MA Casino Developments

[Equilibria]

I'd rather straight up repeal the Casino bill and create a free zone on all these brownfield parcels--and see what "the market" decides to build on these parcels--no payoffs, no proffers, no corruption. Only condition is that the free zone lasts just 3 years.

It would no doubt be something useful--probably housing.

That's fine for Boston, but what about Springfield where the market would build nothing, or Plainville where where's already entertainment on the site and you're just taking money out of the pocket of a local business?


I'm a little worried about how Boston-centric the casino repeal debate has become. There are 2 other sites.

 

[Semass]

I'd rather straight up repeal the Casino bill and create a free zone on all these brownfield parcels--and see what "the market" decides to build on these parcels--no payoffs, no proffers, no corruption. Only condition is that the free zone lasts just 3 years.

It would no doubt be something useful--probably housing.

Maybe at Suffolk Downs but no housing will ever be constructed at the Wynn site. I have not seen the AUL (activity and use limitation) for the site but I have seen the ones for nearby sites and housing and most other uses are specifically excluded. Neither the money nor the technology currently exist to clean up that site for any purpose worthy of a waterfront location so near Boston. A casino is the only thing that will be built here because it is the only entity that has the money to get the cleanup accomplished. Even when they finish (assuming the win) the site is still not going to be safe enough for other uses. If no casino, then this site will be vacant for at least 10 to 20 years until technology improves or land prices increase to where the benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[TheRifleman]

Maybe at Suffolk Downs but no housing will ever be constructed at the Wynn site. I have not seen the AUL (activity and use limitation) for the site but I have seen the ones for nearby sites and housing and most other uses are specifically excluded. Neither the money nor the technology currently exist to clean up that site for any purpose worthy of a waterfront location so near Boston. A casino is the only thing that will be built here because it is the only entity that has the money to get the cleanup accomplished. Even when they finish (assuming the win) the site is still not going to be safe enough for other uses. If no casino, then this site will be vacant for at least 10 to 20 years until technology improves or land prices increase to where the benefits outweigh the costs.

It's very sad that our State Leaders let MONSANTO walk away from this land which the company is worth 60 billion dollars.

I guess the EPA missed this one.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It should be a Superfund site, but the Superfund hasn't exactly gotten much...funds...from Congress to finish the sites it has let alone make some badly needed new additions. Most of the Mass. brownfields that qualified for the fed list are decades behind schedule. And there are painfully few that actually did qualify to begin with. Disproportionately trends to old military installations like Otis, Weymouth, Devens, etc.; ex-commercial sites are incredibly scarce on the fed list, and Western MA appears to have run circles around Eastern MA on Congressional pull. I guess Olver and Neal made a specific cause out of this while the rest of the delegation were asleep.

MassDEP maintains a much broader list (and very nice searchable GIS database on its website) and has generally been more proactive than most state-level EPA's. But it's depressing to plot on a map because it's such a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed. Many of those sites have enough redevelopment potential for cleanup to pay for itself in future land use revenues returned back into the state's coffers...only they can't scrape enough together to initiate the process and set those wheels in motion. Certainly not on the really bad ones like Monsato. Most of the state list is small sites...small businesses with leaky oil tanks and other crap on a few acres. Stuff where little dreeps and dribbles of funding releases can remediate a site in one shot and demonstrate 'productivity' to pols by running up the score of tiny/quickie sites remediated...instead of big/valuable sites that require multiple appropriations, many years, and a lot more patience than zero-attention-span pols will give. The really big ones they just can't mount at all without outside help. And those disproportionately trend towards large factories on lots of land, or old downtown mills on golden property that can't be unlocked.

 

[jass]

Melissa Harris Perry discussed this on her show on Sunday morning. A guest brought up an interesting point about how Foxwoods and Mohegan actually have adapted to the changing casino industry in the same manner that Las Vegas has. It's not just about gambling anymore. A lot of people go to Foxwoods/Mohegan for reasons other than gambling such as shows, events, and dining. You can go to Foxwoods and have a great time and never step foot in a casino. AC did not adapt in that sense. It was always solely focused on gambling and the bubble has finally burst.

Thats not true at all.

AC has a huge concert and show lineup.

And yet the Showboat closed and took the House of Blues with it.

Incidentally, Showboat was profitable, and closed because the owner simply wanted to consolidate customers at their other two casinos.

