Should Boston build a Casino?

Should a Casino be built at Suffolk Downs?

  • Total voters
    12
This last page of posts just reminded me that the 'progressive' tilt of most people here has a baffling component of prudish paternalism. As per atlantaden's dictionary definition, entertainment is purely subjective; it's 'real' exclusively in the eye of the person being entertained (or not). And much as I find it intuitively appealing, I'd never advocate taxing ballparks to subsidize string quartets: that would legitimize the (rather more numerous) proponents of the opposite position.

If addiction is a worry, the solution is simple: require casino patrons to sign a paper that they understand that no taxpayer money will be spent to help them out of any addiction they develop, and that their patronage of a casino can be deemed an aggravating circumstance in any criminal or divorce proceedings.

justin
 
When John Reith was the head of the BBC he used to fend off accusations of elitist cultural paternalism (he would only play classical music) by saying something akin to "democratic entertainment doesn't mean everyone should get to listen to what they want. It means that everyone should be afforded access to Mozart."
 
Most forms of entertainment have a self-limiting or satiating quality to them -- after a while, you've done as much of it as you want to do before taking a break from it. So you hardly ever hear about someone losing their life savings by overspending on rock concerts, or the symphony, or movies, or the theatre, or Six Flags New England day passes, or Red Sox tickets.

Gambling, especially the form found in casinos, is very different in this respect.
 
Ron Newman said:
Most forms of entertainment have a self-limiting or satiating quality to them -- after a while, you've done as much of it as you want to do before taking a break from it.
Click to expand...

While I agree with this in a generic, blanket statement: if you further expand upon it you'll see that every form of entertainment can seperate people from their bank accounts.

So you hardly ever hear about someone losing their life savings by overspending on rock concerts, or the symphony, or movies, or the theatre, or Six Flags New England day passes, or Red Sox tickets.
Click to expand...

No you don't hear about someone losing their life savings on events like this alone but in combination with retail electronics, (plasma televisions for example) automobiles, clothing, etc. people find ways of spending outside of their means.


Gambling, especially the form found in casinos, is very different in this respect.
Click to expand...

I think it's different in terms of the types of people who would visit it and lose enough money that they wouldn't be able to live day-to-day but from an overall aspect into human behavior-- just about anything can be a vice now-a-days.

Anything done to excess can be dangerous and gambling is right at the top of the list along with drinking and drug use. Don't get me wrong, I think a casino in Boston/Mass. is a bad idea in general but not because I'm afraid people are going to become deviants and the city will be littered with bums who lost all their money at the craps tables. There's casinos less than two hours from the city, if people want to gamble they're going to find ways.
 
czsz said:
Proposals for casino gambling always feel like last-ditch acts of desperation promoted by failing cities. Does Boston really have an economic need for this?

Perhaps if gambling were limited to one, stylish casino in a location where it's not likely to become part of some bettor's paradise, it might serve to enhance the city's appeal for visitors. Something on one of the Harbor Islands, like the casino in Montreal?
Click to expand...

I voted yes, but I wouldn't completely support a casino at Suffolk Downs. I agree with Beton, a cluster MacAllen buildings would be much more favorable.

A casino on one of the Boston Harbor islands would be excellent. As a a matter of fact, Massachusetts Bay had something like that. During the early 1900s (I believe, could be earlier) a casino existed on Misery Island, off the coast of Manchester by the Sea and Beverly. A fire brought it's demise. I wouldn't limit it to one casino, but I agree with the style factor. A all casinoes* (spelling questionable) proposed in Boston would need to pass a review by something like a DRB/ Gambling Commission.
 
a casino existed on Misery Island
Click to expand...

Perfect!

On a related note: I recall gambling boats that used to depart Gloucester for international waters...do those still run?
 
no, not anymore, but i heard they might try and bring it back up when the build the cruise ship terminal up there. the only casino boat i know of is horizons edge out of lynn.
 
