MA Casino Developments

What makes this ridiculous? Much of waterfront Miami, and even some of Miami Beach, is private, suplerblocky high rise scale. The city and region is already known primarily as a leisure destination. What city would you say could be a more credible rival to Vegas? Cleveland? A revitalized Atlantic City (not happening)...?

What's kind of ridiculous to me is that, in one of the most affluent, most populous and largest-by-area countries in the world, we have exactly one catch-all mecca for gambling and entertainment which is located (completely unsustainably) in a west coast desert along a strip of road with all the charm of Route 1 in Saugus.
 

Not just Suffolk Downs, but the entire state
. I've known John Ribeiro for thirty years. This is a well organized and committed group, with connections across the state.

Total waste of time and if it makes the ballot a ridiculous amount of money will be spent on dulling TV commercials

People want to gamble -- look at the success of the Mass Lottery -- and now that they have gotten the agreement of the legislature the ball is rolling

I'm willing to bet that Suffolk will not get a "casino officially" -- but it will get the slots parlor -- just as in Twin Rivers -- it will be a casino except in name -- this will be up and running with 5,000 slots before the referendum can be voted up or down

Meanwhile Adelson and Wynn and their local front-men will dual it out -- if Adelson is really involved -- the stakes will get very high and its possible an "arrangement" will be found to allow both to build in eastern Mass.

Adelson is partial to cities and SPID next to the BCEC fits his model as a location for a Mega Casino / Hotel / Shopping, restaurant complex -- take a look at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore
 
Total waste of time...

I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?
 
Democracy is never "a waste of time". Let people decide once and for all if they want casinos or not.
 
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

Bet -- my 'neighbors" in Lexington are classic NIMBYs -- aside from McMansions they don't seem to really want anything constructed

Despite the photographic evidence of two buildings of 3 story height in the Center which existed at the turn of the 20th Century the project which replaced a derelict "motor hotel" with condos and some shops was unable to get permission for another story. Despite a desperate shortage of parking space the town has been unable to build a 2 story (1 under ground) parking structure behind the CVS

However, even in Lexington BIG MONEY seems to work wonders -- when Shire (Big Pharma) moved into the old Raytheon HQ campus on the corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128 the NIMBYs didn't do their homework to see what the property was permitted for 'by right" -- Shire has now constructed a complex at least 5X the size of the old Raytheon cluster of smallish buildings and may still build more

As for whether a casino is detrimental to the local environment -- it is entirely determined by the nature and quality of the construction and the operation including the clientele -- in that way a casino is no different than any retail complex
 
...when Shire (Big Pharma) moved into the old Raytheon HQ campus on the corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128 the NIMBYs didn't do their homework to see what the property was permitted for 'by right" -- Shire has now constructed a complex at least 5X the size of the old Raytheon cluster of smallish buildings and may still build more

We have this sort of thing in East Boston as well.

As for whether a casino is detrimental to the local environment -- it is entirely determined by the nature and quality of the construction and the operation including the clientele -- in that way a casino is no different than any retail complex

This seems like a well reasoned assertion, but longitudinal studies based on the "lessons learned" in other states would suggest otherwise. I'm in a good mood, so I'm not going to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. You're a bright guy -- do some research on the issue. Promised a goose full of golden eggs, some states (most notably Pennsylvania) have found only a fat bird that shits where ever it goes; I believe four states are bailing out casinos that they green-lighted less than a decade ago. I say we keep that goose in someone else's yard.
 
Total waste of time and if it makes the ballot a ridiculous amount of money will be spent on dulling TV commercials

People want to gamble -- look at the success of the Mass Lottery -- and now that they have gotten the agreement of the legislature the ball is rolling


gapore

Then let the people of mass decide if they want casinos. Why isn't Internet gambling legal if gambling is becoming legal in every state?

What about the 55million that deval Patrick gave to Evergreen now bankrupt?
We are letting losers like deval Patrick to decide what is good for us in our state instead of the people of mass. Just like when he gave evergreen the
taxpayers money. How did that turn out? I'm wondering if the Evergreen
executives who voted for Deval Patrick are going to return their personal bonuses to the taxpayers?

At least let the people of mass vote.
 
