MA Casino Developments

BussesAin'tTrains said:
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?
Click to expand...

The cleared casino groups end up owning the Commonwealth. Great use of taxpayer monies.
 
jdrinboston said:
"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.
Click to expand...

How many times have these proposals looked like locks, then fallen apart? I wouldn't make assumptions like that when developers pulling out and fracturing ownership coalitions have been an issue gumming up the works and exposing cracks in the process just as much as voter opposition and Gaming Commission politics. Nothing is going smoothly with this. And Springfield's developers have been plagued with internal strife, so it's premature to say they're out the woods on further internal instability.

I'm reasonably sure that the state can close the deal eventually if given enough time. But there is nothing to suggest that it's imminent with how tortured and seat-of-pants this process has been. So heading off a ballot initiative is not necessarily in their control unless they can seal that deal soon. Like...next couple months, not 4 or 6 months from now. It only takes one or two more potholes to address for them to run out that clock to 4 or 6 more months.

If the process consistently runs one quarter behind schedule because little complications keep sprouting like weeds, they don't have answers for blocking a ballot initiative and probably for political expediency have to let it on the ballot for the voters to have their say. I mentioned Coakley's self-interest with her Gov. campaign. I don't think many other pols in the state are willing to go into an election year denying a vote on this if they don't have answers on casino(s) that are a real, no-foolin, signed/sealed/delivered go...very soon. And when that happens the liability issues will probably lead to a moratorium on approvals until after the election. Doesn't mean they can't continue to dot all I's, cross all T's with the developers in the meantime and be ready to announce licenses on 11/5/14 if they're in the clear. But they're in all practicality on a tight time limit for producing the goods if they want to keep it off the ballot altogether.


I don't have any predictions as to what is likely to happen. They could very well be on the verge of a deal. But the history of this process is what it is...slow, tortured, and uncertain from every aspect and every stakeholder. This development with the ballot initiative signatures ups the pressure a lot and compresses the timetable a lot for the state keeping control of this thing all in-house. If the trend continues of them staggering along for several more months slowed by nagging problem after nagging problem, the initiative likely has to go on the ballot for expediency and pols' own election year self-preservation. Then it's not in their control any longer and things get really, really interesting.

It's not about whether they're capable of closing on a casino. It's a question of control: can they act fast enough to retain/contain control of the process.
 
Suffolk: We eyed Revere from start

Opponents call racetrack’s bid-hedging ‘farfetched’

By:Jack Encarnacao

Suffolk Downs casino officials are claiming in a memo to the state Gaming Commission — due to decide the project’s fate today — that ballot questions were purposely crafted to let them build in Revere if East Boston voters rejected them.

Opponents say that shows the racetrack tried to deceive voters in both towns.

Sterling Suffolk Racecourse LLC and Mohegan Sun, in a Dec. 2 memo obtained by the Herald, cite the different wording of the two ballot questions. Eastie voters, who rejected the casino Nov. 5, were asked to approve a gaming establishment “to be located at Suffolk Downs in East Boston.” Revere voters, who approved the casino, were asked to approve a gaming establishment on the “Suffolk Downs property off of Winthrop Avenue.”

“Winthrop Avenue is in Revere,” the memo reads. “A Revere-only gaming establishment fits precisely within the scope of this question. This was by design ... they wanted to ensure that if East Boston voted no, the ballot question in Revere would give Revere the opportunity still to be a host community for a property located only in Revere.”

The question of voter intent is central to today’s deliberations by the commission, which will decide if the Nov. 5 vote and related agreements can apply to the recently hatched plan to build only on the Revere side of Suffolk Downs.

Opponents say the idea was always that Eastie and Revere voters had to give a thumbs up for any casino to be built at the racetrack, and any argument to the contrary is disingenuous.

“It’s a very, very far-fetched idea that people were aware and were fully cognizant that the intention of the developers was to build a casino no matter what,” said Pedro Morales, lead organizer of anti-casino group Friends of East Boston. “First of all, if you did that and you didn’t explain it to anybody, that’s very deceptive. Everybody was led to believe that it was going to be one development that needed the approval of both communities.”

