MA Casino Developments

aaaaaa said:
Milford casino no longer a dark horse, by Paul McMorrow, 8/27/2013, CommonWealth Mag



&c.
Click to expand...

The Mashantucket Pequots - and by extension Foxwoods - are a financial disaster right now. Given that they've nearly defaulted on the debt they have in Connecticut, I'm skeptical that they will be able to take on a bunch more in Mass. I'm also skeptical that they would allow their tribal council to be subject to the state-required background checks.

Milford is interesting in that even if voters approve the casino at referendum, they will still require 2/3rds majority of town meeting members to approve a zone change.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if a final application from Milford even made it to the state gaming commission.
 
aaaaaa said:
Say the Eastie casino is approved, as is Milford. What is the process that determines whether it goes to Boston, Everett, or Milford?

I'm curious as to what the actual process is supposed to be rather than the, "Menino calls in a favor" answer.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The gaming commission weights each application and decides who is the best applicant. Presumably they will use criteria such as financial security, track record, and overall community support. In this regard, some think Everett has the upper hand because roughly 87 percent of the town supported their referendum. Cooperation with non-hosting surrounding communities will also be weighed.
 
aaaaaa said:
Say the Eastie casino is approved, as is Milford. What is the process that determines whether it goes to Boston, Everett, or Milford?

I'm curious as to what the actual process is supposed to be rather than the, "Menino calls in a favor" answer.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, the final decision lies with the MGC. They decide which site would fulfill the expanded gaming act's intention (I'm not sure of the actual process, not sure anyone is except Crosby). For Boston, it will go to Eastie or Everett. Out west, I think Springfield will wind up getting it because they seem to have the most local support. Region C is a completely different animal, I'd like to see it go in Bridgewater but the Indians have really screwed things up down there so some of the big-time operators may be scared to invest there until the land in trust shit is figured out.
 
I'm not sure about the casino generating a billion dollars a year. There are alot of factors involved.
But this casino could be HUGE.
**Location, Location, Location
The casino in Boston will do alot better than most people think. Major city with major money so there is definetely opportunity for the people involved to make a FORTUNE.
 
aaaaaa said:
I was at Idle Hands (and Night Shift) and one of the employees mentioned that if the casino were to go through in Everett their place would be destroyed. I haven't looked through the plans (are they available to the public?), so: (1) is this true? (2) if it is true, that is disappointing.
Click to expand...

I went there a month ago and they told me the same thing. But upon further discussion, I think they're concerned more about their warehouses being upzoned and gentrified by the residual impacts of an Everett casino instead of explicitly being absorbed by Wynn's casino.
 
So I've been busy with a few things over the past few months, mostly in this fight, and in the statewide repeal effort of the expanded gaming legislation. I'm utterly certain that no one's missed me.

Last week, the Boston City Council met to set a date for the local referendum on the Suffolk Downs proposal. Several of my neighbors who are part of the organized opposition attended that meeting and gave testimony. Video if the entire meeting is posted here, in case you're having trouble sleeping, or have over three hours to kill.

In preparation for this important meeting, our legal and policy team combed both the gaming legislation and the recently signed mitigation agreement, and considered the rules laid out in the legislation against the sequencing of events with the City of Boston.

In short, something ain't right...

Consider the comments presented by a key member of our group:
Dear City Council:

I am an attorney and East Boston resident specializing in administrative and appellate law. I have taken the time to carefully read and analyze the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's regulations over the past several months as they have been released. In light of the plain language of the controlling regulations, I must inform you that the debate expected to occur at this afternoon's City Council meeting in regard to a ward-vs-citywide vote on the casino at Suffolk Downs is legally moot. This message is also the third and final time that I will place this Council on notice that the casino-related matters on this afternoon's agenda come before it in clear and direct violation of 205 CMR 115.05(6) -- the very provision which has been cited in favor of moving them forward. (I have attached a copy of the letter previously sent to the Council on Friday together with a copy of comments in support of this letter given at the Committee on Economic Development & Planning's meeting that day.)

THE DEBATE OVER A WARD-VS-CITYWIDE CASINO VOTE IS MOOT NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY REQUESTED AN ELECTION

It is anticipated that the Council may today be considering an amendment "opting out" of the statutory default which would otherwise limit the casino vote to East Boston in order to permit a citywide referendum. However, pursuant to 205 CMR 124.04(04), a city must opt out of the statutorily-required "ward only" vote and formally decide for a citywide vote before the applicant has called for an election. This is not an "interpretation" of this provision. This is a literal reading of the plain language of the black-letter Gaming Commission rules which directly control this election process.

Suffolk Downs has already called for an election in a letter dated September 5, 2013, and that request is now before the council at today's meeting. While it is certainly understandable that conscientious councillors would want to give their constituents an opportunity to protect themselves from the massive increases in traffic, crime, poverty, addiction, and other social and financial ills that a casino will bring to greater Boston, there is no legal basis for doing so at this point. Any calls for a citywide election subsequent to September 5, 2013 are therefore moot, and any such proposed amendment must fail.


THE COUNCIL HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO WAIVE THE SUITABILITY DETERMINATION REQUIREMENT NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY REQUESTED AN ELECTION

The Gaming Commission established a two-part process by which a city is permitted to bypass the statutorily-requred "suitability determination" requirement and proceed to a vote before the facts are in on who is behind a given casino development proposal:

(1) The city council "formally approves" a measure to allow the vote to occur in the absence of suitability checks; and
(2) The applicant subsequently requests an election.

See 205 CMR 115.05(6).

There is no waiver or exception to this order of events. The Gaming Commission clearly intended that any host community seeking to bypass the "suitability determination" requirement subject this question to two separate votes. This is reasonable, given the significant exception to the law that putting a casino development plan before voters prior to the completion of the Gaming Commission's exhaustive investigation into whether the applicants are financially sound and otherwise able to meet their commitments (a very real concern in the case of Suffolk Downs and its parties in interest) represents.

Yet the Council is scheduled to vote concurrently today on two significant casino-related provisions: (1) permitting the casino development to proceed to an election in East Boston prior to the completion of a "suitability determination," (#1399) and (2) scheduling a referendum on the Host Community Agreement for November 5, 2013 (#1400) pursuant to applicant Suffolk Downs's request. Although 205 CMR 115.05(6) has been invoked as grounds for the former, this provision clearly and unmistakably requires that #1399 already have passed "prior to" the applicant's September 5, 2013 request for an election. Without a proper waiver of the suitability determination requirement, the Council has no lawful authority to schedule an election.

Respectfully, this is not an "interpretation" of 205 CMR 115.05(6) upon which reasonable minds may differ. The Gaming Commission plainly intended that two separate debates occur and that two different measures be passed subsequently, rather than concurrently -- likely to ensure that any move toward the unusual step of waiving of the suitability determination requirement be subjected to an appropriate amount of scrutiny and public attention. This simply has not happened.

If we are not able to trust this City Council to schedule an election on the casino in compliance with Gaming Commission regulations, how should we be confident that we may trust the Council to enforce the remainder of the Commission's extremely complex regulations--let alone the nearly 200-page mitigation agreement?

In light of the above, I am again respectfully requesting that this Council either take steps to bring this election process into conformance with Gaming Commission regulations, or publicly explain its legal authority to supersede or bypass them prior to this afternoon's vote.

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns, and for your commitment to the rule of law.

Very truly yours,



MATT CAMERON
256 Marginal Stret
East Boston, Mass. 02128
Click to expand...

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
Interesting legal theory. I do have a tactical question. Why would East Boston-based opponents advocate for a city-wide vote? Do they believe that a city electorate is more likely to defeat a casino at referendum? Why would a city electorate be more hostile to a casino than an East Boston electorate?

What happens if East Boston ward votes against, but the remaining wards vote in favor and override Eastie's opposition?
 
There's been a lot of discussion around ward-specific vs. citywide voting on the issue. I don't recall anyone in my circle speaking about a "need" for a citywide vote, but we have certainly considered its possible ramifications to our efforts.
 
jdrinboston said:
Interesting legal theory. I do have a tactical question. Why would East Boston-based opponents advocate for a city-wide vote? Do they believe that a city electorate is more likely to defeat a casino at referendum? Why would a city electorate be more hostile to a casino than an East Boston electorate?
Click to expand...

Just my speculation:

Think of the hand-wringers and pearl-clutters in Beacon Hill and Back Bay. The family oriented neighborhood organizer people. The shadoz! people in every corner of the city. They are all a safe bet to be in opposition because they instinctually oppose everything. Unions - they already have jobs for life so they don't need to support it for job creation. Eastie people though, I think they see it as a job creator and job multiplier (i.e. people will actually come to Eastie for a change and spend at least a little money outside the casino).

I honestly can't believe this casino BS ever got passed, because the opposition is so vehement. I'm not strongly for or against. I can see the pros and cons from both angles and neither side has convinced me.

I like more entertainment and tourism (that isn't downtown - plenty there already, lets spread it out). I like the revenue stream. I like the idea that I can go to the casino on a whim.

However if the revenue is spent mitigating a million externalities, then its not real revenue. Even though I never go there, I don't want to see Eastie and neighboring towns turn into Hill Valley from the alternate 1985. I don't want to find out Biff is my stepdad. Also, I don't want the city to get a taste of money from walled-off resort-style anything. I don't want a reason to build anything else as remotely un-urban as what they are planning.
 
fattony said:
Just my speculation:

Think of the hand-wringers and pearl-clutters in Beacon Hill and Back Bay. The family oriented neighborhood organizer people. The shadoz! people in every corner of the city. They are all a safe bet to be in opposition because they instinctually oppose everything. Unions - they already have jobs for life so they don't need to support it for job creation. Eastie people though, I think they see it as a job creator and job multiplier (i.e. people will actually come to Eastie for a change and spend at least a little money outside the casino).

