MA Casino Developments

BosDevelop said:
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?
Click to expand...

OK...so how do you build them? We have 3 licenses to give and they can't get bloody approved on any of the prospective sites, and the developers keep dropping out or showing advance signs of wavering. Does that not suggest there may be something structurally difficult about force-fitting gaming into Massachusetts that is unique to Massachusetts and not Rhode Island or Connecticut? I see a whole lot of blaming of people for NIMBY'ism and naivety, not nearly enough digging into whether the logistics truly work here and...more importantly...why.

Is everyone willing to consider that this may be a whole lot more complicated than Beacon Hill thought it would be? For reasons we need to put a WHOLE LOT more effort into trying to understand? Or is this just an excuse to tee off on people for a good ol' two-dimensional pro- vs. anti- binary split? The actual polling indicates this isn't a binary split at all: people want this to work statewide, but siting is fraught with peril and problems with logistical support like transportation. That sentiment is waaaay too widespread to just be petty NIMBY'ism when it polls that consistently statewide. But binary spats are easy--and more importantly FUN! for letting off steam--so let's just call each other names instead of finding answers. That will surely solve all our problems.

Not asking the right questions is a really hard way to try to get things done.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
OK...so how do you build them? We have 3 licenses to give and they can't get bloody approved on any of the prospective sites, and the developers keep dropping out or showing advance signs of wavering. Does that not suggest there may be something structurally difficult about force-fitting gaming into Massachusetts that is unique to Massachusetts and not Rhode Island or Connecticut? I see a whole lot of blaming of people for NIMBY'ism and naivety, not nearly enough digging into whether the logistics truly work here and...more importantly...why.

Is everyone willing to consider that this may be a whole lot more complicated than Beacon Hill thought it would be? For reasons we need to put a WHOLE LOT more effort into trying to understand? Or is this just an excuse to tee off on people for a good ol' two-dimensional pro- vs. anti- binary split? The actual polling indicates this isn't a binary split at all: people want this to work statewide, but siting is fraught with peril and problems with logistical support like transportation. That sentiment is waaaay too widespread to just be petty NIMBY'ism when it polls that consistently statewide. But binary spats are easy--and more importantly FUN! for letting off steam--so let's just call each other names instead of finding answers. That will surely solve all our problems.

Not asking the right questions is a really hard way to try to get things done.
Click to expand...

What should be done if the associated operators aren't cleared is that the Everett and Springfield sites should do an RFP for approved operators to build on the site and abide by the existing host agreement and general site guidelines. If the state want's it, and everett wants it then let them find someone to build it.
 
choo said:
What should be done if the associated operators aren't cleared is that the Everett and Springfield sites should do an RFP for approved operators to build on the site and abide by the existing host agreement and general site guidelines. If the state want's it, and everett wants it then let them find someone to build it.
Click to expand...

That's actually not a bad idea.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
OK...so how do you build them? We have 3 licenses to give and they can't get bloody approved on any of the prospective sites, and the developers keep dropping out or showing advance signs of wavering. Does that not suggest there may be something structurally difficult about force-fitting gaming into Massachusetts that is unique to Massachusetts and not Rhode Island or Connecticut? I see a whole lot of blaming of people for NIMBY'ism and naivety, not nearly enough digging into whether the logistics truly work here and...more importantly...why.

Is everyone willing to consider that this may be a whole lot more complicated than Beacon Hill thought it would be? For reasons we need to put a WHOLE LOT more effort into trying to understand? Or is this just an excuse to tee off on people for a good ol' two-dimensional pro- vs. anti- binary split? The actual polling indicates this isn't a binary split at all: people want this to work statewide, but siting is fraught with peril and problems with logistical support like transportation. That sentiment is waaaay too widespread to just be petty NIMBY'ism when it polls that consistently statewide. But binary spats are easy--and more importantly FUN! for letting off steam--so let's just call each other names instead of finding answers. That will surely solve all our problems.

Not asking the right questions is a really hard way to try to get things done.
Click to expand...

Good post. The difference between CT and MA is the CT Ledyard in the in the middle of know where. TREES and more TREES. In Massachusetts they are trying to develop a billion dollar casino in areas that are completely outdated by infrastructure in neighborhoods that have been here since 1900's.

I think that is one of the main problems, also the amount of red tape in Mass is INSANE.