Revere Mayor Daniel Rizzo said Suffolk Downs’ posture toward Revere has long been “if this doesn’t go the way we want in Boston, we’ll be coming to talk to you.”

“That has always been very, very clear to me,” Rizzo said. “In fact, when they were getting eerily close to not being able to strike a host community agreement with Boston, they were getting very edgy and concerned that they might have to pivot back to Revere and work on a Revere-only project.”

The Gaming Commission’s decision on Suffolk Downs’ Revere proposal comes amid a whirlwind of high-stakes activity. The commission received a thumbs up from its investigative arm yesterday on the suitability of MGM to pursue a license in Springfield, and will issue a decision soon after questioning casino executives for hours. On Friday, the commission will convene to discuss a land sale plan from Wynn Resorts, which wants to build in Everett. Monday, the commission will hold its first hearing to determine if Wynn is suitable to seek greater Boston’s lone casino license.
Click to expand...

http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2013/12/suffolk_we_eyed_revere_from_start

These people are really sick
 
IF you don't follow @MassGamingComm then you're missing out on the live tweet feed of the most ridiculous public meeting ever held in MA, and that's saying something.
 
So if I read the tweets correctly, the commission just allowed Suffolk Downs/Mohegan to proceed with their application before the Dec. 31 deadline, but they must renegotiate a host agreement with Revere and hold a vote within the first 60 days of 2014. If that vote passes, they will consider SD when they award the license in April. If it doesn't pass, the SD is DOA?

From my understanding of the legislation, I don't think there is anything that would legally prohbit such an arrangement. Though at this point, if someone was going to challenge this decision, it might have to be Wynn or Everett. I don't know if the Eastie opposition would have standing at this point since this would technically be a new proposal and host agreement.
 
When do they vote on Wynn's suitability. I think if they deny him or even reward it to Revere this thing gets tied up in lawsuits for a while.

I am slightly for casinos-mainly they can be a source of good occassional entertainment and I think the negatives are overblown relative to what people can do already- but I really don't care anymore. Build it and I may go once a year and enjoy myself, don't and doesn't really matter. This whole process has become ridiculous. Votes were had, go with the votes or go on without it.

Also- if any other industry had to go through the review these projects- and more truthfully their executives- have all of them but casinos would have moved on.
 
where can I find a map of the Revere-only casino proposal? What do they plan for the track and the horse barns?
 
jdrinboston said:
So if I read the tweets correctly, the commission just allowed Suffolk Downs/Mohegan to proceed with their application before the Dec. 31 deadline, but they must renegotiate a host agreement with Revere and hold a vote within the first 60 days of 2014. If that vote passes, they will consider SD when they award the license in April. If it doesn't pass, the SD is DOA?

From my understanding of the legislation, I don't think there is anything that would legally prohbit such an arrangement. Though at this point, if someone was going to challenge this decision, it might have to be Wynn or Everett. I don't know if the Eastie opposition would have standing at this point since this would technically be a new proposal and host agreement.
Click to expand...

No, but it's another punt and a new vote. Which means this whole business about allowing or not allowing the repeal ballot question just got more oxygen to become the dominant campaign issue in every 2014 primary race.


If they've unloaded a couple bullets in their left foot and stubbed 3 out of 5 toes on their right foot...state only needs to step on 1 more nail before it can no longer walk this. This really is a clinic in high-achievement bureaucratic incompetence.
 
New York had a popular vote first before casino development got going, probably a good idea, rather than the legislative approach taken by MA that is likely to end in lawsuits and a referendum. Apparently, they plan on building a casino near the convention center in NYC, a no-brainer IMO for any major city, including Boston.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/25/n...for-new-york-states-casino-licenses.html?_r=0
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
No, but it's another punt and a new vote. Which means this whole business about allowing or not allowing the repeal ballot question just got more oxygen to become the dominant campaign issue in every 2014 primary race.


If they've unloaded a couple bullets in their left foot and stubbed 3 out of 5 toes on their right foot...state only needs to step on 1 more nail before it can no longer walk this. This really is a clinic in high-achievement bureaucratic incompetence.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this decision is symptom of a broken process. Their timetable always called for awarding the Boston region license in April, which is still doable, even with a re-vote in Revere. The Everett process seems to have gone fairly smoothly and we'll have an idea of whether or not Wynn will pass his background checks by early next week.