CT has casinos. CT is still an affluent state w/ more economic opportunity than plenty of countries. Casinos in Mass will have the exact same affect. I think the general population will vote for it. Frankly what Mass. needs is to further separate it's self from its boring puritan ways. We're on the right track, liquor stores are now open on Sundays, weed decriminalized. Casinos is another step towards that (I'm a grown ass man and want to have some non-Disney fun) progress. Nightlife is a major aspect to cities, casinos help enhance that scene, which Boston could use. NYC has many vices that turn people out and yet you still go and love the edgy vibe it has. Probably wouldn't be as fun if it was entirely safe and sin-free.
 
I understand your point of view, GW, but I think it unwise to simply shrug and say "why not." Care to take a stab at answering my questions in Post #143?
 
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

Yes, I believe it limits the amount of casinos to three. That's diluted enough for me to believe that this state's bread and butter remains what it is, and we just have some more venues for adults to enjoy. I believe CT is the same state it was before the casinos came in. Keep in mind it creates a whole lot of jobs for people. Specifically for the ones who couldn't/didn't go to school till they were 30. That's not the economic black hole that casinos always get broadly painted with. And I think for every one story you would hear about some degenerate losing his life savings at the slots, I think there will be two people who pay their bills b/c they work at the casino.
 
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

My point a few weeks ago was that we are getting a casino, like it or not. So let's figure out where it's going.

But since some (Beton Brut et. al.) are up for the challenge...

Given the predatory nature of the lottery and gambling, I'd suggest that it represents a failure of leadership, taxation and budget policy. The fact that people want to go to a casino is irrelevant to a discussion of impacts. If they really thought casinos were great for community and society they'd suggest there should be slot machines in every movie theater lobby across the USA. They don't, and that's why Las Vegas was built in a desert.

I have no problem with a casino in a desert. I'm not clear why an existing neighborhood should have a casino rammed in. Do supporters believe the existing community should vote up or down and let the chips fall where they may? No.

What's worse is that Massachusetts has a notorious history of political patronage, agencies detached from voters with unelected patronage hires milking off public land and resources. Casinos are a magnet for patronage and it's going to get ugly QUICK.

RECOMMENDATION: Rather addressing opposition through the courts, maybe a parallel approach would be to put public officials supporting casinos on notice NOW that they will have strong challengers. Opponents in office should immediately propose legislation banning elected officials from consulting or working for casinos for 10 years.

Yeah, I'd love to go to a casino with 10 friends, have a few drinks and play a few hands. But what I want has to be weighed against the impacts on its host community. That's what I'd expect from others across town if someone proposed a casino in my neighborhood.

Good luck.

PS. From today's NYT, may have bearing on the debate:
Ruling by Justice Dept. Opens a Door on Online Gambling
By EDWARD WYATT
New York officials welcomed a legal opinion removing a big obstacle for states that want to sanction Internet gaming to help fix their budget deficits.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Sicilian.

State legislators grudgingly put a one-year waiting period on employment at a gaming establishment. (There's footage of the debate on YouTube.)

Time to get into my folks coffin-sized kitchen. I'm cooking for ten today. Happy-Merry!
 
Mass. gambling threatens Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun
Already in debt, Conn. facilities brace for rivals
By Andrew Caffrey
Globe Staff / December 27, 2011
LEDYARD, Conn. - Kyle Dacey is a regular at Foxwoods Resort Casino, driving the 100 miles from Brookline as often as five times a month. And he knows exactly what he’ll do once new casinos open in Massachusetts.

Related
Foxborough prepares for heated debate
“There is no reason to drive an hour and a half when there’s one 20 minutes away,’’ said the 28-year-old Dacey as he concluded a recent evening of card-playing at Foxwoods.

Meanwhile, at the nearby Mohegan Sun casino, Dracut couple Luiza and Greg Harding recently caught a show by pop star Jennifer Lopez. They occasionally go for the full package - dinner, a show, maybe a little gambling, and a relaxing overnight.

The Hardings would certainly prefer to be entertained closer to home, but said they could be persuaded to return if Connecticut casinos make it worth their while, with special deals on hotel rooms, for example, and other promotions.

Such is the challenge facing the once invincible gambling tandem of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun that - even before the threat of losing customers to Massachusetts - was struggling with declining revenues and big debts. The two are now plotting for the day when they will outright lose customers such as Dacey and scramble to keep those like the Hardings.

