MA Casino Developments

#1 Land is not entirely 100% Everetts

Wynn's parcel is entirely in Everett--the property abuts a weird section chunk of Boston, but doesn't actually include that chunk. That's why Menino and co. dropped the fight.

#3 Wynn will be begging for Taxpayers money to get this enviromentally acceptable to actually build on. (This could take 10 years)

I'm sorry, but this is laughable. The difference between a Wynn casino and any other use is that Wynn will see his return on investment faster than anyone else. That's even with the higher tax rate he'd be paying here. The idea of a multi-billionaire "begging for taxpayers money" in this situation is silly.

In fact, I'm willing to bet (... oh no, the gambling's begun)... I'm willing to bet that Wynn proposes some sort of people-mover or gaudy, inclosed pedestrian bridge connecting his property to the new Assembly Square "T" Station. Either that or constructing a new commuter rail station (if not both). The cost savings on garage parking compared to similarly-scaled casinos would be substantial, and the transit improvement(s) would likely be a prerogative of regional planners anyway.
 
I'm sorry, but this is laughable. The difference between a Wynn casino and any other use is that Wynn will see his return on investment faster than anyone else. That's even with the higher tax rate he'd be paying here. The idea of a multi-billionaire "begging for taxpayers money" in this situation is silly.

So what is the state and Wynn's solution to help the highway infrastructure to help the casino become easy access to? This is a billion dollar problem. So Wynn is going to cough up a billion dollars to help the state ease the traffic grid? (I just don't know how they can expand 93? at this point)
Besides that I agree MBTA is well situated for Wynn Development its just the Road Infrastructure is what I'm worried about.


How is that laughable? Have you ever been to this area in Everett. The bridge on 99 takes an 45 Mins to go up & down to let little boats pass under it.
 
It's interesting to me that voters in the Commonwealth voted for casinos as well as for medical marijuana, but when it comes to locating either casinos or dispensaries in their own towns, the response: NFW.

IMO both are bad ideas. So, at least for now, I can just sit back and chuckle at the absurdity. Is there a hint of hypocrisy in the breeze? ...not that I'm complaining with the current outcomes of either of this newly contracted NIMBY-itis.
 
Last edited:
^and how happy are the neighboring communities? (Springfield may be the exception - admittedly, I don't know)
 
^and how happy are the neighboring communities? (Springfield may be the exception - admittedly, I don't know)

West Springfield voted against, but I'm not sure where the prospective sites were out there. Springfield's proposal is smack downtown. But the MGM-backed group bidding for Springfield is under investigation for one of their partners having mob ties. They reduced that guy's ownership stake to try to shed that baggage, but they still haven't formally passed a background check and could get flunked on qualification for the license itself long before the voters have their say. Or MGM just withdrawing at an impasse when they decide it's not worth their while to reduce this partner's stake any further for the sake of appearances.

Some of the Springfield pols pushing that plan out there have gone on the record in recent weeks getting skittish about MGM's chances and whether it's time to start shoring up some Plan B suitors. Except that there really aren't any suitors. Whole thing has basically been put in suspended animation ever since the contested Palmer vote a few weeks ago. They're waiting to see if next Tuesday's recount overturns the result, because if it does then Palmer gets the Western MA regional casino as clear #1 vetted choice and Springfield is more or less kaput.

Even if the Palmer result does hold, it's shaky because of this background check process. And shakier than it was a few weeks ago because the pro-casino Council Prez. in Springfield got defeated for reelection; it's still a resoundingly pro-casino city gov't, but there are fractures forming.



So, yes, that's one's still alive. But it's got problems, and if you wagering outcomes that looks like another bidder at high risk for pulling out of the running before anything happens. They aren't Wynn's caliber. And MGM may be watching Wynn's moves to see if he finds it worth his while to continue with Everett. If his site doesn't come together, MGM is probably going to lose some appetite to keep dragging its compromised ownership situation through all the red tape.
 
We are constantly reassured that the funds raised from the gas tax will be dedicated only to transportation -- yet when we look we find out that 2/3 is going to the General Funds.

Where did you look to find this out?
 
Where to begin...?

Yet, in 2012 the electorate returned Bob DeLeo, Kathy Reinstein, and Anthony Petrucelli, among others, to the legislature in large numbers. All three were adamant in their support for Suffolk Downs and gaming. All three re-elected without breaking a sweat.

How is that not "consent?"

