Meetings & Information


Wednesday, October 19, 2016



October 19, 2016
Debbie P. DiGiulio, administrative assistant in the Mayor’s office, shows Revere Mayor Brian M. Arrigo the voting results regarding slot machines on Tuesday. (Photo by Paula Muller)
By Thomas Grillo

REVERE — Voters overwhelmingly rejected a slots parlor near the shuttered Suffolk Downs race track.
In a lopsided 65 to 35 percent vote Tuesday, the city joined Mayor Brian Arrigo and the Beacon Hill delegation in saying no to what opponents called the wrong kind of economic development for the city.
“Obviously tonight, the people of Revere sent a resounding message that no amount of dark money and no amount of false advertising would persuade them to be for a bad idea,” said Arrigo. “Having a coalition of state and local leaders who spoke with the same voice to say this isn’t about being pro- or anti-gaming, this is about being for good ideas and against bad ideas and this is a bad idea.”
Voters in every one of the city’s 21 precincts rejected Tuesday’s non-binding initiative petition that sought approval for any future slot parlor license awarded in Revere to be located on a site that fronts Revere Beach Parkway, Winthrop Parkway and Pratt Court.
The vote delivers a defeat to investor Eugene McCain, who has an option to buy the parcels for more than $6.5 million. He moved to the city to advance his proposal and vowed the project would generate more than $80 million in new revenues for the state annually, $12 million to support horse racing, $5 million for Revere and 500 new jobs.
McCain did not respond to a request for comment.
In an interview last week with the Item, McCain, the managing director of Alliante Capital, was confident that voters want a slots parlor. He was betting on a complicated process that involves local approval for the Revere site and a statewide thumbs-up for an additional slots parlor on the November ballot.
Even if voters had approved the plan in Revere, it faced an uncertain future at the polls next month.
The statewide vote on Nov. 8, Question 1 on the ballot, would allow for a slots parlor at a location at least four acres in size and within 1,500 feet of a race track. The proposal is for a gaming establishment with no table games and no more than 1,250 slot machines.
In addition, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission would have to sign off on the second slots parlor. Observers say such an outcome seems doubtful since it would upend rules of two casinos and one slots parlor that were agreed upon prior to the start of issuing licenses.

The Gaming Commission awarded a resort casino license for the $2 billion Wynn Boston Harbor project in Everett, the $950 million MGM in Springfield and the $250 million Plainridge Park Casino, a slots parlor in Plainville.
Robert Selevitch, a West Revere resident who campaigned against the proposal, was thrilled at the vote.
“The people of Revere saw this proposal as something less than the last one that was here for a full destination resort casino by a very reputable casino operator in Mohegan Sun, this proposal was a slot parlor by group of people who would not identify themselves and had a very shady financial background,” he said. “They presented an option that the people of Revere didn’t see as beneficial.”

Thomas Grillo can be reached at

Commission: Raynham Park simulcast at risk if Suffolk Downs fees remain unpaid

Commission: Raynham Park simulcast at risk if Suffolk Downs fees remain unpaid

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted last week to require Raynham Park, which belongs to Brockton Fairgrounds owner George Carney, to pay around $300,000 within 30 days or face the suspension or revocation of its license that allows for simulcast race betting.