Industry specialists estimate that Connecticut’s two casinos could lose as much as 20 percent of their business to Massachusetts and other new competitors, in a mature market that is not producing many new gamblers to replace them.

“I don’t know where they go. Neither has much capacity to respond,’’ said Richard McGowan, an economist at Boston College who studies the casino industry.

While the recession was hard on the casinos, each remains a $1 billion enterprise and their executives said business appears to have stabilized lately.

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have mapped out overlapping strategies that will have them competing against each other even more intensely - for customers who live nearby and for the high rollers who flit from casino to casino, depending on the personal service and gambling adventure that awaits them.

In other respects their strategies diverge. Foxwoods, for example, aims to expand its convention meeting business, while the parent company of Mohegan Sun is trying to diversify with casinos in other states, including Massachusetts.

Foxwoods is the bigger of the two, a sprawling complex that rises from the Connecticut woods. Its roots go back to a bingo hall operated in 1986 by the Mashantucket Pequots, who opened the first casino in 1992. The Mohegans followed four years later, and their brightly lit 34-story tower can easily been seen from downtown Norwich a few miles away.

Both were immensely successful from the start. Foxwoods is the second-largest casino resort in the world, with four hotels, 6,600 slot machines, and 348 table games. Though smaller, Mohegan Sun does more business: about $1.25 billion in 2010, to Foxwoods’s $1.18 billion, said Clyde Barrow, who runs the New England Gaming Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.Continued...

So many people troop through the casinos - tens of thousands on a good weekend - that executives joke about having to change the custom-designed carpets every few years. The two casinos each pay 25 percent of slot proceeds to Connecticut, and over the years have pumped nearly $6 billion into the state’s treasury.

But since the recession Foxwoods and Mohegan have experienced a deep dropoff in business - around 20 percent each, according to Barrow’s calculations.

And now the advent of competition will eat into their base further. Foxwoods is arguably the more vulnerable, as it has bigger debt and a higher percentage of customers from Massachusetts, as much as 30 percent, compared to Mohegan’s 20 percent.

Scott Butera, Foxwoods’ chief executive, acknowledged the customer loss could get as high as 20 percent, but believes it won’t be so severe that Foxwoods will have to close portions of its complex. Instead, Butera suggested, he will be nipping and tucking - replacing underperforming slots areas with different uses, such as newer retail concepts, or refreshing stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues to make them more attractive and profitable.

“We don’t anticipate closing’’ operations, Butera said. “We may run them differently, scale them differently. Maybe we don’t need 6,000 gaming devices.’’

Like his counterparts at Mohegan Sun, Butera says Foxwoods will have to do a better job with its remaining customers. That means relying more heavily on loyalty programs that track how often customers visit and what they spend and reward them with points toward meals and other benefits, such as free hotel stays. The idea is that as customers accrue more points or benefits they remain loyal to that casino and, ideally, willing to spend more before switching to a competitor.

Butera also plans to promote Foxwoods within a larger experience, wooing customers with its proximity to the nearby Connecticut coastline and its many attractions.

“We have to be cognizant of what gives us a bit of a competitive advantage - a retreat away from the city, Butera said. “We have to be more than a casino with gaming devices.’’

Foxwoods is also pushing a major asset: a convention facility with an expansive ballroom. Butera has brought in new managers to expand the business, targeting anything from weddings to meetings of large companies. But this, too, is a fiercely competitive business threatened by overbuilding; many free-standing publicly owned convention centers, for example, typically operate at a loss.

At Mohegan Sun, Mitchell Grossinger Estess, the company’s chief executive, said the casino will better promote on-site amenities such as brand-name restaurants from chefs Bobby Flay and Todd English, and headliner acts, including upcoming shows by country music stars Reba McEntire and Toby Keith.

“What you have to do is to get those people who’ve made no trips to make two trips and three trips to Mohegan Sun. You do that by having activities, having entertainment, by having events like Jennifer Lopez,’’ said Estess, adding that he wants to make “people realize, ‘You know, that’s a real cool place.’ ’’

While Mohegan Sun has fewer customers from Massachusetts than Foxwoods, at 20 percent it’s still a sizable portion. Mohegan is also a tad closer to New York, which now has a huge slots facility at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens that threatens to further drain business from the Connecticut casinos.