A good plan would be focusing on a great location for accessibility for Transit and that is the key for having a casino in MASS. Instead of cramming it in these already developed surrounding cities near Boston.
 
It seems like such a no brainier to put the casino next to the convention center. You get: some entertainment and nightlife for conventioneers hopefully drawing more shows and profit to the center, money from out of sate gamblers, a privately funded "convention hotel", and the area is large enough to handle the casino without lot of small homes and ma and pa businesses right next door. There is also the potential for sufficient public transit in the area.
 
tocoto said:
It seems like such a no brainier to put the casino next to the convention center. You get: some entertainment and nightlife for conventioneers hopefully drawing more shows and profit to the center, money from out of sate gamblers, a privately funded "convention hotel", and the area is large enough to handle the casino without lot of small homes and ma and pa businesses right next door. There is also the potential for sufficient public transit in the area.
Click to expand...

Completely agree...it's such a no brainer...Menino killed it though and I will never understand why
 
617 said:
Completely agree...it's such a no brainer...Menino killed it though and I will never understand why
Click to expand...

Presumably because he had, in his infinite wisdom, already determined to back Suffolk Downs.
 
Caesars' CEO is still furious over Mass. casino rejection


Caesars CEO Gary Loveman is still bitter about the company's rejection by Massachusetts casino gambling regulators. Gary Loveman is back in Paradise, Nev., but the Caesars Entertainment Corp. chairman and chief executive can't get Massachusetts off his mind.

According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Loveman is "still fuming" after Massachusetts state gambling regulators rejected his bid to build a $1 billion casino with Suffolk Downs in East Boston. Caesars had spent about $100 million on the project, and had a 4 percent ownership stake, according to the report.

Here's what the Review-Journal's Howard Stutz wrote:

Loveman, who said he spent 13 years lobbying Massachusetts to legalize gaming, is embittered. He lives near Boston, taught at the Harvard Business School, holds a doctorate in economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and owns a minority interest in the National Basketball Association’s Boston Celtics.What angers Loveman most is that Caesars, which is licensed for 50 casinos in 13 states, wasn’t given the opportunity to rebut allegations raised in the report.“It’s not like we’re a new applicant with a great deal of uncertainty,” Loveman said. “We’re on display for examination every day.”

Caesars' withdrawal from the East Boston project – and its subsequent rejection by voters – left its Suffolk Downs partners pursuing a proposal in Revere, Mass. Two other contenders for the sole Eastern Massachusetts casino license remain: Wynn Resorts Ltd.'s Everett proposal and Foxwoods Resort Casino's Milford plan. Foxwoods' proposal goes before Milford voters today.

“If Steve (Wynn) had put in a better proposal than us and they had chosen Wynn, then congratulations to Steve,” Loveman told the Review-Journal. “It would have been a better result than this.”
Click to expand...

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/11/caesars-ceo-still-furious-over-mass.html
 
tocoto said:
It seems like such a no brainier to put the casino next to the convention center. You get: some entertainment and nightlife for conventioneers hopefully drawing more shows and profit to the center, money from out of sate gamblers, a privately funded "convention hotel", and the area is large enough to handle the casino without lot of small homes and ma and pa businesses right next door. There is also the potential for sufficient public transit in the area.
Click to expand...

I've been saying this since day one. Someone write an op-ed
 
Why don't we put the casinos in Fall River and New Bedford and trick them into building SCR :p
 
davem said:
I've been saying this since day one. Someone write an op-ed
Click to expand...

Davem -- that's a bit late

what will happen in the next month plus is that 1,2,3 + slots will be certified and then final negotiations will be conducted

sometime next year there will be 1,2,3 + slots ready to start construction

The referndum is history and the building trades and SEIU are all in favor

I fully expect to see Wynn's signature on the skyline when I cross the Tobin Bridge sometime in the next 3 years
 
whighlander said:
Davem -- that's a bit late

what will happen in the next month plus is that 1,2,3 + slots will be certified and then final negotiations will be conducted

sometime next year there will be 1,2,3 + slots ready to start construction

The referndum is history and the building trades and SEIU are all in favor

I fully expect to see Wynn's signature on the skyline when I cross the Tobin Bridge sometime in the next 3 years
Click to expand...

The cleanup for the land will take 5 years at least. Love to know who is going to pay for the cleanup and Road Infrastructure and the area will be 1000% worse for Traffic for the North Shore.