RAYNHAM – Raynham Park, a former dog track that continues to operate as a racing simulcast center, is being ordered to fork over more than $300,000 in fees, which Suffolk Downs has long claimed it is owed as part of an off-track betting arrangement that was established by state law.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission voted 3-2 last week to require Raynham Park, which belongs to Brockton Fairgrounds owner George Carney, to pay the money within 30 days or face the suspension or revocation of its license that allows for simulcast race betting. The two dissenting commissioners said they agreed with a motion to enforce the payment, but wanted to give Raynham Park more time.
Simulcast betting has been the main attraction at Raynham Park, located on Route 138 near the border with Easton, since greyhound racing was banned throughout the state following a ballot referendum that was held in 2008 and enacted in 2010.
The five-member commission was unanimous that it had the authority to make a determination that Raynham Park must pay the 3 percent of its intrastate simulcast revenues to Suffolk Downs for the the time period in question, which was from October 2014 and June 2015. After that time span, the state legislature suspended the fee obligation following the opening of the Plainridge Park Casino.
Lawyers for Raynham Park argued that that Suffolk Downs was not an active horse racing licensee during that period of time, and that the issue should be resolved in court, instead of by the state commission. Patrick Dinardo, representing Raynham Park, said that, in its petition to the state gaming commission, Suffolk Downs never mentioned that 90 percent of those fees would go to the New England Horsemen’s Association, which has a purse agreement with the Boston facility.
“Suffolk Downs is trying to collect these premiums for its benefit, when the statute says that these premiums are supposed to be paid into purses,” Dinardo told the commission during a meeting held in Boston on Thursday. “The point of the premiums was to augment the purses. If you’re not having a racing operation, then there is no purses. From the period in question, October 2014 through June 2015, there were no races at Suffolk Downs, and therefore no purses. ... The New England Horsemen is the real party of interest here.”
Dinardo said if the matter is settled in court, it would be better because all of the facts about the simulcast arrangement would come out through the evidence discovery process.
“If Suffolk Downs wants to bring an action in Superior Court for declaratory relief, and they think they have an entitlement to this premium, we can address that issue in the court, where it's a question of interpreting the statutory scheme,” Dinardo said.
The lawyers for Raynham Park also argued that the adjudicatory guidelines for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission do not contemplate such an enforcement action by the commission.
“Ultimately, it will end up in Superior Court, one way or the other,” Dinardo said.
Catherine Blue, general counsel for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said that the issue is within the commission’s jurisdiction under the state’s horse racing law, and that the commission could hold a hearing to suspend or revoke Raynham Park’s license if it doesn’t pay the bill.
Reached on Tuesday afternoon, Carney, the owner of Raynham Park, said that Suffolk Downs didn’t apply for a racing license in 2014, and for that reason he believes it isn’t entitled to the simulcast premiums.
“I didn't feel we owed them money,” Carney said. “That's my position.”
Carney said that he and his lawyers are now still deciding whether to take the matter to court themselves.
Commissioner Enrique Zuniga said that he doesn’t buy Raynham Park’s argument.
“The heart of the matter is whether the obligation was there,” Zuniga said. “That's the part I'm not persuaded at all on, the claims from Raynham.”
The following is a video of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission meeting on October 13. The discussion on the Raynhan Park simulcast fees begins at 1:24:30.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

MASACHUSETTS BALLOT QUESTION 1: Mass. voters asked to allow second slots BARN license

With Casino Vultures....only the names change! 

Mass. voters asked to allow second slots license

Sunday, October 16, 2016

40 years later, was A.C.'s casino gamble worth it?

In this photo, gamblers sit at slot machines at the Golden Nugget casino in Atlantic City, N.J. A measure approved by a New Jersey Assembly ...

... staunchest opponents of the ballot question that would amend the state Constitution to permit casino gambling outside the seaside gambling resort.

New documents obtained by the Associated Press show groups that oppose and support the November 8th casino expansion question have spent ...

ATLANTIC CITY, N.J. – Atlantic City casinos saw a revenue decline in September, led by a large drop in earnings at the now closed Trump Taj Mahal.


40 years later, was A.C.'s casino gamble worth it?