The casino’s operator, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, is expanding outside Connecticut, with a casino in Pennsylvania, and another under development with partners in the Catskills. Mohegan is also expected to be a formidable bidder for the gaming license for Western Massachusetts, where it has a site in Palmer.

The biggest issue is debt, and each has been in long talks with lenders.

Mohegan owes about $1.6 billion, about half of which is due next year - bills it accrued financing its expansion over the years. Left unresolved, the debt issue could hamper its expansion.

Foxwoods owes creditors $2.1 billion and has defaulted on payments as far back as 2009. It was especially hurt by the recession because it opened a fourth hotel, the MGM Grand in 2008, whereas Mohegan Sun cut short an $800 million expansion when the economy turned.

Butera was hired last year based on his experience running troubled casinos.

Foxwoods has cut payroll, and crucially, the Pequots agreed that individual tribe members would forgo cash stipends from Foxwoods; Barrows estimated that freed up as much as $40 million a year.

Butera said Foxwoods is close to a refinancing agreement with its lenders, with new repayment terms that will give it enough breathing room to respond to the Massachusetts competition. Though the terms under discussion are not available, financial specialists said troubled casinos have gotten new loans from lenders in exchange for wiping out portions of their debts. But renegotiating such amounts is difficult enough without the added complication that in a few short years Foxwoods’s income will probably drop significantly.

“They’re talking a lot of bravado, but they’re obviously in deep trouble,’’ said Barrow. “They’re boxed in by their debt, and so are their creditors.’’

Andrew Caffrey can be reached at caffrey@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.


Looks like the Board of Directors for Foxwoods and Mohegan should all be FIRED for not protecting their interests.
 
Martha Coakley: We’re watching
Attorney general warns prospective operators
By Chris Cassidy
Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - Updated 9 hours ago



E-mail Print (96) Comments Text size Share Hawkeyed Attorney General Martha Coakley has a stern warning for casino operators planning to bring the multibillion-dollar industry and its troubling track record of corruption, crime and legal hijinks to the Bay State: We’re watching you.

“If you’re looking to do business in Massachusetts, you better be prepared,” Coakley told the Herald in an exclusive interview yesterday. “We intend to ... make sure everyone plays by the rules and the rules are tough enough to make sure we do this successfully. Otherwise, it won’t work in Massachusetts.”

The Herald yesterday detailed the corruption, fraud and damaging political scandals that have plagued other states with casinos. The long rap sheet even included casino developers hoping to do business in the Bay State.

Among the findings of the Herald report: A scathing grand jury report in May slammed Pennsylvania’s new gaming board as a secretive patronage haven that’s failed to properly screen casino investors; two casino investors in Iowa were charged last year with making illegal campaign donations to the state’s former governor to influence a gambling license; and a federal probe launched last summer into a $1 million consulting contract between a casino and a company owned by a Florida congressman’s mother.

“It’s extremely important that we send the message to the industry, from Massachusetts, that we intend to do this right,” Coakley said. “That we’ll be monitoring it, hold accountable those who violate the law, and if I feel we don’t have the tools we need, I’ll be the first to ask the Legislature for the tools to do this right.”

Asked whether the corruption and fraud seen elsewhere are a foregone conclusion in a state where three successive speakers have been convicted of felonies, Coakley said: “I’d like to think it’s not inevitable, but I think it’s potentially inherent in the nature of the industry.”

By statute, Coakley must appoint someone with a strong law-enforcement background to the five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission. She also plans to staff a new gaming enforcement division with state police and civilian investigators smart enough to keep up with the ever-evolving sophistication of white-collar crime.

Campaign finance and conflict-of-interest violations are also a concern, she added.

“We’ve really stressed the need for transparency and disclosure,” Coakley said. “If we don’t have that, we will have the problems seen coming out of Pennsylvania, Iowa and the other states outlined in the Herald (yesterday).”

Coakley said she’s had long talks with the attorneys general in Nevada — the nation’s casino capital — and New Jersey, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who as attorney general launched a probe into that state’s scandal-ridden gambling industry.

