"Rocky rollout to era of Mass. casino gambling; More problems than progress in first 6 months" by Mark Arsenault | Globe Staff, June 03, 2012
Once the Legislature finally approved Las Vegas-style gambling last November, after years of debate and near misses, many believed the hard part was over - and that the promise of thousands of jobs and millions in new state revenue would soon be realized.
That's the same feeling you have walking into a casino.
But the first six months of the casino era in Massachusetts have been hampered by controversies and false starts, proving that little is easy when it comes to launching a new industry with billions of dollars at stake.
The casino law is under assault in federal court.
Really (blog editor smiles)?
The thorny issue of tribal gambling is expected to produce more litigation before it ever produces a casino. The state gambling commission had a public relations disaster over its first high-profile hire.
See: Sunday Globe Special: Sex and Gambling in Massachusetts
And although the gambling law was written to create competition among wealthy developers seeking to outdo each other in pursuit of coveted licenses, that bidding war has yet to fully develop, in part because of local opposition and also to a measure of apathy toward Massachusetts from some casino companies....
Why would anyone ever be against casino?
Really (blog editor smiles)?
The thorny issue of tribal gambling is expected to produce more litigation before it ever produces a casino. The state gambling commission had a public relations disaster over its first high-profile hire.
See: Sunday Globe Special: Sex and Gambling in Massachusetts
And although the gambling law was written to create competition among wealthy developers seeking to outdo each other in pursuit of coveted licenses, that bidding war has yet to fully develop, in part because of local opposition and also to a measure of apathy toward Massachusetts from some casino companies....
Why would anyone ever be against casino?
--more--"
Game going on right here, readers:
"Plan unveiled for Suffolk Downs casino; Developers want $1b ‘urban oasis’ at racetrack site" by Mark Arsenault | Globe Staff, June 06, 2012
The carefully orchestrated rollout of development plans included a short film and artist renderings of the modern glass-and-steel design, unveiled to reporters and a friendly crowd of more than 100 Suffolk Downs employees and supporters of the project....
The developers said the resort would create 2,500 construction jobs and 4,000 permanent jobs once it opens. They offered other attractive numbers, such as an estimate that the development would generate $200 million a year in new tax revenue for the state and local communities, and a promise to commit $40 million to improve local roads and intersections around the site.
What they did not explain is where they intend to raise $1 billion to build it....
Taxpayers?
Richard Fields, the largest stakeholder in the group, guaranteed that raising capital will be no problem. “Not an issue,’’ he said in a brief interview, smiling widely at the question. “Not an issue at all.’’
No?
Suffolk Downs intends to compete for the sole resort casino license in the Greater Boston and Worcester area, which is expected to be the most lucrative license in Massachusetts. The state gambling commission can approve up to three casino resort projects around the state. The panel is not expected to make any decisions until next year....
Then I'm going to stop reading the agenda-pushing articles until then.
Opponents quickly attacked the plans as a poor fit for the neighborhood.
“Finally, Suffolk Downs is showing us its hand, and it’s still a bad deal,’’ the anticasino group, No Eastie Casino, said in a statement. The group predicted the resort would increase traffic and crime, while further burdening an area that already hosts an international airport. “Over the last several years, East Boston’s low crime rate, affordable housing, and proximity to Boston and the North Shore have made it one of the fastest-growing neighborhoods in the city. A casino is simply not in the vision many residents have for their neighborhood or Boston as a whole.’’
The group’s chairwoman, Celeste Myers, said in an interview that the casino would offer everything a visitor could want, “so no one needs to go out into the neighborhoods’’ to patronize local businesses.
Related: East Boston group to battle casino
Criticism also came from across city lines, with Revere city councilor Brian Arrigo saying his community was getting “the short end of the stick.’’
“In its current design, both hotels and the bulk of the new construction would occur on the East Boston side of the Suffolk Downs property,’’ he said. “This leaves the city of Revere with a parking lot, horse stalls, higher car insurance rates, more traffic, and more headaches than it is worth.’’
Arrigo pointed out that the project cannot go forward without Revere’s consent, and he suggested the city use that leverage in talks with the developer to ensure it gets a fair share of property, meals, and hotel taxes, even if the structures are not physically in Revere.
“We need to start talking about what would be fair,’’ he said, suggesting that Revere should get 50 percent of the total local taxes generated by the full development.
Mayor Thomas M. Menino, asked about Arrigo’s comments, stated: “The casino is in Boston.’’ But the mayor also suggested that the resort will have far-reaching economic effects and is likely to generate additional development in Revere and additional business for companies there....
Yeah! What is it with these people who oppose casino? Who could be against jobs and money? Who in their right mind would oppose that, some lefties from Massachusetts?
Suffolk Downs has many more steps to take before it can apply for a license....
Long the leading contender for the Greater Boston casino license, Suffolk Downs has been in the fortunate position of watching potential top competitors fall out of the sweepstakes.
Las Vegas casino developer Steve Wynn tried persuading the Foxborough to approve a resort development near Gillette Stadium, but was rebuffed by local voters, who elected casino opponents to the Board of Selectmen in May. Wynn dropped the plans and has declined to say if he will find another community.
See: Foxborough Voters Make Wynn Fold
Another possible competitor - Las Vegas Sands, the casino company run by Boston native Sheldon Adelson - maintained an active lobbying presence in Massachusetts while the casino bill was being developed last year, but then decided it would not bid, because Adelson believes the state’s plans to license up to three resorts and a slot parlor will dilute the market.
Related: Adelson Folds
Developer David Nunes, who has proposed a casino in Milford but has yet to reveal a financing partner, said Tuesday that he “absolutely, unequivocally’’ will bid for the Greater Boston casino license.
Related: Milford Makes Its Move
Here's the river:
Related: Over the Brim With Casino Coverage
Last Bet On the Boston Globe
I call.
--more--"
Related: Not everyone’s all-in on Suffolk casino plan
East Boston unsure if casino is a step up
Why would you ever be against a casino?
Flyover sought to ease proposed Suffolk Downs casino traffic
A flyover in East Boston would be dreamy
Also see: Taunton to vote on tribal casino plans Saturday
Taunton approves casino proposal
Related: Taunted By Casino
Lakeville rejects Aquinnah casino proposal
Why would you ever be against a casino?
Forum to discuss casino plan
Economists: Mass. can support three casinos, slot parlor
Ruling may slow tribe bid for casino
Related: Mashpee Make Bet on Malaysian
