MA Casino Developments

F-Line to Dudley said:
The communities are absolutely right at exercising caution with something the state may be moving way too fast to build...
Click to expand...

My opposition to the concept of a casino at Suffolk Downs has become more nuanced over the past couple of years. My initial concerns were traffic on the already overburdened road infrastructure, but I've come to believe that though these concerns are real, there not the core of what makes expanded gaming a bad idea for the entire Commonwealth.

In the past couple of years since discussion and debate began, I've read up on the gaming industry quite a bit. I've spoken to many people with a variety of opinions on the topic and how it plays into real estate values, economic development, and social issues. I've also visited Atlantic City, and Ledyard, CT.

Let's begin with the interesting point Henry makes here:

HenryAlan said:
I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site.
Click to expand...

It must those oil tanks GW2500 mentions in his post:

GW2500 said:
It's also relevant to note it's right next oil tanks. If you really want a better neighborhood around Suffolk Downs then those would most certainly have to go.
Click to expand...

Those oil tanks aren't going anyplace in the next 100 or so years. No one's gonna build a golf course there.

Nothing about the site says "resort," though the owners of Suffolk Downs are licking their chops at the prospect of a slots-barn to prop up their failing "thoroughbred" track. This is the model that's overtaken the industry across racetracks in colder climates. Slap some paint on the walls, roll in the slot and poker machines, throw up a budget hotel, and wait for the bus-loads of old folks to feed their pension-checks into the investors' portfolio. Tip your waitress, try the veal...

F-Line to Dudley said:
...but there needs to be a distinction drawn between prudent caution and total fear of changing the status quo. The status quo ain't been so great for a very long time.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree. The status quo in the Commonwealth is really part of the problem. Injecting the gaming industry and all the money that comes with it into a state with such a rich culture of political corruption and patronage requires the highest degree of "prudent caution." Senator Jamie Eldridge had the temerity to suggest that a five-year waiting period for state legislators to accept a position in gaming should be written into the Expanded Gaming Bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShjXsp911A

One of his colleagues took offense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_ArfRFoDtA

We've sent these folks to Beacon Hill to do our business; how much of our business are they actually doing? How much of it is their own?

F-Line to Dudley said:
Is [the status quo] really preferable to an huge investment of new development they can have considerable say in shaping?
Click to expand...

I'm all for seeing Suffolk Downs redeveloped.

Beton Brut said:
If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.
Click to expand...

I dissent with the view that a gaming facility is the best and highest use for the property.

GW2500 said:
I think you should at least entertain the thought that if it gets built your life won't really change and Suffolk Downs owes you something about as much as you owe it.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that I'm "owed" anything beyond the opportunity to speak my mind about this issue to anyone who will listen. I think your suggestion that my life (and my neighbors' lives) "won't really change" is simply not rooted in reality. If the value of my home is undermined, that's pretty life-changing. If there's an uptick in violent crime in my neighborhood, that'll hit my wallet as well, through higher auto and homeowners' insurance premiums.

Since the beginning of the expanded gaming debate, fair-minded people have listened to proponents and elected officials talk about job creation and expanding tourism. Many of us have asked the Commonwealth to provide an independent cost-benefit analysis that considers benefits to the state, and benefits to host communities, measured against the expense of creating a new bureaucracy, enhancing public safety and infrastructure, and the aggregated effects of casino gambling on Lottery revenues which are paid back to cities and towns. No such study was ever commissioned, and the "nothing to see here" attitude of my elected officials makes me a bit queasy. It should make you queasy too.
 
HenryAlan said:
I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site. It is completely surrounded by neighborhood. That means an inward only focus, which is fine for the casino, but not at all good for the resort. I'd look for something that is actually on the harbor, rather than simply near the harbor. This makes me think that Menino figures he has a better chance of selling it in Eastie than he does in the proper location, which is the Seaport.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sold on casinos in Mass. But I have to admit if they were going to build them it should have been in the SEAPORT.
Option #1
Along with Patriots Place & Stadium New Fenway Park & New Lansdown Street leading to the sea
Condos--Over looking the stadiums.
Casinos--
Hotels---
ESPN-New Lansdown area for both Patriots & Sox
With a huge MBTA expansion paid for by the taxpayers. Which could have been justified with the amount of Tax Revenue that could have been generated.
Seaport=Entertainment District open till 4 in the morning.

Seaport would have been a destination spot......All it takes is VISION.

Instead we are heading for the path of option#2 The innovation district.
Trying to copycat Kendall Square.
Vertex- Fan Pier buildings are just not that intriguing for an area with unlimited potential.
Hynes approval to build something better than his last development at Filenes

but at least the taxpayers get to see another Convention Center built in the area with 300 Million dollars of your money.

No serioulsy option 2 is coming along.
 
Ron, if you are a teetotaler you can just chug Coke or something.
 
I'll go to the ICA now and again. This weekend I'm going to the 'Arisia' science fiction convention at the Westin Waterfront hotel, next to the convention center. In the summer maybe I'll check out one of Harpoon Brewery's events.
 