You're extra wrong because Revel was created as an entertainment resort, with a casino as an extra.

Thats what killed them, making the casino an afterthought to the nighclubs, bars, restaurants, etc.

 

[singbat]

Tourism is certainly NOLA's most visible industry, but let's give the city a bit more credit... One of the world's top 10 ports (Port of New Orleans and Port of South Louisiana), a major oil/energy center, a top 50 research university (Tulane), a film production industry that's competitive with NY and LA, and a rapidly growing professional and creative class. Its 10% growth rate since 2010 makes it one of the country's fastest growing cities, and a significant portion of those people are young, relatively affluent, post-Katrina newcomers who are investing heavily in the city.

You won't find anyone claiming that NOLA is a model economy, but comparing it to Las Vegas is a bit insulting. It easily fits your criteria for a major American city with a "remotely diversified" economy.

I went to Microsoft TechEd as an exhibitor the other year in NOLA. A state development officer contacted me the month before. He set up a meet at the show. When we talked he said I should bring software development to NOLA on the state nickel. Specifically, for every developer I hired there his office would pay 50% of the salary. And throw in tax benefits and incentives for the real estate and other setup costs I'd incur.

A developer in Boston is $100,000 - $110,000 on average. In NOLA that same person costs me $50,000.

IBM took the deal, as have many other software companies. Those developers that now have IBM jobs in NOLA support a massive increase in the local velocity of money -- which is to say, they support local business by spending IBM's global money locally. And they draw in other companies that need technical staff because IBM's trained-up human resources that were fresh out of college or vocational school become a long-term part of the local tech workforce.

That's an industrial policy.

Gambling is not industrial policy. It is an extractive industry that acts as regressive tax on low income earners. It brings low quality, low wage jobs that may or may not survive depending on the success of the gambling venture -- and jobs which incentivize young people to delay or skip higher education. It draws capital from productive investment to support an unproductive use. It causes greater burden on public services. I could go on.

Gambling is shit industrial policy. We can do better.

 

[FenwayResident]

Gambling is shit industrial policy. We can do better.

I don't see your point. It's not like anyone is claiming Boston should become the next Vegas or Atlantic City - we're talking about one casino for a metro area of 4 million people. Plus, "doing better" as you claim, implies some sort of alternative. There is no alternative on these sites. If some global tech firm were fighting to build on these sites, I would be all for it. However, for the Everett site, there is no alternative. It's either a casino or nothing due to the costs of cleaning up the site. Suffolk downs is already a race track so I don't see them building anything else there.

Another thing you fail to bring up is the entertainment factor. Casinos are fun. Having one close by will add to the options for entertainment in the Boston area and improve the quality of life. It's similar to a sports arena. Would Boston be better off economically if we knocked down Fenway park and built a bunch of offices there? Probably. But it would also reduce the quality of life for many residents.

 

[singbat]

It's not like anyone is claiming Boston should become the next Vegas or Atlantic City - we're talking about one casino for a metro area of 4 million people.

We were sold the casinos law primarily based on the claim that they would create jobs and provide revenue. Both things are true but casinos are an inefficient and at best semi-effective way to do them.

But the real problem is that casinos have seriously negative side effects for economic development, income inequality, quality of life, and strain on the publicly funded social safety net. I think even one casino that carries that baggage is one casino too many.

Plus, "doing better" as you claim, implies some sort of alternative. There is no alternative on these sites. If some global tech firm were fighting to build on these sites, I would be all for it. However, for the Everett site, there is no alternative. It's either a casino or nothing due to the costs of cleaning up the site.

You're speaking like the owner of one of these sites. I can understand the owner of a site wanting an economic use. I can understand a city preferring, all else being equal, that the site contributed more to the tax base. But most city officials would be very quick to see that with casinos all else is definitely not equal. Building a casino on one of these sites would cause a great deal more direct cost and economic harm to the city than continuing to do nothing with the sites does.

And for the rest of the 6+ million people living in Massachusetts the right answer when all is considered is to let the sites lie fallow for as long as it takes -- even forever. There is no reason these sites have to be built on at the expense of the surrounding communities and the larger state economy.

Another thing you fail to bring up is the entertainment factor. Casinos are fun. Having one close by will add to the options for entertainment in the Boston area and improve the quality of life. It's similar to a sports arena. Would Boston be better off economically if we knocked down Fenway park and built a bunch of offices there? Probably. But it would also reduce the quality of life for many residents.

