When people have the FACTS, they OPPOSE Predatory Gambling!
Please support REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL - IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PROTECT ALL MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES!
Opponents of casino gambling gather at a July rally sponsored by at the Council of Churches of Western Massachusetts at Court Square in Springfield. Anti-casino activists hoping to bring a ballot question repealing the Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Law to the voters in November have filed the first brief in the case which is to be heard in front of the State Supreme Judicial Court in May. (Dave Roback / The Republican file)
BOSTON ̵ Anti-casino activists hoping to convince the State Supreme Judicial Court to allow a ballot question repealing the Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Law to go before the voters in November have filed the first brief in the case.
Boston attorneys Thomas O. Bean and H. Reed Witherby, both former employees of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, are arguing that current Attorney General Martha Coakley was incorrect when she concluded in September that the ballot question's passage would amount to an illegal taking of private property from casino companies and their partners.
"The facts and the law are clearly on the side of the people – they are entitled to vote," Bean said in a press release announcing the filing of the legal brief. "We believe this brief lays out the foundations of a strong case for the Justices. We look forward to the Court hearing this case in early May and deciding it swiftly so the campaign can formally commence."
The state's expanded gaming bill was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2011, allowing for up to three resort casinos in various regions of the commonwealth, as well as one slots parlor.
If the court approves the ballot question, which already earned enough signatures to proceed, the casino companies vying for the commonwealth's valuable licenses will likely kick off a public relations campaign to try and boost support for casino gaming.
At the same time, the anti-casino faction will likely do the same, resulting in a PR battle similar to those waged in each municipality that has voted on hosting a casino.
Earlier this week, a survey of 500 likely voters, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group for WBUR in Boston, concluded that just 46 percent of Bay State residents now say they support casinos in Massachusetts, while 43 percent oppose them.
Previous statewide polls showed support for casinos in Massachusetts had been on the rise to an overwhelming peak in the fall of last year, and falling ever since.
The $800 million MGM Springfield project is the only proposed casino in Western Massachusetts which was approved by the voters. MGM got its green light from the city's residents in a July vote which went 58 to 42 percent, in the casino's favor.
In addition to the projects that died on the vine, voters in West Springfield voted down a proposed Hard Rock International casino in 2013 and voters in Palmer dashed Mohegan Sun's hopes of building a casino in that town with a vocal anti-casino group working to get out the vote.
The attorneys working to get the ballot question approved by the court, in the 143-page brief, argued that:
- The government has a legal obligation to oversee the welfare of the people and the people have a right to change laws. Granting the people the right to vote on casinos protects the power of the state to govern and protect the public welfare.
- When companies, like casino developers, participate in a heavily regulated industry, they are aware that the laws can change, the brief argued. Knowing the laws surrounding the industry can change is a risk that developers weighed when they decided to invest in casinos. This is further proven by the fact that the industry itself is proposing changes.
- The initiative petition law is built on the presumption that the people have the right to a vote, with very few exceptions. The right of the people to vote is especially pertinent, the team argued, in situations where a proposed change could affect the moral fabric and culture of the Commonwealth.
Both sides of the lawsuit to decide the fate of the ballot question have requested that the state Supreme Judicial Court hear the case's arguments at its May sitting and issue a decision by July 9.
Opponents of casino gambling gather at a July rally sponsored by at the Council of Churches of Western Massachusetts at Court Square in Springfield. Anti-casino activists hoping to bring a ballot question repealing the Massachusetts Expanded Gaming Law to the voters in November have filed the first brief in the case which is to be heard in front of the State Supreme Judicial Court in May. (Dave Roback / The Republican file)
Boston attorneys Thomas O. Bean and H. Reed Witherby, both former employees of the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office, are arguing that current Attorney General Martha Coakley was incorrect when she concluded in September that the ballot question's passage would amount to an illegal taking of private property from casino companies and their partners.
"The facts and the law are clearly on the side of the people – they are entitled to vote," Bean said in a press release announcing the filing of the legal brief. "We believe this brief lays out the foundations of a strong case for the Justices. We look forward to the Court hearing this case in early May and deciding it swiftly so the campaign can formally commence."
The state's expanded gaming bill was signed into law by Gov. Deval Patrick in 2011, allowing for up to three resort casinos in various regions of the commonwealth, as well as one slots parlor.
If the court approves the ballot question, which already earned enough signatures to proceed, the casino companies vying for the commonwealth's valuable licenses will likely kick off a public relations campaign to try and boost support for casino gaming.
At the same time, the anti-casino faction will likely do the same, resulting in a PR battle similar to those waged in each municipality that has voted on hosting a casino.
Earlier this week, a survey of 500 likely voters, conducted by the MassINC Polling Group for WBUR in Boston, concluded that just 46 percent of Bay State residents now say they support casinos in Massachusetts, while 43 percent oppose them.
Previous statewide polls showed support for casinos in Massachusetts had been on the rise to an overwhelming peak in the fall of last year, and falling ever since.
The $800 million MGM Springfield project is the only proposed casino in Western Massachusetts which was approved by the voters. MGM got its green light from the city's residents in a July vote which went 58 to 42 percent, in the casino's favor.
In addition to the projects that died on the vine, voters in West Springfield voted down a proposed Hard Rock International casino in 2013 and voters in Palmer dashed Mohegan Sun's hopes of building a casino in that town with a vocal anti-casino group working to get out the vote.
The attorneys working to get the ballot question approved by the court, in the 143-page brief, argued that:
- The government has a legal obligation to oversee the welfare of the people and the people have a right to change laws. Granting the people the right to vote on casinos protects the power of the state to govern and protect the public welfare.
- When companies, like casino developers, participate in a heavily regulated industry, they are aware that the laws can change, the brief argued. Knowing the laws surrounding the industry can change is a risk that developers weighed when they decided to invest in casinos. This is further proven by the fact that the industry itself is proposing changes.
- The initiative petition law is built on the presumption that the people have the right to a vote, with very few exceptions. The right of the people to vote is especially pertinent, the team argued, in situations where a proposed change could affect the moral fabric and culture of the Commonwealth.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment