MA Casino Developments

davem said:
Even more so because its glaringly obvious he is not even doing it for the "right" reasons (transportation issues), but instead because he wants to get his way and screw anyone that doesn't agree.
Click to expand...

If the argument was that he was going to block it unless there were X, Y, and Z infrastructure upgrades and mitigation within Boston then I wouldn't have any issue. That's not what's happening.

I could see this escalating to a spite fence, wheras if Menino had admitted defeat and worked with Wynn for the better we could perhaps get a public marina, or some connection to Assembly Square, or other extortion goodies.
 
davem said:
If the argument was that he was going to block it unless there were X, Y, and Z infrastructure upgrades and mitigation within Boston then I wouldn't have any issue. That's not what's happening.
Click to expand...

That argument works if it's Everett or nothing at all. It's Everett (Menino perceives negative impacts on Boston) versus Suffolk (Menino perceives positive impacts on Boston). So he can be against Everett for no good reason at all and still be working for his constituents.

NOTE: I'm against a casino in either place.
 
If Suffolk Downs gets the casino, perhaps the developer can take a cue from a few of our most congested national parks and bus people to the casino just as visitors are bussed from parking lots outside a national park into the interior of the park. Could set up a parking lot in the Seaport with a bus taking a straight shot through the Ted Williams Tunnel right onto Route 1A. Also, if the old Wonderland dog track area is available, place a bus facility there and construct a commuter rail train stop (another Yawkey Way stop) to pick up / drop off casino customers. If Wonderland is too far away I wonder if there is a spot along the train tracks that the same setup could be placed closer to Suffolk Downs. Make the developer pay for the facilities and transportation. Casino developers have deep pockets, right? Without this transportation option, I agree that Route 1A would be choked with traffic.
 
Ha,ha,ha, I understand all parts of "No", datadyne. Maybe a casino Silverline bus is a better idea. Let the developer pay for that, too.
 
EdMc said:
Make the developer pay for the facilities and transportation. Casino developers have deep pockets, right?
Click to expand...


Well aren't you generous with other people's money! Is that you, Mumbles?
 
Its all good. Mayor Menino is doing what Mayors should do: talking a good game, saber rattling, being loud on behalf of his people, etc.--and everybody else (outside of Boston) is doing what they should do: working to subvert/frustrate his efforts.
 
A bus from the seaport would attract pretty much the exact inverse of the crowd that one would attract by placing the casino IN the seaport. IE: monte carlo vs atlantic city.
 
datadyne007 said:
No. Nein. Nyet. etc... No more parking lots in the Seaport! No more parking lots anywhere except underground.
Click to expand...

Its funny you say that. I was reading awhile back (probably more than a month ago now) that one of the reasons why developers like building in the seaport as opposed to downtown is because all the parking lots give them room to maneuver their construction equipment.
 
stellarfun said:
Menino and Suffolk Downs strike a deal.

http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/201...-referendum/Hu3958lhRc6nYtoolJqoPM/story.html
Click to expand...
I don't see this being pushed through. Even with Menino's "pull." If the Casino Law isn't repealed next year, and they do build, I see the Casinos in the following:

Springfield
Raynham (Slots Parlor)
Palmer
Everett

I'm neutral on Casinos. I'm like Switzerland. Neither for nor against, but I hear both sides. If you MUST build, the ideal locations would've been in

Foxborough
Salisbury
Milford
Tewksbury (Slots Parlor)

The problem with those communities going all NIMBY had to (and often has to do) with the lack of information about the proposal. When Tewksbury voters voted against the zoning changes last month, it wasn't actually a "No" vote on the Casino itself, but it did plant the seeds for a knee jerk reaction to a Slots Parlor being built on the Andover side of Tewksbury. Penn National did a lousy job selling the idea to the people of those two communities, and at the end of the day, the NIMBY's came together.

The biggest mistake that a developer can make around here is to push a project though with little or no information (Remember the idea of Gillette Stadium in the Seaport?) and in an area with NIMBY's, you have to handle them with kid gloves. That's why Steve Samuels was welcome into the Fenway. He listened to what the neighbors concerns were.

Casinos do have a downside. I have a buddy who was a Card Shark at one of the CT Casinos. Because the Pequots have their Casino on "Sovereign" land, they can pay their employees $4.00 for minimum wage (Most of them there only 1/3 Native American, but that's another story for another time). So, their Card Sharks, Dealers, etc were Union but slave labor. $4.00 plus tips. Nobody ever tipped. My buddy saw the lowest forms of society. You name it, he's seen it. Father's using their little girl's piggy banks at the table for example. He left. He was miserable. So, it's a tough call. I'm not a big fan of NIMBYism either, but when it comes to Casino Gaming, I see their point.

On the other hand, the Commonwealth needs $$$ to rebuild bridges and other transit projects. Have you driven down I-93 through Somerville by Assembly Square recently? Yeeesh!
 
I think the Suffolk Downs casino is much better positioned to get out-of-towner money. It's closer to the T, airport, and convention center. I also like that the horse racing will remain and hopefully be revitalized. I like that, reminds me of my grandfather.

The Everett casino will probably take more from the local community (not that Eastie won't), but will probably spur more development in Everett than one in Eastie.

Main point: can't wait until its all over one way or the other.
 
kingofsheeba said:
I don't see this being pushed through. Even with Menino's "pull." If the Casino Law isn't repealed next year, and they do build, I see the Casinos in the following:

Springfield - Region B
Raynham (Slots Parlor)
Palmer - Region B
Everett - Region A


So you have 2 casinos being built in 1 region? That doesn't work, what about region C? Unless you fall into the category that believes the Indians will get it. Even then, Springfield and Palmer are in the same region so they both can't get a license.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Correction: There is no CENTRAL MA region. Region A is Boston/Greater Boston, Region B is Western, MA (you can lump central ma into here if you want but regardless, they're applying for the sole license of that region), Region C for Southeastern MA, plus a Slot license anywhere.

We're arguing over semantics but my point is that Springfield, Palmer and Everett can't all get a class 1 license. I think it will be Springfield/MGM who gets it but we'll see.

See here:
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=...183808122685.0004d3097b1eecd05cf52&dg=feature
 
One of the arguments of the pro-East Boston casino types is that there's going to be a Boston-area casino at Suffolk Downs or in Everett so rather than get the negatives from a casino (crime, traffic, crime, blight, crime, addiction) with no positives (money), then we should welcome a casino so we get paid for the inconvenience.

To which I reply ... Hello, Milford.

No negatives, no positive, no matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top