I live in the Orient Heights section of East Boston, so I'm unable vote out the likes of Reinstein or DeLeo, but I've never cast a vote for Anthony Petruccelli, Carlo Basile, or Sal LaMattina. I'm on a first-name basis with all three gentlemen. I like them personally, but they're part of a machine-driven political landscape in my community that I've worked very hard to help change. The outcome of the casino referendum is evidence of this change. And it should surprise no one that new ideas and new voices have emerged in the casino fight. The elected representation in East Boston may change markedly in the next election cycle as a result. Stay tuned.

Right now there's a court case about the casino repeal petition, as the attorney general initially found it to violate the state constitution, but then stayed her own decision.

You're on the right track, Ron. The signatures are on their way to every municipal seat of government in the Commonwealth. About 40 friends and I stuffed a lot of FedEx envelopes last night.

These are the same elected officials many of whom have no serious opposition to reelection -- many of whom only fear the letter from the US Attorney informing them that they are a target of a Grand Jury....

The times, they are a changin'...

I'm betting on a aka (Beton Brut) to step forward to squash this deal because it has no Merit. The PittBulls on Beacon Hill are fucking idiots and that is why that got SMOKED from a small group of Old school Revere and Eastie Residents.

If you're referring to the "alternative reality" Revere proposal, that'll go over like a certain airship of German manufacture...

...the old schoolies will be out of their league

There were a lot of "new schoolies," "art schoolies," and "immigrant schoolies" in this fight. And as an avowed agnostic, I was happy to stand out in the cold with members of a faith community in East Boston that I had no knowledge of a year ago.

Recognizing that there's corruption in the Commonwealth is a piss-poor argument to the open the doors for more. Sell that one to your neighbors in the monied suburbs...
 
and how happy are the neighboring communities?

The Chelsea city manager has said he's happy to have a casino in either neighboring community (Revere or Everett). The mayor of Somerville is totally against an Everett casino and is one of the initial signers of the casino repeal initiative petition.
 
The Chelsea city manager has said he's happy to have a casino in either neighboring community (Revere or Everett). The mayor of Somerville is totally against an Everett casino and is one of the initial signers of the casino repeal initiative petition.

Chelsea, Everett and Revere have had a tough time turning into the likes of Somerville & Charlestown and there have been alot of different ethinic groups along with transplants that have decided to reside there residencies in these locations which have not yet organized or educated themselves against the Political group to form a solid community to fight these stupid proposals.

Revere is cleaning up and I believe Revere will find its way.

Not sure on Chelsea and Everett. (maybe someday)

That is the problem.

So Yes.......Chelsea, Revere and Everett Politicans are dying for a casino because they don't give a shit about there residents or the community
 
Last edited:
Chelsea, Everett and Revere have had a tough time turning into the likes of Somerville & Charlestown and there have been alot of different ethinic groups along with transplants that have decided to reside there residencies in these locations which have not yet organized or educated themselves against the Political group to form a solid community to fight these stupid proposals.

Revere is cleaning up and I believe Revere will find its way.

Not sure on Chelsea and Everett. (maybe someday)

That is the problem.

So Yes.......Chelsea, Revere and Everett Politicans are dying for a casino because they don't give a shit about there residents or the community

What do you base these assertions on?

Demographically the areas in Revere west of Broadway, the Point of Pines, and most of Beachmont have changed little over the past decade. Those areas all went heavy for the casino.
 
Is there a by-precinct breakdown of the Revere casino vote? If so, how did the area closest to Suffolk Downs vote?
 
Is there a by-precinct breakdown of the Revere casino vote? If so, how did the area closest to Suffolk Downs vote?

I can't find a precinct breakdown anywhere, but there were published reports in the local paper a couple of weeks ago that said that turnout and support was strong in the city's 6th ward, which is north and west revere. I also heard, second hand FWIW, that the question passe in all wards. That doesn't mean that it passed in all precincts. I haven't seen those breakdowns.
 
East Boston politicians opposed to Suffolk Downs’ Revere plan

The officials originally backed plan for a casino at the track, until it was voted down by residents

By Wesley Lowery | Globe Staff | November 21, 2013

Once ardent supporters of the casino at Suffolk Downs, elected officials in East Boston have become sharp critics of the developers’ attempts to move the project across the border to Revere following its rejection in Eastie.

State Representative Carlo P. Basile, Councilor Sal LaMattina, and state Senator Anthony W. Petruccelli — each of whom expended significant political capital backing the original East Boston casino proposal — have all said they believe the Suffolk Downs attempts to move the project out of the city limits by shifting the construction into Revere is illegal and runs counter to the intent of the casino bill passed by the Legislature.