I honestly can't believe this casino BS ever got passed, because the opposition is so vehement. I'm not strongly for or against. I can see the pros and cons from both angles and neither side has convinced me.

I like more entertainment and tourism (that isn't downtown - plenty there already, lets spread it out). I like the revenue stream. I like the idea that I can go to the casino on a whim.

However if the revenue is spent mitigating a million externalities, then its not real revenue. Even though I never go there, I don't want to see Eastie and neighboring towns turn into Hill Valley from the alternate 1985. I don't want to find out Biff is my stepdad. Also, I don't want the city to get a taste of money from walled-off resort-style anything. I don't want a reason to build anything else as remotely un-urban as what they are planning.
Click to expand...

Those are all good points and I agree with the general premise of your argument.

As someone who is generally fascinated by the process of running campaigns/elections, I'm curious as to the theory that opponents seem to argue that a citywide vote is more likely to result in a rejection, than an Eastie-only vote. While Beton may not be arguing this point, a lot of casino opponents from the neighborhood are. If I was an Eastie resident and opposed to a casino I would be petrified that indifferent voters from Allston/Brighton, Dorchester, Hyde Park etc. would casually vote yes and push the casino proposal "over the top"

From my perspective, it seems counterintuitive to take this vote away from neighborhood residents who are more likely to take a "NIMBY" approach to their voting. I almost get the sense that the opponents feel there is a strong under-current of support in the neighborhood that they can't counter-act and they are hoping the progressive sensibilities of voters in Back Bay/Beacon Hill will come to the rescue. I'd be interested in knowing where that feeling comes from.
 
Beton Brut said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It's not like the council will really understand what is said in that letter. So they will move forward until they are arrested.

There is nothing positive in having a casino in the inner-city of East-Boston/Revere line or even Everett.
 
Last edited:
Czervik.Construction said:
Beton - what's the reason for being anti-casino? Just don't want one inside the city?
Click to expand...

Not in my Commonwealth!

The legislation was shady to begin with, and represents in the minds of many, an act of fiscal incompetence. It troubles me that a seemingly progressive-minded politician like Governor Patrick would be so eager to engage with a predatory industry and participate actively in what is essentially disaster capitalism. I guess everyone has their price, and his is a 25% cut, and the favor of certain labor unions.

Also consider, when greyhound racing was banned in Massachusetts, the people got to vote on it in a binding referendum. It offends my sensibilities and disenfranchises all of us as voters and taxpayers to have had expanded gaming in Massachusetts enacted without a similar binding referendum.

jdrinboston said:
...I'm curious as to the theory that opponents seem to argue that a citywide vote is more likely to result in a rejection, than an Eastie-only vote.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to people in East Boston, or to folks like Bill Walczak?
 
I know there is a dark underbelly to having casinos in your city, just look at Atlantic City and the "real" Las Vegas. However, people from MA are heading down to CT in droves to fork over their money, so why not keep it in state?



Beton Brut said:
Not in my Commonwealth!

The legislation was shady to begin with, and represents in the minds of many, an act of fiscal incompetence. It troubles me that a seemingly progressive-minded politician like Governor Patrick would be so eager to engage with a predatory industry and participate actively in what is essentially disaster capitalism. I guess everyone has their price, and his is a 25% cut, and the favor of certain labor unions.

Also consider, when greyhound racing was banned in Massachusetts, the people got to vote on it in a binding referendum. It offends my sensibilities and disenfranchises all of us as voters and taxpayers to have had expanded gaming in Massachusetts enacted without a similar binding referendum.
Click to expand...
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I know there is a dark underbelly to having casinos in your city, just look at Atlantic City and the "real" Las Vegas. However, people from MA are heading down to CT in droves to fork over their money, so why not keep it in state?
Click to expand...

The reality is Education saved Massachusetts from all the real degenerates that actually live in this state. That is the difference.
 
Czervik.Construction said:
I know there is a dark underbelly to having casinos in your city, just look at Atlantic City and the "real" Las Vegas. However, people from MA are heading down to CT in droves to fork over their money, so why not keep it in state?
Click to expand...

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Walk into any convenience store in the state and there are always people throwing away money they don't have on scratch tickets, keno, lottery tickets etc. It's an epidemic. We already have legalized gambling in Massachusetts. The anti-casino argument makes no sense to me. It makes as much sense as anti-alcohol folks saying "vodka and gin are ok but HELL NO to whiskey and scotch." How about you let me, an adult, decide what kind of alcoholic beverage/gambling I want to indulge in.
 
BosDevelop said:
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Walk into any convenience store in the state and there are always people throwing away money they don't have on scratch tickets, keno, lottery tickets etc. It's an epidemic. We already have legalized gambling in Massachusetts. The anti-casino argument makes no sense to me. It makes as much sense as anti-alcohol folks saying "vodka and gin are ok but HELL NO to whiskey and scotch." How about you let me, an adult, decide what kind of alcoholic beverage/gambling I want to indulge in.
Click to expand...

Agreed...add happy hour to that list...if this casino is lame ie no free drinks or late closing, it will never make any real money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top