I'm not against Casinos in Mass but they should be planned in good locations to ease traffic congestion.

This area will be an Absolute NIGHTMARE for 93

Seaport was a no brainer especially with two upgraded connections of Hard-rails connected to the area and the reality is instead of the Innovation district it should have been the Entertainment district.

Does WYNN have any plans, projections or solutions for the infrastructure grid in the area yet?
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Seaport was a no brainer especially with two upgraded connections of Hard-rails connected to the area and the reality is instead of the Innovation district it should have been the Entertainment district.
Click to expand...


Riff ... unload your weapon, place it on the floor and back away ... you are firing at random again ....

Whatever you think about Casinos and even siting one in the SPID ... its clear that the SPID is Menino's legacy

Just littering the waterfront with Hotels for your Entertainment District would be amazingly stupid use of an irreplaceable world class venue
 
Casino foes win hand but face AG in push to repeal gambling

By:
Marie Szaniszlo 
and Matt Stout

Casino opponents collected enough certified signatures to continue pursuing a proposed ballot question that would repeal the state’s 2011 gambling law, Secretary of State William Galvin said yesterday.

The group Repeal the Casino Deal submitted more than 90,000 signatures, well over the 68,911 that were required by last Wednesday’s deadline to proceed with its goal of putting the question on the November 2014 ballot.

“We have determined there are sufficient signatures on the repeal casino petition, so they’ve gotten by that hurdle,” Galvin said. “So far it’s going forward. It’s conceivable this question will be before the voters next November. It puts people on notice that casinos could be repealed.”

Galvin said official certification of the signatures will be made by his office next week.

“It’s really incredible what we were able to accomplish,” said John Ribeiro, chairman of the Committee to Repeal the Casino Deal. “We’ve always known that when people had the facts, they would decide against casinos.”

Several communities already have had referendums. But supporters of repeal also face a significant legal hurdle. They’ll have to convince the state’s highest court to overturn an earlier ruling by Attorney General Martha Coakley that the proposed question is unconstitutional.

No casino licenses have yet been awarded in Massachusetts, although several could be given out by the state Gaming Commission before next November.
Click to expand...

http://bostonherald.com/business/bu...n_hand_but_face_ag_in_push_to_repeal_gambling

Why didn't they let the voters of Mass vote on this in the first place?
 
No casino licenses have yet been awarded in Massachusetts, although several could be given out by the state Gaming Commission before next November.
Click to expand...

At the rate this is going, I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that any licenses will be granted before next year's election. The process is stuck in neutral...question marks with each of the remaining sites, commitment-phobe developers who are tending to pull out rather than dig in, etc. etc.

If the AG is standing by the decision to quash a ballot question, it has to be because they're close to sealing the deal on these licenses. Closer to sealing it than it would appear based on the clown show the public has seen for the last several months. If it's not a lock, it's bad politics for Coakley to stick by that ruling and let it go to the high court. She'll have to run through the entire primary season defending an executive fiat protecting...the same stuck-in-neutral status quo of question marks on whether this state is capable of successfully awarding ANY casino licenses.

That's a bind. I'm sure she's measuring out right now how far is enough to stick to her guns and what progress or lackthereof on the licenses by what date on the calendar she has to judge whether to defend her decision in court or drop the objection and let the question appear on the ballot. I'm sure Coakley's got a limit in mind on hold 'em or fold 'em. Whatever you think of her overall, she is a rational political actor. And if the Gaming Commission can't seal the deal cleanly and soon, she's not going to spend all of '14 slumming for her own votes on constant defensive about why those same voters can't vote on a ballot question. The GC has to deliver the goods soon, or she'll have little practical choice but to set the ballot question free.


On the plus side, that puts a little urgency to wrap this up. If casinos are or are not meant to be, we'll know pretty well what that answer is likely to be this winter.
 
"At the rate this is going, I'm not sure it's a safe assumption that any licenses will be granted before next year's election. The process is stuck in neutral...question marks with each of the remaining sites, commitment-phobe developers who are tending to pull out rather than dig in, etc. etc."

The MGM proposal in Springfield seems to be a fata compli at this point. They have passed their referendum and the state has already cleared MGM Mirage for suitability.
 
So what happens if all the signatures get on the right legal documents to contract gaming facilities AND the initiative makes the ballot and repeals the law? Years of litigation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top