MA Casino Developments

Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the binding initiative process. It's an above-and-beyond check on the legislature that leads to uncertainty, poorly written laws, and poorly understood enforcement mechanisms. We elect people to represent us in a republican system of government at the state level. If the people don't like the laws they pass, the people should organize opposition candidates, campaign, and vote their representative out of office. The fact that most people can't be bothered to pay attention to their State Rep/Senate elections shouldn't mean they get a "backsies" on certain laws while managing to stay in ignorance of their elected officials. The political theorist in me cringes.

I tend to not vote on the initiatives out of that principle. That said, I think this will pass, and the state will be forced to dole out huge sums of money to the casino interests as a result.
 
I don't really understand how this is possible... a casino is already under construction in Plainridge.

?
 
Shepard said:
I don't really understand how this is possible... a casino is already under construction in Plainridge.
Click to expand...

There were long standing dog track businesses that were forced to close shop because of another ballot initiative. That was much more egregious than this in my opinion. The equivalent of waiting till the casinos are all built to repeal.

I've never understood how you can just outlaw a business without providing compensation. I feel the same way about dramatic changes in zoning.
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Honestly, I'm not a huge fan of the binding initiative process.
Click to expand...
In Mass, the "binding" initiative plays out as more a checks-and-balances "the people strongly suggest" thing, since the General Court (our legislature) can just as easily legislate repeals of initiative results, such as
Massachusetts voters in 2000 approved an initiative petition calling to reduce the income tax rate [in steps] from 5.95 percent to 5 percent by 2003. In 2002, in order to raise $215 million as part of a larger tax package, the state Legislature froze the income tax rate at 5.3 percent [before the final reduction could take effect] and conditioned further reductions on economic growth triggers. http://www.metro.us/newyork/news/2013/12/05/mass-income-tax-to-be-slightly-cut/#sthash.3MuJisL9.dpuf
Click to expand...
So they let some of the initiative take effect, but it didn't remain enshrined in law, and the legislature essentially imposed its own reasonable-sounding compromise.

With Casinos, you might see the legislature immediately move to amend any initiative, such as to permit anything already under construction, but to stop (and perhaps return the fees of) any Casinos that had gotten too far in the process. Something like that--the lawmakers "fixing" the initiative if it passes-- is going to be needed to address the inevitable lawsuits.

BussesAin'tTrains said:
[It] leads to uncertainty, poorly written laws, and poorly understood enforcement mechanisms. We elect people to represent us in a republican system of government at the state level. If the people don't like the laws they pass, the people should organize opposition candidates, campaign, and vote their representative out of office. The fact that most people can't be bothered to pay attention to their State Rep/Senate elections shouldn't mean they get a "backsies" on certain laws while managing to stay in ignorance of their elected officials. The political theorist in me cringes..
Click to expand...

I dunno, we've always voted for Governors in the knowledge that they can veto laws that our reps (or somebody else's) might endorse. The initiative petition was not part of Adam's Constitution, but was added c. 1918 in the progressive era as a way the people could bring the whole political class to heel on certain issues that defy the normal party-coalition candidate-selection process. You might not toss out an incumbent you're comfortable with on the single-issue of Casinos (or dog tracks, or marijuana), but you'll happily take the chance to go over his/her head, either for Governor or by Initiative.

AmericanFolkLegend said:
I've never understood how you can just outlaw a business without providing compensation. I feel the same way about dramatic changes in zoning.
Click to expand...

Its one of the pernicious things about licensing activities: it creates a class of businesses that have to make corrupting contributions to ensure they keep their license and nobody else gets a new one. (see also, Hack Licenses (Taxi Medallions) and Liquor Licenses). But, live by the license, die by its withdrawal. Licensees do so much damage to the political process--especially by special interest campaign contributions to incumbents--I'd say they're the greater threat to the republic than initiatives. In some other forum, we'll discuss how zoning is better done by paying off the neighbors than by paying off the politicians.
 
Last edited:
TheRifleman said:
Looks like the Globe is all about Revere
Click to expand...

I don't see how anybody--even Wynn--could tolerate such a deal "under" his Casino. the 9x profit (78m on 8m investment) is something that should go to just about anyone (Wynn, Everett, the state, the previous owners, a superfund) except these crooks.

A fair-use quote from the Globe that drives at the heart of the problem:
By the time Steve Wynn and his entourage toured the old Monsanto Chemical site with [Mayor] DeMaria in November 2012, [felons] DeCicco and Lightbody were no longer listed as owners. Though the two had been part of the group of four who bought the property in 2009 for $8 million, each said he withdrew from the deal prior to Wynn’s arrival.