ATLANTIC CITY — Steven Perskie thinks about the legacy of legalizing gambling here each time he sees the city’s skyline.
It’s been nearly four decades since Perskie, dubbed “the father of casino gaming,” wrote the law that allowed casinos in the struggling seaside city.
“The question I keep asking myself is a version of: What would Atlantic City have looked like in the last 40 years?” Perskie, 71, said Thursday. “What would Atlantic City look like today? What would the area look like today if we hadn’t done it or if we hadn’t succeeded?”
With the 40th anniversary of the Nov. 2, 1976, passage of the gambling referendum approaching, he isn’t the only one asking such questions.
On Nov. 8, the state will ask voters to again approve gaming, this time in North Jersey. The vote will come in the wake of five casino closings, 10,000 lost jobs and a city repeatedly near default following the opening of casinos in nearby states.
For a great part of the past four decades, Atlantic City casinos created thousands of jobs, millions in tax revenue and billions in capital investments while making Atlantic City an East Coast gambling mecca. Tourism in the city increased five-fold in the first decade. Neighboring communities, such as Egg Harbor and Galloway townships, saw enormous growth as people flocked to the region for work.
But critics say casinos didn’t fulfill all the promises. The gambling halls put small establishments out of business by offering dining, shopping and entertainment all in one building. Gaming tax revenue helped pay for Atlantic City housing and development, but the city still suffers from blighted areas and vacant properties, some right along the Boardwalk.
“It delivered a tremendous amount of jobs, a tremendous amount of revenue. In a lot of ways, a tremendous amount of excitement,” said Bryant Simon, a historian and author of “Boardwalk of Dreams: Atlantic City and the Fate of Urban America.” “But I don’t think anybody in 1976 — that night on the Boardwalk it was bone-chillingly cold and people danced to celebrate — imagined what the city looks like now.”
For Perskie, a former state lawmaker and gaming regulator, gambling didn’t accomplish everything it could have. But he said the community wouldn’t have a “small fraction of the economic viability” it has had if the referendum hadn’t passed.
“The legacy is we put thousands of families in a much stronger economic position. We created a very viable industry,” Perskie said. “We created opportunities for people that wouldn’t have ever possibly been otherwise available.”
Indeed, the casinos offered good-paying jobs with benefits. Workers could afford to “buy a home, send away your kids to college and retire with dignity,” said Chuck Baker, a 57-year-old city resident, casino union member and former Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort cook.
But in recent years, as competition increased, casinos told workers they couldn’t afford the labor contracts, Baker said. He blamed “hedge-fund operators” who took money out of the properties and sent it “to New York.”
“That meant more money for the properties,” he said. “They didn’t want to take care of the workers.”
The Taj Mahal closed Monday amid a labor strike over issues including health benefits and breaks.
The Casino Association of New Jersey said the industry has “more than held up its end of the bargain” through the billions it generated in tax revenue and economic impact.
“Perhaps it took five casino closures and the unfortunate loss of some of those economic benefits for many to fully understand the significant economic impact generated by our industry for not only the city and the state, but the regional economy as well,” a statement from the association said. “Even with the right-sizing of our industry, Atlantic City remains one of the largest casino markets in the country and one of the most significant economic engines in the Garden State.”
At its height, the casino industry employed more than 50,000 people, including a quarter of Atlantic City’s population. Gaming-tax revenue for the state peaked at $502 million in 2006, and the city’s ratable base topped off at $20 billion in 2008.
But after five casino closings in three years, the gambling halls now employ about 21,000 workers, annual state gaming revenue hovers around $200 million and the city’s ratable base is down to $6.6 billion. Casinos opening in neighboring states, a consolidation of casino companies and the 2008 national recession have diminished the city’s gambling market.
Good-paying jobs and tax dollars weren’t the only promises of the casino referendum. The Casino Control Act of 1977 was intended to spark the city’s tourism industry and spur urban redevelopment.
But casinos alone reaped the benefits of the subsequent tourism boom, according to a recent report from New Jersey Policy Perspective, a left-leaning think tank. There were 242 food-and-drink establishments in the city before casinos arrived. By 1996, just 142 were left, according to the report.
Casinos have paid more than $4 billion in real estate taxes and funded $350 million in Atlantic City housing and development projects. But the NJPP report said the promise of the city’s urban renewal was largely ignored.
New Jersey created the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority in 1984 and offered casinos two options: spend 1.25 percent of gross revenue on CRDA-issued bonds for urban and economic development, or pay a 2.5 percent tax to the state.
“Casinos chose the first option. But over time, the redevelopment mission was diluted by the Legislature, allowing CRDA to spend money on tourism-related activities that directly benefited the casinos,” the report said.
Ironically, proponents of North Jersey casinos are promising hundreds of millions in gambling tax revenue to redevelop Atlantic City, nearly an identical argument for gambling advocates in 1976.
Perskie blamed “local political forces” for not doing “what had to be done to take maximum advantage of the situation.”
“For each success story there is a failure story, because there are areas of the city that did not receive from city or county or local government the kind of attention, the kind of imagination, the kind of daring thought processes that they were entitled to,” Perskie said. “And as a result, some areas of the city didn’t benefit as they should have.”
In 1977, Gov. Brendan Byrne signed the Casino Control Act in front of nearly 3,000 people outside Convention Hall, or what is now called Boardwalk Hall. A band played “Happy Days Are Here Again.”
But Byrne expressed uncertainty as he signed the law with gold pen after gold pen.
“I do know that this is an historic event,” he said. “But I don’t know if history will view what we have done here with success or failure.”
I think it's quite obvious and safe to say that casinos have been a complete disaster for AC! They put half the longtime local businesses out of business. Were responsible for the greed and speculation that has left 1/3 of AC a vacant wasteland. Crime rose astronomically. Practically all the beautiful buildings in AC have been demolished. Practically zero middle/upper class residents are left...half of AC's population was white when casinos maybe 10% and they're old and being taxed out and AC's population is now practically all government dependent uneducated minorities. The school system is an overpriced failure. Massive, hulking empty casino towers line the Boardwalk while Atlantic County has the highest foreclosure rate and property taxes in the country. If I were Perskie, I'd be ashamed to speak about his role in this epic debacle!

Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority Announces Closing Of Refinancing Transactions

Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority Announces Closing Of Refinancing Transactions


Oct 14, 2016
UNCASVILLE, Conn. Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, announced today the closing of its previously announced refinancing transactions, including the following:

Senior Notes Offering

October 14, 2016, the Authority closed its previously announced private placement of 7.875% senior notes due 2024 (the "New Notes") issued pursuant to an Indenture, dated as of the date hereof, among the Authority, as issuer, the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (the "Tribe"), the guarantors party thereto, and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee.

The Authority applied the net proceeds from the issuance of the New Notes, together with borrowings under the Authority's new senior secured credit facilities described below, to (i) finance the repayment, repurchase and redemption of certain of the Authority's previously outstanding indebtedness, including, but not limited to, its secured credit facilities, its 9.75% senior notes due 2021 (the "2021 Notes"), its 11% senior subordinated notes due 2018 (the "2018 Notes" and together with the 2021 Notes, the "Existing Notes") and its floating rate notes due 2017, and (ii) pay related fees and expenses.

New Senior Secured Credit Facilities

The Authority also announced today that it has entered into a Credit Agreement by and among the Authority, the Tribe, Citizens Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and certain lenders, providing for $1,400 million in new senior secured credit facilities, comprised of a $170 million senior secured revolving credit facility, a $445 million senior secured term loan A facility, and a $785 million senior secured term loan B facility.

The Authority applied the net proceeds from the new senior secured credit facilities, together with net proceeds from the New Notes, to finance the repayment, repurchase and redemption of the indebtedness described above and to pay related fees and expenses.

Tender Offer; Redemption and Satisfaction and Discharge of Existing Notes The Authority also announced today that, using net proceeds from the New Notes and borrowings under the Authority's new senior secured credit facilities, the Authority (i) settled its previously announced tender offers for the 2021 Notes and 2018 Notes (the "Tender Offers") with respect to all notes tendered into such offers prior to 5:00 p.m. (all of which were tendered at or prior to the early tender deadline of 5:00 p.m. New York City September 30, 2016 and (ii) satisfied and discharged its obligations under the respective indentures governing the Existing Notes, including by depositing with U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee for each of the 2018 Notes and the 2021 Notes (the "Existing Notes Trustee"), funds sufficient to redeem the Existing Notes not tendered in the Tender Offers and calling such untendered Existing Notes for redemption, in accordance with the satisfaction and discharge provisions of such indentures.  The Authority directed the Existing Notes Trustee to apply the deposited funds to effect the redemption of each series of Existing Notes on November 14, 2016

Prepayment of Floating Rate Notes due 2017 and Prepayment and Termination of Existing Secured Credit Facilities

The Authority also announced today that it has prepaid its floating rate notes due 2017 issued pursuant to a note purchase agreement dated November 20, 2015(y) prepaid all amounts outstanding under, and terminated, its secured credit facilities previously outstanding pursuant to a loan agreement dated November 19, 2013

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute a notice of redemption under the redemption provisions of the Existing Notes Indentures, nor does it constitute an offer to sell, or a solicitation of an offer to buy, any security. No offer, solicitation, or sale will be made in any jurisdiction in which such an offer, solicitation, or sale would be unlawful.

About the Authority

The Authority is an instrumentality of the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, or the Tribe, a federally-recognized Indian tribe with an approximately 595-acre reservation situated in southeastern Connecticut, adjacent to Uncasville, Connecticut.