I think the Casino should go on the East Boston Waterfront where the old piers are. Imagine taking a free water taxi form the airport to the Seaport, Aquarium or Casino right form the airport.

I'm sure the casino would front the costs to get some free transport around our harbor.
 
^^^^
I could agree with that........The only problem I have with that is the access route with a car from the city to E.Boston. That area could become grid lock at times with car traffic in and out of the tunnels.

The location would be prime. I think Massport owns all that land.

Talk about best views in the city.
 
Build a lifting bridge, to clear the tanker traffic, across the harbor funded through an assessment on the casinos. Being able to walk or bike to East Boston across a scenic bridge alone would spur massive redevelopment to what's considered a difficult to access area.
 
Lurker said:
Build a lifting bridge, to clear the tanker traffic, across the harbor funded through an assessment on the casinos. Being able to walk or bike to East Boston across a scenic bridge alone would spur massive redevelopment to what's considered a difficult to access area.
Click to expand...


How much would that cost? Could be something like the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.............East Boston would be PRIME TIME REAL ESTATE.
 
TheRifleman said:
How much would that cost? Could be something like the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.............East Boston would be PRIME TIME REAL ESTATE.
Click to expand...

The height restrictions from the airport would be a damper overall. But Eastie would quickly morph from 2-3 stories to 5-6. Assuming the zoning was changed to allow for it.
 
Bit off topic, and moderators if this should be moved to a different thread go right ahead, but if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.
 
Suffolk casino plan on easier track
Law may limit vote on plan
By Noah Bierman | Globe Staff January 12, 2012

Save While community opposition is proving a significant hurdle for a proposed casino in Foxborough, the path to local approval for a similar facility at the Suffolk Downs race track in East Boston is looking much smoother.

Suffolk’s owners, who say they want to build a $1 billion resort-style casino, have both legal and political advantages over Foxborough’s developers in winning local approval, a necessary step to building a casino.

The new casino law was written to allow the horse track’s owners to bypass a requirement that the entire city vote on a casino proposal. For Boston Springfield, and Worcester, the law dictates that only the local ward or neighborhood votes, unless the mayor and city council opt to hold a citywide referendum.

Because of Suffolk’s political clout in the city, Boston appears unlikely to hold a larger vote, sparing Suffolk Downs a costly and difficult political campaign to win citywide backing.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is unequivocal in his support for limiting the vote to East Boston and, as required by law, the neighboring city of Revere.

“It should be the neighborhood that’s affected the most,’’ Menino said. “I said that from day one.’’

And the City Council, though divided, appears unwilling so far to buck Menino, even as some councilors argue that denying a citywide referendum would disenfranchise their own voters, according to recent interviews.

Ultimately, the casino law gives Menino the power to veto the council, potentially without the threat of an override.

The difference between the politics in Foxborough and Boston have been on stark display in recent weeks.

At a rancorous meeting late last month, Foxborough’s Board of Selectmen voted 3 to 2 against negotiating with casino mogul Steve Wynn, who wants to develop a $1 billion facility on New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s land near Gillette Stadium. That vote did not formally kill the proposal, but it severely impedes it.

The Boston City Council, on the other hand, has addressed the issue only fleetingly, without arousing public discord. Yesterday, Council President Stephen J. Murphy killed a plan hatched a week earlier to let a special committee study the issue, reducing the potential for controversy.

Salvatore LaMattina, the councilor who represents East Boston, said it would not be fair to let residents in distant neighborhoods decide a quality-of-life issue for his constituents.

“We have to live with the impacts of a casino on our neighborhood,’’ he said. “. . . The people who live in Hyde Park, 45 minutes away, they don’t have to sit in [the same] traffic to go home at night.’’

LaMattina is one of five city councilors who support, a limited vote in East Boston. Three councilors favor a citywide vote, four said they were undecided, and one did not return calls.

On the issue’s flip side, Councilor Matt O’Malley, whose Jamaica Plain and West Roxbury district is considered fertile ground for casino opponents, agrees that East Boston would bear the brunt of any casino impacts, “but this obviously affects the entire city.’’

“There’s no East Boston police department or East Boston fire department or East Boston EMS,’’ he said. “This is all Boston.’’

Menino, who lives in Hyde Park, denies there will be a significant impact in areas of the city outside East Boston, which is accessible from other Boston neighborhoods only by tunnels, the Tobin Bridge, or the Blue Line. He disputed the suggestion he and council members would be disenfranchising their own voters.

“How do you disenfranchise anybody?’’ he said. “The people who are going to have to vote are the people that it’s going to impact. It’s not going to impact me in Hyde Park.’’

Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who oversees state elections, has warned state lawmakers that the provision in the casino law restricting the vote to a single ward may not withstand potential lawsuits because it is questionable under the state’s constitution.

“The decision is going to affect the bottom line of the whole city, so why wouldn’t the entire city have the right to vote on it?’’ said Galvin, a Brighton resident.