Instead, three men, who called their company FBT Everett Realty, presented themselves as the owners and these three — Paul Lohnes, Anthony Gattineri, and Dustin DeNunzio — negotiated the deal under which Wynn Resorts would pay them $75 million if the company won approval for a resort casino on the land, according to gambling commission documents.

Gambling commission investigators later concluded that the official owners said nothing to Wynn representatives about the involvement of the felons in the original purchase of the land and, as a result, Wynn did not know that DeCicco had been involved as an investor until a Boston Business Journal article in December 2012.
Click to expand...

(Frankly, I"m going to vote for the repeal initiative. This stuff is toxic to build and corrosive to operate)
 
Shepard said:
I don't really understand how this is possible... a casino is already under construction in Plainridge.

?
Click to expand...

I am very curious to hear whether they stop construction until the November vote or whether they keep going. Imagine all the tens of millions wasted in tax payer funds if the law is repealed. That's not even to get into all the money wasted by the the would-be casino operators.
 
Whether I vote for the repeal or not is probably going to depend on what sort of deal Wynn Everett makes with Somerville, and whether Somerville gets enough out of that deal.
 
Ron Newman said:
Whether I vote for the repeal or not is probably going to depend on what sort of deal Wynn Everett makes with Somerville, and whether Somerville gets enough out of that deal.
Click to expand...

Putting a casino in Everett is a very bad idea. I hope people wake up and realize how bad the TRAFFIC has become over the past year.

I just don't know how they would upgrade the grid to support more Drivers throughout this area. The area is already a bottleneck
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Didn't they just reopen the Sullivan underpass?
Click to expand...

Yes, but the Alford St bridge is still at half capacity due to construction. Of course temporary bottlenecks and a long range plan to completely do over the whole area, addressing as-built design deficiencies and the unmitigated demolition of the overpass mean nothing. Traffic is terrible now, so of course it will always be terrible and only get worse with a casino that will have a negligible peak load. Sullivan Square reconstruction and temporary lane reductions be damned! Carpocalypse!


Snark aside, the reopening of the underpass is amazing. Even with the Alford St bridge construction, my monthly taco bell binge is now much faster without dealing with the rotary.
 
I am going to vote no if they choose Wynn and yes if they choose revere...I assume they will award the Boston license by November?

Ideally they would have put a Wynn resort in the seaport...taking away the hotel subsidies from the element/aloft.

So many missed opportunities in this town.
 
^Heh, it's funny I would actually prefer Everett over Revere. I just think it has the potential to have more positive impacts, particularly brownfield remediation. Wynns design is better too, although only marginally. I also feel that the Everett site is pretty useless for most uses, whereas Revere could be redeveloped as any number of things, or just left as-is. The only other use I could think of for the Everett site would be to move the Charlestown garage there, and combine it with Everett (assuming Sullivan Square takes off and that section of Everett remains a wasteland, which it probably will).

We do agree on the seaport, which is where this casino should have been going from day one. Where is Walsh on this? Build it behind/along-side the convention center and have them fund the expansion. You get hotels, a bigger draw for the convention center, and a casino one transit stop away from both the airport and the major train terminal, not to mention walking distance from downtown. Instead of Monte Carlo were getting Atlantic City.
 
With Wynn having been a sufferer from retininis pigmentosa for over four decades, he has been functionally blind for most of his adult life. So I'm impressed by his delivery in this clip... or is he simply reading off of a Telestrator that runs his speech in enormous font?
 
Wow that video might have just changed my mind...I want a cocktail
 
davem said:
[Wynn's] a very good speaker. His bit about loving the process also sucked me in.
Click to expand...
Wynn is an old fashioned "proprietor" and the Steve Jobs of Casinos-- a man who has built his personal reputation by staking his personal reputation and winning on a series of risky-at-the-time projects that turned out to be genius.

And his personal story, with a father dying and leaving him 350k in gambling debts and a Maryland bingo parlor, and then parlaying that into a chance to re-invent Las Vegas, well, you trust the guy.

I have a strong bias in favor of Wynn at the same time that I have a strong bias against Casinos and consider them all to be sad and predatory. But, in emphasizing glamor and "Themes" he succeeds in pushing his properties just a little bit farther away--to be the least-sad and least-crass. I respect that.

If I had to trust any Casino owner to "clean up" the mobster mess on his parcel, it would be Wynn (he has too much to lose personally by being dishonest, ever).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top