So you are agreeing a casino on one of the BHI would be perfect? Or sarcasm?
 
Well if you heard by now, Deval supports three casino's. One of which would be in the Boston metro area. I support the casino's, just not in Boston.
 
I'd support a casino in Boston, only if it passes a rigorous design and neighborhood impact review. Sorry to sounds NIMBY-like. But Deval said they would need to pass through a review.
 
I lived in New Mexico and saw them come in years ago. There was really not much of an obvious general impact on small business. A little more nightlife came along with the casinos if anything. Boston could use the nightlife so I'm for it. It should probably be built on the SBW rather than Suffolk downs.
 
DRINK!

I heard that Chelsea is angling for a silver line connection via the airport.

I personally think the ideal place for a casino would be the end of the seaport with the convention hall, cruise terminal and airport all funneling out of town money into its mouth. That's where the state really benefits, not from taking an high entertainment tax from Mass residents, but from the extra money from people from outside the region.

That being said, a casino will go in suffolk downs at this point, but there is really no easy way to go there from the convention center in the seaport. Either Silver to airport shuttle to blue line or silver to red to green to blue. OR expensive cab. Now I am sure the casino will have no problem parking a bus outside the BCEC, but public transit wise for patron and workers, does a Suffolk Downs casino facilitate a Chelsea via Casino silver line extension? How feasible?
 
He was being sarcastic, but it wasn't aimed at you. It's a bit of an in-joke. If you read through the Seaport thread it will all be explained. :)
 
No........

Suffolk Downs area would be a disaster on a Infrastructure issues. GRIDLOCK TRAFFIC everywhere in that area. It really can't support a billion dollar development without some serious changes to the Infrastructure which I mean Roads. Would cost the taxpayers Millions of dollars.

Seaport District would have been Ideal but as the city begins to build the stump buildings the parking lots will start to disappear and we will be in the same boat as the Suffolk Downs problems. Infrastructure. Cost of the taxpayers would be in the millions.

New Bedford is a shithole and this is the perfect model to Back to the Future II
(Biff's Casinos)

Foxboro Probably the best choice out of all of them...... still the roads, Highways, still pose issues for serious infrastructure concerns.


Just leave them in Ledyard CT.
 
TheRifleman said:
No........

Suffolk Downs area would be a disaster on a Infrastructure issues. GRIDLOCK TRAFFIC everywhere in that area. It really can't support a billion dollar development without some serious changes to the Infrastructure which I mean Roads. Would cost the taxpayers Millions of dollars.
Click to expand...

Roughly $500M (in 2008 money). There's a "debate" underway with Senator Petruccelli about the existence of a traffic study he commissioned in 2008 around the need to improve Route 1A. John Vitagliano (IIRC, of the Executive Office of Transportation) carried out the study. Apparently, no one has a copy any more.

Meanwhile, the opposition is gaining momentum.
 
Last edited:
^^^^

I was reading in Boston Magazine 50 most powerful players. Joe O'Donnell owns 30% of Suffolk Downs.
 
FYI, don't forget there's a Boston Globe forum on the issue of casinos tonight. Details in the Calendar.

So, I'm curious about what people think of this: Apparently, one foe of a casino in Boston was accused of being a NIMBY by a local official.

I had never thought about it like that. At first, I was like, "That doesn't make any sense." Then, I thought about it more.

I'm an (ardent) foe of casinos in MA (but, I wasn't the person who was accused of this). Regardless of your opinion of casinos, what do you think of this characterization?

I think of NIMBYs as people who like things but only in certain places - like, they want there to be affordable housing, but just not in their backyards.

Many people on this board have a broader definition - that it's people who are against anything and everything. Like, that residents in the Back Bay should be called NIMBYs because they don't want a 60-story tower putting shadows on their homes, regardless of how it affects their qualities of life or value of their investments.

Is it fair to call an anti-casino person a "NIMBY"?

I think I'm missing something obvious here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top