HOW MANY TIMES DO RESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY NO?
Anti-casino activists sue to block ballot question allowing 2nd Massachusetts slots parlor
A proposed ballot question would allow a second slots parlor, which a developer wants to build at Suffolk Downs.(File photo
A group of anti-casino activists have appealed to Massachusetts' high court to keep a question that would allow a second slots parlor in Massachusetts – most likely at Suffolk Downs – off the 2016 ballot.
Ten Massachusetts residents who oppose expanded gambling filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court against Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin.
"The suit is to encourage them to take a second look at the language and recognize this is not a statewide ballot issue," said Celeste Myers, a leader of No Eastie Casino, which was formed in 2012 and led the East Boston opposition to a proposed casino at Suffolk Downs, a racetrack that straddles Boston and Revere. Myers is one of the plaintiffs in the complaint.
Eugene McCain, who filed the ballot question petition, did not respond to requests for comment.
The proposed 2016 ballot question would allow the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to issue a second slots parlor license. Currently, only a single slots license is allowed under state law. The question specifies that the new slots parlor would have to be located near a horse racing track.
By law, a ballot question cannot apply only to one particular locality.
Healey's office, which certified that the ballot question is constitutional, found that the language is broad enough that it could apply to multiple sites.
But the anti-casino group argues that the language is clearly written to apply to only one location – Suffolk Downs.
They write in their court complaint that the only other potential sites that would fit under the language are Plainridge Park, which already has the state's first licensed slot parlor, and Brockton Fairgrounds, which is applying for a license for a resort casino and would be prohibited from filing another license application under an agreement it signed with the town of Brockton.
The anti-casino activists argue in their complaint that based on geography and on public statements by the petition filer, McCain is trying to develop a parcel of land around Suffolk Downs. So the ballot question would only affect one community and should not be voted on by the entire state.
"It's very specific to our local area," Myers said.
"The suit is to encourage them to take a second look ... and recognize this is not a statewide ballot issue."
The petition also argues that the same issue was voted on during the last statewide election. State law prohibits the approval of a ballot question that is "substantially the same" as a measure that was voted on in the previous statewide election. In 2014, voters rejected a question that would have repealed the state's law allowing casino gambling. The anti-casino group argues that this question is similar because it is an amendment to state's gambling law.
Healey's office will file a brief with the court in the coming months saying why it believes the ballot question is constitutional. The complaint will be considered by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, who can either issue a ruling or transfer the case to another court.
A spokeswoman for Healey declined to comment on the substance of the case.
Galvin spokesman Brian McNiff said Galvin's office does not comment on matters pending before the court. But he noted that the decision about constitutionality is entirely up to Healey. Galvin's only involvement is to certify whether a group gathered sufficient signatures.
Although supporters of the ballot question successfully gathered 74,500 signatures, more than enough to meet the first threshold for getting a question on the 2016 ballot, the process has been quiet. Neither McCain nor an attorney who filed papers for the ballot question with Galvin's office returned phone calls or emails.
Advocates for the ballot question have not filed paperwork with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance to form an official ballot committee. An official committee is required when two or more people or organizations get together and spend money to support or oppose a ballot question. Unless McCain is working by himself, he would have to file a report if he hired a firm to collect signatures.
The Boston Globe reported in September that McCain is a real estate broker and developer living in Thailand who has an option to buy a trailer park in Revere, near Suffolk Downs. McCain told the Globe that he was considering multiple locations for a hotel and mixed-use development, which would include a slots parlor.
The 10 original signers on the petition were from West Springfield, Dover, Hull and Needham. One of them told The Republican / MassLive.com that she was not answering questions about the petition. The others did not respond to voicemail messages left on Tuesday.
Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs, told The Republican / MassLive.com that the racetrack is monitoring the proposal but is not involved in it.
If a second license is authorized, it would still have to be granted by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Gaming Commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said the commission is not considering the issue right now, since it is out of the commission's control. "If we reach a point where we need to, we will," Driscoll said.
Suffolk Downs previously proposed hosting a resort casino. But in 2013, East Boston voters rejected the plan. Suffolk Downs then proposed building the entire casino to the Revere side of the racetrack, since Revere voters supported the plan. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, however, awarded the resort casino license to Wynn Resorts in Everett instead of to Suffolk Downs.
City of Boston officials say McCain has not reached out to them. Revere's economic development director did not return a phone call.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment