I live in Dorchester, you can walk down the street to a dive bar (not a 'hipster dive bar' a real dive bar) and play Keno all day. The line at the convenience stores are 75% scratch tickets and lottery - the state sells blackjack and poker scratch tickets.

Gambling is legal and prevalent throughout Massachusetts, and it primarily used by the middle class and the poor.

Casino gambling, on the other hand, should be a 5-star resort-style experience. Casino gambling should be how we entice the ultra rich to come and blow a few thousand dollars, vs. on $1 scratch tickets.

My poor and working class neighbors will probably never go to a Wynn resort, but they will happily gamble a few dollars away each day at 7-11. I support giving the business-traveler and BMW-set to also have the right to gamble.

If you are against somebody having the right to play blackjack at a resort, then you should also be against a disadvantaged senior having the right to play blackjack on a scratch ticket at 7-11. There is no middle ground morally or ethically, so let's scrap that argument altogether.

I respect both sides of the gambling debate, but not those that support gambling for the poor but fret about gambling for the rich at a resort casino.

So to me, the most glamorous, expensive and frankly in-your-face, uber-wealthy casino resort is the one that should win the license. This is why adding a gambling hall to an existing horestrack doesn't work for me.
 
Mike, what makes you think an easily-accessible urban casino won't be frequented by middle and lower-income individuals? Put the casino out in Palmer with a single 5-star hotel and you'll be catering to the rich. Put a casino in Everett (or on the Blue Line for Christ's sake) and you'll get equal opportunity wealth squandering.
Wynn resorts have slot machines. Wynn resorts have video poker. Wynn resorts have roulette tables.
 
AmericanFolkLegend said:
Mike, what makes you think an easily-accessible urban casino won't be frequented by middle and lower-income individuals? Put the casino out in Palmer with a single 5-star hotel and you'll be catering to the rich. Put a casino in Everett (or on the Blue Line for Christ's sake) and you'll get equal opportunity wealth squandering.
Wynn resorts have slot machines. Wynn resorts have video poker. Wynn resorts have roulette tables.
Click to expand...

I think a casino with easy access to the airport will appeal to the rich more than Palmer. Palmer would appeal to the exact same demographic as the existing casinos in New England.
 
DominusNovus said:
I think a casino with easy access to the airport will appeal to the rich more than Palmer. Palmer would appeal to the exact same demographic as the existing casinos in New England.
Click to expand...
Not too many rich people live at the airport, and I think you're dreaming if you think the hotel's business model assumes significant numbers rich people from "elsewhere" would choose to fly in for one.

The sad reality of Casinos is that they prey on the many addicts of whatever income level. And since the 1% are only 1%, its mostly addicts drawn from the 99% that they prey on.

For locals, the Casino will be the only game in town. For global high-rollers, who can choose any town, Boston isn't going to be a priority.

The best you can hope for is that conventioneers will somehow find a way to get from Back Bay / Seaport out to Everett, and even then, it isn't like Wynn would somehow "spare" the locals if given a steady supply of non-local patrons.
 
Arlington said:
Not too many rich people live at the airport, and I think you're dreaming if you think the hotel's business model assumes significant numbers rich people from "elsewhere" would choose to fly in for one.

The sad reality of Casinos is that they prey on the many addicts of whatever income level. And since the 1% are only 1%, its mostly addicts drawn from the 99% that they prey on.

For locals, the Casino will be the only game in town. For global high-rollers, who can choose any town, Boston isn't going to be a priority.

The best you can hope for is that conventioneers will somehow find a way to get from Back Bay / Seaport out to Everett, and even then, it isn't like Wynn would somehow "spare" the locals if given a steady supply of non-local patrons.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking of people who are flying into Boston for other reasons (business, recreation, doesn't matter), and would like to indulge in one more vice while they're here. However, I don't think that Casinos in particular prey on the addicts; that honor goes to the lottery, keno, and scratch tickets.
 
DominusNovus said:
I'm thinking of people who are flying into Boston for other reasons (business, recreation, doesn't matter), and would like to indulge in one more vice while they're here. However, I don't think that Casinos in particular prey on the addicts; that honor goes to the lottery, keno, and scratch tickets.
Click to expand...
All gambling preys on weak minds.

I'm ashamed that (my fellow) Libertarian-Republicans seem to like gambling (Lotto or Casino) because its a tax on the poor that they don't have to call a tax.

Worse, this terrible tax on vulnerable families isn't called out by Democrats because of the Trade Unions.

Democrats are silent because even if the total amount of gambling stays fixed, Trade Unions still win because while corner Keno parlors are built and staffed with mom-and-pop (non-union) labor, Casinos are built and staffed by union members. So if gambling revenues are constant, they shift from the Mom&Pop + Lottery pocket to the Union's Pockets. Not a net win.

But we think gambling will increase. So what's really happening is that Casinos + State Lottery is a more effective combined machine at separating the stupid and the addicted from their money.
 
DominusNovus said:
I'm thinking of people who are flying into Boston for other reasons (business, recreation, doesn't matter), and would like to indulge in one more vice while they're here. However, I don't think that Casinos in particular prey on the addicts; that honor goes to the lottery, keno, and scratch tickets.
Click to expand...

The local subsidized housing residents in Everett, Revere, Somerville, Chelsea, Malden will end up spending EBT cards, money vouchers and whatever other source of income our Govt officials give them to keep the slots sirens going on.

Nothing good will come out of this EVERETT casino for the community or whats left of it in Everett.
 
I'm sorry, but in my extensive experience in the Convenience Store industry, I can't imagine Casinos even coming close to the numbers of gamblers sitting in the various stores around Massachusetts, wasting their money away.

I also object to the notion that all gambling preys on weak minds. I know plenty of people who do it just for fun. Best example is a professor of mine was friends with a Middle Eastern Sheik, who'd bet million dollar chips at casinos, just to show off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top