“We need to learn from each of these states what has worked and what hasn’t,” Coakley said.

Asked whether casinos will go any more smoothly than the grotesquely mismanaged Big Dig, Coakley said Massachusetts has learned its lessons and they’re fresh in regulators’ minds.

“We saw a phenomenal lack of oversight and appropriate management,” she said of the public works fiasco. “We’re not going to make that mistake with this

This is comical. The only fiasco in the room is Martha Coakley.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re...ide_open_coakley_warns_prospective_operators/
 
Then let the people of mass decide if they want casinos. Why isn't Internet gambling legal if gambling is becoming legal in every state?

What about the 55million that deval Patrick gave to Evergreen now bankrupt?
We are letting losers like deval Patrick to decide what is good for us in our state instead of the people of mass. Just like when he gave evergreen the
taxpayers money. How did that turn out? I'm wondering if the Evergreen
executives who voted for Deval Patrick are going to return their personal bonuses to the taxpayers?

At least let the people of mass vote.

Riff -- unfortunately they did -- and they put in place the current aggregation of House, Senate and Governor

Since we are a republic --- we have put in their hands the decision process -- come November we can remove some (not the Governor however for another 2 years)
 
My point a few weeks ago was that we are getting a casino, like it or not. So let's figure out where it's going.

But since some (Beton Brut et. al.) are up for the challenge...

Given the predatory nature of the lottery and gambling, I'd suggest that it represents a failure of leadership, taxation and budget policy. The fact that people want to go to a casino is irrelevant to a discussion of impacts. If they really thought casinos were great for community and society they'd suggest there should be slot machines in every movie theater lobby across the USA. They don't, and that's why Las Vegas was built in a desert.

:

Sicil -- Las Vegas began as a collection of whore houses associated with the railroad and mining -- but it grew into its first generation incarnation as R&R for the Hoover Dam construction crew-- nobody planned it

Its later much bigger incarnations were connected with the power (the lights and the AC) and the water for Caesar's, the Mirage, the Venetian, etc., provided by Lake Meade and Hoover Dam. The burgeoning demand was supplied by various military operations in the vicinity including the Nevada est Site.

There was an era of outright mob ownership -- but eventually, Vegas became much more tame and a family oriented and business convention entertainment environment -- the gambling is important of course -- but much of the operations in the major casino complexes are driven by attendance at events at the mammoth Las Vegas Convent on Center and the independent but often coordinated convention facilities at the major hotel casino complexes such as the Sands Expo and Convention Center and Venetian Congress facility

The easiest way to see the importance of conventions and trade shows in Las Vegas' is to look at the price of hotel rooms in the casino hotel complexes -- they can range by approximately 10X between the week after the CES or "World of Concrete" and the week of including the weekend for final set-up

It is totally intellectually dishonest to associate casinos in Boston with the mob in Vegas or the slums a block from the boardwalk in Atlantic City -- Boston will not repeat the history and mayhem associated with the early Las Vegas nor the already unseemly history associated with New Jersey and Atlantic City prior to the casinos arrival.

Look instead to the overseas Global Cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore with their world class casinos associated with conference venues, exposition halls and big ticket entertainment.


See for instance to reports such as:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/casinos_gambling/online_gaming/prweb8121151.htm


" Global Casinos Market to Reach US$101.30 Billion by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

GIA announces the release of a comprehensive global report on Casinos market. The global market for casinos is forecast to reach US$101.30 billion by the year 2015, powered by growing popularity of gambling, legalizing of casinos by several governments, huge capital inflows and development of attractive new casino destinations. Existing casinos are becoming more plush, luxurious and world-class havens for entertainment and gambling. In addition to existing and thriving casino businesses in traditional hotspots such as Las Vegas and Macau, development of new locations worldwide is bound to push the boundaries for future growth and expansion. "

Another way to look at Las Vegas -- while its economy is not nearly as broad as Boston's and substantially beaten down by the recession (particularly its housing bubble) -- in 199 or 2000 or so -- the once wide spot in the road through the desert became as important an airline location (McCarran International Airport) as the much older and presumably wiser "Birthplace of Liberty and / or Hub of the Universe aka the Athens of America" -- now Vegas McCarran is handling at least 10% more passengers than Logan

I believe that with Addelson, Wynn and the other major players -- Boston will be there with Singapore (one of our peer cities in the Knowledge Economy)
 
Last edited:
Use casino leverage to fix Filene’s site
January 10, 2012

Save THE BOSTON City Council is forming a special committee on gaming so the body will look like it is actually debating whether or not to bring casinos to town. The council’s leader also suggested last week that the committee could be useful in pressuring one potential casino developer to patch the hole it owns in downtown Boston. Despite all the big talk, neither move looks like it will be of much effect.