I appreciate your opinion about the entertainment factor and quality of life. It isn't my top concern because I mostly care about the economics. But regardless, I don't buy the comparison of a casino to the Red Sox. A Red Sox game doesn't have the potential to destroy a person's life. The game doesn't promote addiction. And therefore the game doesn't stress public healthcare and law enforcement services paid for by taxes that could have gone to better use.

A better comparison would be to an opium den. Opium dens are fun. Having one close by will add to the options for entertainment. An opium den adds jobs in construction and services. And people won't have to go to another state to spend their money smoking opium.

Somehow I doubt you would vote to allow even one opium den to open in Massachusetts.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Thank you for the nonsense and reiteration of garbage arguments.

The major difference in adding a casino in the boston area is that we don't "need it". If you're building a casino as a bailout to your local economy, then yes it's probably a bad choice. When it's being added to an area that is doing well in multiple sectors as it is, then it's just adding to the success hopefully.

Not sure about the added police costs, but if they exist wouldn't the additional tax revenue from the casino cover that cost versus stealing tax money from other sources as you indicate.

But the comparison of casino to opium den came close to persuading me.

 

[Arlington]

The economic argument in favor of a Casino is middling: that by increasing the velocity of money (the number of times it changes hands) we can increase people's income and a sort of consumer confidence (as opposed to a scared keep-it-in-the-matttress aura). And the Casino only takes 3% for the transaction--about what Visa takes on spending.

THe problem though, is if it comes from disadvantaged & addicted gamblers who "can't afford it" and under whom we have to then construct/pay a social safety net. ANd in this, the lottery (scratch tickets) is probably a worse offender in both its targeting the poor and its high rake-off / low payouts.

I'd rather repeal the lottery and keep the Casino, actually (but I'm still voting for repeal)

 

[DominusNovus]

A better comparison would be to an opium den. Opium dens are fun. Having one close by will add to the options for entertainment. An opium den adds jobs in construction and services. And people won't have to go to another state to spend their money smoking opium.

Somehow I doubt you would vote to allow even one opium den to open in Massachusetts.

I admittedly have no evidence whatsoever to back this up, but I have to think that there's a large degree of difference between the addictiveness of opium and that of gambling.

But lets cut right to the heart of it and compare gambling to something else that is legal: Alcohol. Its addictive. It can destroy lives in so many different ways (far more than gambling, thats for sure, unless your preferred game of chance is Russian Roulette). I'm not entirely sure, however, that Massachusetts would be better off if we closed down all the bars, liquor stores, and breweries in the area.

Now, I've said this before, and I'll say it again: We've already got all the negative impacts of gambling in this state. Its just dispersed across all the little convenience stores with their lotto corners and keno machines that keep those shops in business. Go into some of these places in the poorer areas of the state. There will often be lines for tickets so long that they never end, because it takes less time to scratch off the winnings and get back in line, than it does to get through the line in the first place (and, as a guy whose customers are convenience stores, let me say that it is incredibly annoying to get held up by those lines). Casinos are not regressive anywhere near like how the lottery is.

 

[kjdonovan]

The Globe endorses Wynn's casino bid over Mohegan Sun's in today's paper. The article is substantial, and I found their argument persuasive.

I have always been suspicious of slippery logic in trying to squash casinos. You hear arguments that they are monstrously successful and will ruin lives and traffic patterns, then in the same breath you hear how they use a failed business model that doesn't improve communities nor bring in promised revenues. It's hard to agree with the predatory casino argument given my Winter Hill neighborhood is rife with torn scratch tickets and sketchy convenience stores where guys play Keno all day. We are already preying on the poor and addicted with state-sponsored gambling--and the wealthier communities benefit. Tack on the suspicious land dealings and Everett mayoral mishaps and you have plenty of window dressing without approaching the real issue.

The argument about casinos in general will be decided in November. The question before us this week is, if we do have a casino, then which casino?

From an architectural standpoint, Mohegan's proposal is superior. But for a net gain to the community, Wynn's is the clear winner. It's a conservation/recreation dream by comparison.

The Revere location has the potential to be many things besides a casino. Not so for Everett in our lifetimes. At a fraction of the price of the state doing it alone, you get a cleaned-up water front, new non-vehicular infrastructure, and a catalyst for more riverfront development.

I was impressed by the Globe's write up on Wynn's track record of attracting big elephants rather than just one-armed bandits. I don't see people flying to Boston for Mohegan Sun. I do see it for Wynn. And if you don't have big elephants, then you will get more aggressive predation on the poor, something Suffolk Downs has already been doing for decades.

Finally, Wynn's argument that he'll attract big stars to Boston while Mohegan will try to use Boston as a springboard to it's bigger Connecticut location is also convincing. WBUR piece here
http://www.wbur.org/2014/09/08/wynn-mohegan-casino-profile

 

[TheRifleman]

When that Stripmall went into Everett with Home Depot, Fridays, Target and the rest of the stores. I think it took an extra 10 years to actually cleanup the site.

Unless Wynn and the state are going to make a serious investment this never had a shot.

 

[Deetroyt]

I kno i'm being selfish and unrealistic, but i wish the Wynn proposal was coming with LRV northeast quadrant UR (paid for at least partially by Wynn, of course!). That whole Gateway Center is painful to look at with all the parking lots, seems like a waste of space and redev potential if transportation infrastructure was there.

 

[Mongo]

I recommend anyone interested on the commission's proceedings this week follow Mark Arsenault on twitter. His handle is @BostonGlobeMark.

One thing that he just wrote, which seems incredible:

Aren't both those figures off by about $1 Billion?

 

[bigeman312]

In my dream world, the casinos would be built, contingent upon:

Mohegan Sun paying for 10% of the Red-Blue connector or 25% of the Lynn Blue Line extension.

Wynn paying for the construction of the Everett section of the Urban Ring Phase 2.

 

[kjdonovan]

Aren't both those figures off by about $1 Billion?

A quote from Mark's piece today that elaborates on how Mohegan's 1.3 billion breaks down:

Mohegan Sun has long touted its project as a $1.3 billion development, but a Globe analysis of a preliminary budget the company filed with the state indicates it may invest less than $600 million in bricks and mortar.

That budget includes a $316 million line item for “cost of land,” which Mohegan Sun said was “an accounting calculation” related to the cost of leased property over time. The company has a deal to lease 40 acres from Suffolk Downs for the casino.

Mohegan Sun’s budget also includes: $43 million in pre-
operations rent payments; $50 million in development expenses already spent by Suffolk in pursuit of a casino; $149 million in projected loan interest and $21 million in financing fees; and $28 million in payments to Caesars Entertainment, the casino partner from the defunct Suffolk Downs East Boston plan.

Those and other costs unrelated to construction leave about $560 million to build the casino, the hotels, and a retail and dining center, according to the document.

The company says it has a more detailed budget with a construction figure of about $700 million, though it would not provide the document.

 

[HenryAlan]

I'm still waiting for some pro-Wynn (or pro-Casino in general) poster to reference an urban destination casino in the US that has worked outside of Vegas. Is there one?
I'm not trolling, I'm asking. Because it seems to me every urban casino in the country outside of Vegas has not become a destination casino. They've become casinos frequented by underserved populations in the local metropolitan area and an occasional tourist.

I agree, there aren't really any solid examples, but then again, I'm not sure it's the right question. Most urban casinos in this country were built in an attempt to address economic depression. So the results in places like Detroit and Atlantic City might not matter compared to the result in Boston. Boston is already a destination city. Will people come here just for gambling? That's very unlikely. But will a casino give people another reason to come? I think yes, especially among conventioneers.

That said, I plan to vote for repeal. I have mixed and complicated thoughts regarding gambling and casinos, but mostly, I just don't trust the state to get it right enough to benefit us enough to offset the costs.

 

[617]

Wynn's proposal has won 3/5 categories: economic development, finance, and overview. Mohegan Sun won building design and mitigation.

The Gaming Commission also found that Wynn's plan would create almost 750 more jobs than Mohegan Sun's (3287 vs. 2538, respectively). Between this and the fact Wynn's financing is much more stable, I don't see how the Commission could justify giving the license to Mohegan Sun, but you never know.

Completely agree...Wynn is such a no brainer...that being said I'm going with repeal

 

[choo]

I think if Wynn wins, i'll be more likely to vote for the measure. It seems to be very much wanted by Everett and will really be the only thing for 20 years that is done on that site. I think too much is made of the downside, and i think Wynn will very much be going to for the higher end, out of towner than Mohegan.

Suffolk seems so much more controversial and i feel the track will still close if they win, which was the main item in the pro column for me.