The original $1 billion proposal, which was rejected by East Boston voters but endorsed in Revere, sat on the border between the two communities, with all of the construction located in East Boston.

“Because one host community voted in the negative, the project proposed for Suffolk Downs is dead,” Petruccelli declared in a letter that he sent to the state gambling commission on Wednesday. “The commission cannot allow a gaming applicant to circumvent the process required by the gaming act merely because the results were disappointing.”

In the two-page letter, Petruccelli, whose district includes parts of both East Boston and Revere, said the revised Suffolk Downs casino proposal differs so significantly from the one approved by Revere voters that it would require a new host community agreement.

In an attempt to salvage their bid for a casino license after the Nov. 5 vote, Suffolk Downs officials shifted the project proposal entirely onto the more than 50 acres of the property that lie within Revere.

That new proposal incensed casino opponents in East Boston, who will be among those appearing Thursday before the gambling commission as the body begins debating whether the improvised Suffolk Downs casino proposal should be allowed to move forward.

“We were completely taken aback at this suggestion by Suffolk Downs, that they presume they can go forward with a Revere-only development,” said Celeste Myers, who led opposition to the East Boston casino.

Elected officials disagree over whether the plan to move the project is legal and, to the chagrin of casino opponents, neither Mayor Thomas M. Menino nor incoming mayor-elect Martin J. Walsh has publicly decried the proposal.

“That’s a Revere issue,” said Menino, when asked about the Revere-only proposal Wednesday. “It’s not my decision.”

Walsh wants to meet with officials from Suffolk Downs as well as legal counsel, but said that he does not believe the new proposal is legal.

“I haven’t spoken with Suffolk Downs yet,” Walsh said as he left an event on Tuesday. He does not think they can take the casino project to Revere, given the East Boston vote. “I think the law prohibits them.”

The 2011 Massachusetts casino law states that casino proposals in more than one community must negotiate a hosting deal with each community, “and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license.”

Suffolk Downs has maintained that the casino host agreement with Revere can be revised to reflect greater benefits for the city, and that the project can be relocated without another referendum.

“Revere residents have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of good jobs, local business partnerships, substantial local road and infrastructure improvements, and investment in their community,” Chip Tuttle, the chief operating officer of Suffolk Downs, said in a statement provided to the Globe.

Making the Revere vote stick is critical for Suffolk Downs: There is not time under state law and gambling commission deadlines to hold a second vote, and the commission has been reluctant to extend deadlines.

Elected officials in Revere have largely welcomed the plan to build a resort in their city.

“I respect East Boston’s vote and I also respect Revere’s vote, and I think it’s disingenuous for anyone to come into another community and tell them what to do,” said state Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein .

“Our voters spoke, and we need to be respected.”
 
Apparently the anti-casino group has enough signatures but Martha says its not eligible for the ballot, so they will have to present their case against the Mass SJC
 
http://www.boston.com/news/local/20...uild-casino/zLicRXgiIrmUcczFGqma8J/story.html

Interesting article in the Globe this morning regarding the background of the of the owners of the site in Everett that Wynn would purchase to build his casino proposal. Criminal background aside, Charles Lightbody was depicted in the Revere Journal as a "leader" in that city's anti-casino campaign efforts.

As somone standing to personally profit from the Everett casino, it would appear Lightbody's motivations for opposing a Suffolk Downs casino were not altruistic.

http://www.reverejournal.com/2013/10/16/battling-signs-lightbody-arrested-in-incident-on-broadway/
 
Every form of corruption is involved in this casino bid. You can see the maneuvering on these deals. No honesty about a real solid plan. Wynn has found his fat pig in Everett so he'll just has to sit back and watch Beacon Hill officials try to maneuver around each other to actually see how this pans out.

We live in a very sick state.
 
Last edited:
Casinos are a dubious way to raise state revenue. Massachusetts is better than that, hopefully.
 
Casinos are a dubious way to raise state revenue. Massachusetts is better than that, hopefully.

So better that Massachusetts residents travel by the bus load to Connecticut and Rhode Island each day and spend their dollars there? Citizens of the Commonwealth can and will gamble whether there are resort casinos in state or not. Connecticut has made hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from Foxwoods and Mohegan. I am sure casino opponents will disagree but I don't see any stats showing a significant increase in violent crime in or around the towns where those two resorts operate. Sure you have the occasional drug deal and some hookers but are people really naive enough to think that if they build housing on the Suffolk Downs site that there won't be any crime of that nature in a residential development?
 

Back
Top