The Menino administration, which almost always gets it way over the council, seems determined to place a casino at Suffolk Downs and allow only its East Boston neighbors to have a say on it. That means the new council committee will have no real leverage with which to threaten Vornado Realty Trust, the firm that is both the creator the Filene’s pit downtown and a 20 percent owner of Suffolk Downs.

But if it really wanted to, the new committee could create genuine pressure on Vornado, and truly hold the developer accountable for blowing a crater in Boston’s downtown shopping district three years ago. It’s as easy as subjecting Vornado’s East Boston casino proposal to a citywide referendum.

In Boston, the casino question is about whether the firm that bulldozed Filene’s gets to open a lucrative business. Mayor Menino has already said as much. The longtime Suffolk Downs booster isn’t believable playing the bad cop, though.

There won’t be any real debate inside the council about bringing casinos to Boston because the council is dominated by two types of politicians - those who are owned and operated by Menino, and those who know that going to war with the mayor means the end of one’s political life. The pragmatists are smart enough to pretend to lack ambition beyond the council, while the others owe their livelihood to Hizzoner.

There’s an easy way to put some teeth behind these threats. Bostonians should call the bluff.

This combination of loyalty and fear usually ensures that Menino gets what he needs from the council. Since he now wants to be sure that a casino lands at Suffolk Downs, he needs the council to decline to hold a citywide referendum on bringing gambling to Boston.

The state’s recently enacted casino law requires local approval of any gambling facility, but legislative supporters of a casino at Suffolk Downs exempted Boston from automatically having to hold a citywide vote, instead allowing the City Council to call for a referendum if it so chooses. Casino proponents wrote the law this way because the council will ultimately do whatever Menino wants it do, and right now, he wants the council to provide Suffolk Downs with the path of least resistance. This means limiting democracy to East Boston, where the vote’s outcome can most easily be controlled.

For Menino and the council, the purpose of dodging a citywide vote is setting up a slam-dunk local approval. But if local approvals are already in the bag, Menino and the City Council don’t have any real sticks to threaten Vornado with. Council President Steve Murphy spoke last week of using the new gaming committee to send a tough message to Vornado. The city has tried this avenue already. It’s been blowing hot rhetoric at Vornado for over three years. Threats and name-calling have failed miserably.

Vornado can do whatever it wants with its downtown pit. The city can’t compel the developer to build - at least without some powerful new leverage in hand. City officials are hoping the threat of holding up a Suffolk Downs casino will light a fire under Vornado, but after rigging the casino law in a Boston casino’s favor, the suggestion that the Menino administration would follow through on its threats and block a Suffolk Downs casino is just not plausible. Vornado knows this, so City Hall’s newest threats are falling flat.

There’s an easy way to put some teeth behind these threats. Bostonians should call the bluff, and make the City Council put its shiny new committee to real use by forcing a citywide referendum on Suffolk Downs and Vornado. Doing so would force Menino to relinquish control of the casino approval process. But it would also throw a legitimate scare into Vornado - something Menino has been unable to do. As long as the Filene’s pit is festering, why should these blight barons stay in business?

Good luck Beton they are not even going to ask the Revere Residents. That is pretty disrespectful since I feel Suffolk Downs is right on the border. What a disgrace.

I would love to know the backroom deals on this corruption.
Sorry pal you will never see this on the ballot.


http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/colu...filene-site/vsnaVB0Y5mnTpzHo84I8hI/story.html
 
If the casino development crosses the city line, then Revere has to vote on it also. *All* of Revere, unlike Boston.
 
^^^^
This is a done deal. Some major players in the state that want this casino at Suffolk Downs. I believe the cards have been already dealt.

The only thing keeping this casino out is a revolt from the public. I don't see that happening.
 

Back
Top