If anything, I think it's in the best interest of the state and the commission to have another viable application to play off of Wynn so ultimately they can negotiate the most favorable conditions for the license.
 
jdrinboston said:
If anything, I think it's in the best interest of the state and the commission to have another viable application to play off of Wynn so ultimately they can negotiate the most favorable conditions for the license.
Click to expand...

BINGO! (no pun intended).
 
Bergeron37 said:
This was expected

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...o-land-deal/T9iHlpkDIC4naxmOlEwFwN/story.html
Click to expand...


I was just about to post that link. Regardless of Crosby's conflict of interest, I'm not sure how Ceasars would have gotten around the business dealings with people tied to Russian mobsters.

With that said, this whole thing has the potential to turn into a litigation nightmare. As much as I'm philosophically opposed to ballot initiatives, I wouldn't be heartbroken if voters pulled the plug next year.
 
In case you don't want to click through, here's the article.

Caesars Entertainment sues state gaming commission chairman Stephen Crosby over Everett casino land deal
By Mark Arsenault / Boston Globe / December 12, 2013

Las Vegas gambling giant Caesars Entertainment has filed suit in federal court against Massachusetts gambling commission chairman Stephen Crosby, in part over Crosby’s link to a landowner who stands to benefit from an Everett casino project.

Caesars was a partner with Suffolk Downs in a $1 billion casino venture at the East Boston racetrack, but was dropped from the project in October over concerns that the company would fail its mandatory state background check.

Now the company is “challenging the constitutionality, objectivity and fairness of the treatment of Plaintiffs by Stephen P. Crosby, individually and as Chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, due to, among other things, Chairman Crosby’s conflicts of interest and his failure to timely disclose them,” according to the lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston.

Crosby, who has led the five-member commission since it was created in 2012, has said he has known Paul Lohnes, co-owner of the 29-acre Everett site, since the two were in the National Guard in the 1970s, and that they were business partners from 1983 to 1990 at a company that made cable television guides, the Globe reported.

The Globe also reported that in 1983, Lohnes invested in Crosby’s former company when it was struggling, according to W. Alan Vandenburgh, Crosby’s former partner. Lohnes became treasurer of the company, which went on to become the country’s second largest producer of cable television magazines. Business ties ended in 1990 when the company, known as Crosby Vanderburgh Group, was sold.

Caesars’ experience in Massachusetts was a debacle for the company.

After working on the Suffolk Downs project for two years, and having spent millions on the venture, according to the lawsuit, the company ran afoul of commission investigators during the mandatory state background check.

Investigators raised several red flags, including that Caesars had signed a licensing deal with a hotel chain owned in part by a businessman allegedly tied to Russian mobsters.

The lawsuit alleges the commission’s staff was much tougher on Caesars than on another applicant, MGM Resorts, which is proposing a casino in Springfield.

Investigators recommended MGM be found suitable to bid; a final decision from the commission is pending.

“There is no reasonable, non-discriminatory reason for the difference in the consideration and treatment by the [investigators] and [the] commission of [Caesars], on the one side, and other applicants, on the other side, nor have they provided any reasonable explanation as to why [Caesars has] been held to a different and higher standard from every other applicant,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges that Crosby influenced the commission’s investigators to be tougher on Caesars, and that he made false statements in public that “distorted the historical record” on Caesars’ conduct and response to the concerns of investigators.

It also alleges that the consultants hired to help vet the company had recommended to the commission’s investigation arm that Caesars be deemed suitable to hold a casino license.

“Defendant Crosby’s adverse treatment of plaintiffs was and is arbitrary and irrational, without authority under the law, and motivated by malicious and bad faith intent to block the fair and impartial consideration of [Suffolk Downs’] application, the suit alleges.

The suit asks the court to declare the background check “constitutionally flawed” and that the investigator’s report on Caesars “is a nullity, entitled to no force or effect.”

A spokesperson for the commission said this morning the panel’s lawyers are reviewing the suit.