The Authority has been granted the exclusive authority to conduct and regulate gaming activities on the existing reservation of the Tribe, including the operation of Mohegan Sun, a gaming and entertainment complex located on an approximately 185-acre site on the Tribe's reservation. Through its subsidiary, Downs Racing, L.P., the Authority also owns and operates Mohegan Sun Pocono, a gaming and entertainment facility located on an approximately 400-acre site in Plains Township, Pennsylvania, and several off-track wagering facilities located elsewhere in Pennsylvania.

The Tribe's gaming operation at Mohegan Sun is one of only two legally authorized gaming operations in southern New England offering traditional slot machines and table games. Mohegan Sun currently operates in an approximately 3.1 million square-foot facility, which includes Casino of the Earth, Casino of the Sky, Casino of the Wind, 100,000 square feet of retail space, including The Shops at Mohegan Sun, a 10,000-seat Mohegan Sun Arena, a 350-seat Cabaret Theatre, 100,000 square feet of meeting and convention space and the 1,200-room luxury Sky Hotel Tower. Mohegan Sun Pocono operates in an approximately 400,000 square-foot facility, offering traditional slot machines and table games, live harness racing and simulcast and off-track wagering, a 238-room hotel, 20,000 square feet of meeting and convention space, several dining and retail options and a bus passenger lounge.

Some information included in this press release may contain forward-looking statements, within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements can sometimes be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as "may," "will," "anticipate," "estimate," "expect" or "intend" and similar expressions. Such forward-looking information may involve important risks and uncertainties that could significantly affect anticipated results in the future and, accordingly, such results may differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made by or on behalf of the Authority.

Information concerning potential factors that could affect the Authority's financial results is included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2015, as well as in the Authority's other reports and filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Any forward-looking statements included in this press release are made only as of the date of this release. The Authority does not undertake any obligation to update or supplement any forward-looking statements to reflect subsequent events or circumstances. The Authority cannot assure that projected results or events will be achieved or will occur.

Robert J. Soper

Chief Executive Officer

Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority

Mario C. Kontomerkos

SOURCE Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority

Related Links

Revere Slot Barn: Special Election on Slots Oct 18

Special Election on Slots Oct 18

October 14, 2016

Revere voters will go to the polls next Tuesday, October 18 and cast their vote to approve or disapprove a request for a slots casino parlor to be built in 400-room hotel located at the current trailer park on Revere Beach Parkway.

The special election is not without its controversy or confusion. Yes, there will be a special election October 18, a statewide election on November 8 and another special election in 2017 or later.

The October 18 special election this Tuesday resulted when developer Eugene McCain, of the The Revere Jobs and Education Committee, collected enough signatures to place a question on a special election ballot. To confuse matters another initiative petition question calling for an additional statewide slot license has also been placed on the November 8 election ballot.

The Revere Jobs and Education Committee’s initiated petition gathered over 4,800 city-certified signatures from Revere voters.

If the question passes on October 18, then McCain ends up gaining the ability to have a specific spot in Revere for a slots parlor casino if the slot parlor request is approved in the November 8 election. The other condition of the November 8 question is that the gaming establishment must be within 1,500 feet of a horse racing facility. The Suffolk Downs area would fit this criteria but the operators have no interest in the slots parlor casino proposed.

If the local question fails in Revere on October 18, voters will still vote on November 8 for statewide approval. If this vote fails statewide then question dies. If it passes, McCain and his group will be allowed to petition the Gaming Commission for the slot parlor gaming license that is available.

Mayor Brian Arrigo and a host of other officials have publicly opposed the slots casino parlor, including State Sen. Joe Boncore, State Rep. RoseLee Vincent, Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo, City Councillors Jessica Giannino, Steve Morabito, Arthur Guinasso, Joanne McKenna, John Powers, Robert Haas and Ira Novoselsky; School Committee members Susan Gravellese, Carol Tye, Stacey Rizzo, Mike Ferrante, Fred Sanella and Dan Maguire.

Arrigo held a rally of public officials on September 28 and met with residents of Hyman Towers to discuss the October 18 special election last Friday.

“As community leaders we hold high standards for the future of our city,” Arrigo told residents of Hyman Towers. 