It is unclear how soon any voters would see Suffolk Downs on a ballot. It could take months, if not several years, given the time it will take to establish a gambling commission, set up regulations and bidding criteria, and decide which of three regions will get the first casino.

In a statement, Chip Tuttle, Suffolk Downs’ chief operating officer, acknowledged the track has been speaking with Menino and the City Council and would prefer a vote restricted to East Boston. He also argues that any costs borne by the rest of the city would be defrayed by mitigation money casinos are required to pay local municipalities.

“Our preference doesn’t matter, but a vote from the East Boston community combined with a mitigation agreement with the city of Boston gives the largest say to the neighborhood most directly impacted by our proposed development while ensuring that the entire city can derive benefits,’’ Tuttle wrote.

Suffolk Downs executives have made thousands of dollars in campaign donations to the mayor and a half-dozen members of the council.

A citywide vote could cost Suffolk’s developers at least a million dollars to run a vigorous marketing campaign prior to the vote and to pay for the election costs, as required by law.

Councilor Michael P. Ross said he is also leaning toward supporting a citywide vote.

Those leaning toward an East Boston-only vote include LaMattina; Bill Linehan; Robert Consalvo; John R. Connolly, and Mark S. Ciommo.

LaMattina acknowledges he is not sure how his neighbors would vote, though he predicts about half of East Boston residents are still undecided and the other half are divided evenly between pro and anti casino camps.

Anticasino activist John Ribeiro, who grew up in East Boston and now lives in Winthrop, predicts a casino would pass narrowly if a vote were held today in East Boston.

“They’ve been cultivating people in the neighborhood for several years now,’’ he said.
Click to expand...


Looks like Beton you have no shot. They are already by passing the NIMBYS to even have a vote. I guess they call this freedom.

Also Martha Coakley is a puppet.
Menino agenda is big on this.........He was promised something big to get this through.

My thinking is the politicans are laughing their asses off at the NIMBYS. DeLeo, Murray, Patrick and Menino are just pissing all over the taxpayers in this state. I have been warning everybody on this board what is been going on. Most of you already knew it and the rest of you just hate hearing it.

All I'm saying for this development process is a joke. The casinos need to be voted by the people of MA. Not slammed down their throat because the Democrats need to buy more votes for the next election.

This is the most blantant slap in the face development process I have ever seen.
I'm still wondering how you can justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money on private developments. I'ts not even legal. Wake the fuck up.


I remember when the indians proposed Foxwoods it took them forever to get the casino finally built. MASS the hacks just come out one year and say gambling is legal and have the casino built in 2 years tops.
 
Last edited:
MBTAddict said:
...if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.
Click to expand...

Do you think the high-rollers are going to take the T to the "resort?" Any meaningful infrastructure improvements will be for vehicular traffic.

If this infamy goes forward, the Commonwealth will likely receive incremental payments of $2-300M for improvements to Route 1A, between Boardman Street in Orient Heights and Copland Circle in North Revere.

TheRifleman said:
Looks like Beton you have no shot.
Click to expand...

Trust me, boys and girls -- my neighbors and I are sharpening our spears for this one.

We know that the "empowerment" written into the legislation is disingenuous, and that our elected officials are trying to divide and conquer. They're looking at voter turnout, and demographic information to generate the result they want. But data can only tell you so much about a given population...
 
Beton Brut said:
Trust me, boys and girls -- my neighbors and I are sharpening our spears for this one.

the "empowerment" written into the legislation is disingenuous and that our elected officials are trying to divide and conquer. They're looking at voter turnout, and demographic information to generate the result they want. But data can only tell you so much about a given population...
Click to expand...

I'm not for or against the casino for the state. I would rather the people vote for the outcome not our elected representives. I just don't like what is going on. I also believe this is a very bad location to build a 1 Billion dollar development at Suffolk Downs.

I just have a bad feeling since you have to deal with Martha Coakley and she is completely part of the entire problem in this state.

As your sharpening your spears you better hope the political hacks don't bring Machine guns to this fight.
 
This may be a dumb question - and perhaps nobody really has an answer to it - but I'll ask it anyway.

The Revere Town Line runs roughly halfway through the Suffolk Downs property. If Suffolk Downs were to site the gambling infrastructure of their resort completely within the town of Revere, could they potentially bypass any vote in the city of Boston at all?

I live in Revere, and frankly, I don't envision any scenario where Revere votes against any form of expanded gambling.
 
I don't claim to have a solution to the vote issue, but Mr. Mayor is short-sighted in claiming it will only affect Eastie. Some of us have to go home at night to the east end of Back Bay near Storrow. Some of us live near North Station. Some of us live near 93S. I have no faith that enhanced public transportations will be part of this proposal (or even be viable for it!), so that translates to increased vehicular traffic. Just because Mr. Mayor barely lives in city limits and won't be impacted doesn't mean that tens of thousands of others outside East Boston proper won't be.
 
MBTAddict said:
Bit off topic, and moderators if this should be moved to a different thread go right ahead, but if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps to Charles/MGH?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top