Mark Arsenault can be reached at marsenault@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @bostonglobemark
Click to expand...
 
eh, this lawsuit seems pretty weak to my litigator eye. Seems ripe for a successful Motion to Dismiss which could be filed and decided in 2-4 months. The fact is they didn't pass the background check for what appears to be legitimate reasons, Crosby's long prior dealings aside. Now they are mad that they spent millions for nothing. I don't see a US District Court judge allowing this case to survive.
 
BosDevelop said:
eh, this lawsuit seems pretty weak to my litigator eye. Seems ripe for a successful Motion to Dismiss which could be filed and decided in 2-4 months. The fact is they didn't pass the background check for what appears to be legitimate reasons, Crosby's long prior dealings aside. Now they are mad that they spent millions for nothing. I don't see a US District Court judge allowing this case to survive.
Click to expand...

It seems weak but this might be a strategy to buy some time for the Revere situation. Not sure why Casears would even waste their time.
 
BosDevelop said:
eh, this lawsuit seems pretty weak to my litigator eye. Seems ripe for a successful Motion to Dismiss which could be filed and decided in 2-4 months. The fact is they didn't pass the background check for what appears to be legitimate reasons, Crosby's long prior dealings aside. Now they are mad that they spent millions for nothing. I don't see a US District Court judge allowing this case to survive.
Click to expand...

BosDevelop...It sounds like you might be a lawyer ( apologies if I'm wrong), so maybe you can answer this legal theory I've been working in my mind. Ceasars is a publicly traded company so their stock price can vary greatly depending on the public's perception of the business. The move by SD to dump Ceasars seemed to come out of back channel conversations regarding dirt that the state dug up on Ceasars business dealings. Could Ceasars argue that their stock value was harmed by fact that these allegations seemed to come out of background discussions and not part of a formal public hearing process where they would have been allowed to respond?
 
Last edited:
jdrinboston said:
BosDevelop...It sounds like you might be a lawyer ( apologies if I'm wrong), so maybe you can answer this legal theory I've been working in my mind. Ceasars is a publicly traded company so their stock price can vary greatly depending on the public's perception of the business. The move by SD to dump Ceasars seemed to come out of back channel conversations regarding dirt that the state dug up on Cesars business dealings. Could Ceasars argue that their stock value was harmed by fact that these allegations seemed to come out of background discussions and not part of a formal public hearing process where they would have been allowed to respond?
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer but the only thing hurting Ceasars stock price is their Balance Sheet. Lots of Red Ink in the Long-term Debt column. I expect them to go bankrupt in the future.
 
I don't think it matters how chintzy these legal challenges are. They chew up more time on the clock, which matters for the ballot initiative controversy. And they slow and bog down the process even more, which inhibits other developers from getting into the game and increasing the options. Plus, as we've seen so far, a lot of the developers that have made bids are completely content to walk away if they don't like what they see rather than go to the mat for a bundle of compromises. Wynn has played this game before--including here with Foxboro--and has every city and state nationwide that's considering a gambling initiative to choose from and repackage his deals. If Everett gets too stuck in the muck for it to be worth his while to stick it out...I wouldn't be surprised if he pulled out. Even if things are not so bad that most developers would continue to stick it out. He craps bigger'n Massachusetts and doesn't have to settle for less-than-ideal or distractions that waste his time.


The odds get poorer the more the distractions and delays pile up. While I think the state's been very naive about how easy they thought it would be to land casinos and have a bounty of developers, this could easily peter out at nobody's fault if the process gets just another 4-6 months worth of constant distractions and new hurdles. They predicated this on a quick strike, and it's just not working out that way.
 
An Everett casino could be slowed by chemical cleanup
Boston Business Journal
If Wynn Resorts were to succeed in a bid to build a casino in Everett, the project could be slowed by a required cleanup of chemical contamination at the former industrial site, the Boston Herald reports.

The cleanup also could affect the finances of a proposed project, the paper reports, quoting an expert saying such work never comes in at the projected cost.
Click to expand...

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/b.../01/an-everett-casino-could-be-slowed-by.html

This is possibly one of the worst locations.
#1 First the chemical cleanup
#2 Traffic Scenario (will put the northshore on Gridlock)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top