“This debate is not about being “for” or “about” gaming. This debate is about being for good ideas and against bad ideas. This slot proposal is simply a bad idea for our community.”

Arrigo has noted that the city is working on its image as part of the city’s economic development work.
Nick Connors, campaign manager with the The Revere Jobs and Education Committee and the YES to 1 Committee, said they are working hard and confident they will win this vote. They have been busy conducting polls and making calls to potential voters.

“I think we have tremendous support,” Connors said from his office on Broadway. “Revere needs an infusion of 300-400 jobs and infusion in infrastructure and $5 million for the city. It’s the last opportunity for a complex like this.”

 with a hotel to draw from Logan Airport.” [sic]

The Trail to Oct. 18

The city took McCain to court in July to stop the special election and again in early September, claiming the election would burden the city with a cost of $70,000.

McCain and his associates have connected with a Las Vegas company to manage everything concerning the potential development of a slots casino.

Navegante, a gaming and hospitality company, based in the Las Vegas area will be having one of its leaders working in Revere. Gary Armentout, who has over 35 years of experience in the casino/hospitality industry has worked on casinos outside of Toronto and with Foxwoods. He also worked on Harvey’s Resorts, Vanguard Gaming and several riverboat casinos along the Mississippi River.

“Support and enthusiasm from Revere citizens is very high. People understand that 300-400 good paying jobs, annual revenue of at least $5 million, thousands of union construction jobs are exactly what Revere needs,” said Jason Osborne, Campaign Chairman for Yes on 1 and The Revere Jobs and Education Committee. “We have walked into over 65 businesses, spoke on the phone with over a thousand voters, and the positive sentiment is north of 70 percent. It’s now a question of having people remember to vote on October 18. A Yes Vote on October 18 is a Vote for Jobs and More Revenue to the City.”

But Mayor Arrigo has said the “slot parlor proposal presented to the city was poorly written, poorly conceived and haphazardly concocted, with no details provided about contributions to the city, transportation upgrades, infrastructure improvements, jobs for Revere residents or mitigation for traffic or crime.”

“Massachusetts’ gaming law is praised as one of the most comprehensive and forward-looking in the nation. When we crafted the law my main focus was on boosting the economy and creating jobs. Key to that effort was creating an independent Gaming Commission which conducts thorough market analyses and then makes informed decisions. This slapdash proposal would upset the deliberate and delicate balance we worked so hard to create. 

Therefore, I stand in opposition to Question 1,” said Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo.

The Twist and Turns

The special election question on October 18 and the whole situation with the attempt to set up a slot parlor casino has a twist or two. A ‘yes’ vote simply means that the group “Revere Jobs and Education Committee” would secure a location for a slots only casino.  A ‘no’ vote would let everyone know how the voters of Revere feel about a slots parlor in their community.

However, the casino group can still look forward to the statewide vote on Question 1 on Nov. 8 as a way to be eligible for a gaming license. If the question fails statewide the issue of a slots casino in Revere dies regards of the October 18 vote. If the question passes it will be up to the state Gaming Commission to issue a gaming license. If the license is applied for the Gaming Commission requires another Special Election . Depending on the commission the Special Election could be held in 2017 or beyond. McCain’s group would have to pay for that election through the Gaming Commission.

The Question

As with most ballot questions, the wording can also be tricky. The following is the wording of the question on the Oct. 18 ballot: “Do you approve the measure summarized below.? The proposed measure provides in full: No person or entity shall hold a Category 2 gaming license, as such term is defined in MGL ch. 23K section 2, unless such Category 2 license is issued, following the licensing process outlined in MGL ch. 23K for a site that is at least four acres in size and includes lands that front both Revere Beach Parkway, Winthrop Parkway and Pratt Court.

“Approval of this measure would limit the planning of any future slot parlor gaming facility licensed by the State Gaming Commission to a location in the City of Revere that is at least four acres in size and that fronts on both 

“Revere Beach Parkway/Winthrop Parkway” and Pratt Court.”

“Rejection of this measure would mean that the possible future location of any slot gaming facility would continue to be subject to the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Even if approved, the measure would only be possible if a slot parlor gaming license becomes available due to state law or if a license from an existing operation is returned to the state.”

Polls will be open in Revere from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesday, Oct. 18.