Stop casinos and legal larceny

Regulatory Costs were predicted to be $5 MILLION....ACTUAL + $19 MILLION?


Did you know you got screwed?

[ORIGINAL ARTICLES AVAILABLE ON LINKS]

Top Robert DeLeo aide called casinos ‘fool’s gold’
Robert A. DeLeo tied to tribe flack....

DeLeo Finally Honest: We Need to Protect Gambling Investors
Massachusetts: Rushing Off A Cliff


Beacon Hill: Costs Greater Than Anticipated
The Crime Legislation should have been presented and voted on separately, but never expect House Speaker "Racino" DeLeo to succumb to reasonableness. [Remember that the Speaker recommended campaign contributors, incompetents and 'no-shows' for Probation Dept. jobs before providing a budget larger than requested.]

Attorney General Martha Coakley wisely was quoted as commenting:

...warned lawmakers that the cost of making it happen may be larger than anticipated. New regulations must be drawn up and new agencies created to enforce the regulation, she said.
 
NEW GAMBLING REGULATION TO COST $5 MILLION, ACCORDING TO SPEAKER’S OFFICE: The expanded gambling market called for under legislation proposed by Speaker Robert DeLeo would require $5 million in costs to cover new state regulatory and enforcement expenses, but the industry would pick up the tab, according to a DeLeo aide.DeLeo spokesman Seth Gitell said the estimate of state costs the gambling industry would reimburse is $5 million.





Ham: Stop casinos and legal larceny

Posted Oct. 25, 2014

It's about the money.

The casino and slots slated for the state are about money. A powerful legislator dictated that gambling would expand and created the Gaming Commission. We have witnessed non-stop and non-productive chaos since then. Except for monies conned from applicants, we are being scammed into supporting the Gaming Commission. It declared expenses last year of $19,312,712.78. Unbelievable. An audit of the agency is overdue and should be mandatory at this point. It would reveal how the $19 plus million in expenses were incurred, the source of the funds to pay the debts and any and all costs to taxpayers.

A threat of expanded gaming is that it will cannibalize the Lottery, which returned $952 million to the cities and towns last year. It is a stated guess that the new gambling will generate $400 million in revenue. Not even close. The Lottery benefits the people. The slots and casinos exist for the investors. Obviously we will pay for any shortage in Lottery aid.

The TV ad claiming 10,000 jobs is preposterous. How many workers are needed to watch gamblers feed slot machines or workers to shuffle cards? Most jobs are low skill for low pay and the fewer the better for profits. Evidently we are expected to spend millions to support gaming in exchange for some menial jobs.

Casinos elsewhere are going bankrupt and closing. Gamblers have moved on. It is ludicrous to go where others have failed and expect a different outcome.

A recent article in the Atlantic by David Frum sums it up: "Good way to wreck a local economy: build casinos. No one should look to the gambling industry to revive cities, because that's not what casinos do."

Vote yes on Question 3 to stop the legal larceny.

PRISCILLA J. HAM

Shrewsbury

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20141025/OPINION/141027111/11609/OPINION

Column: On casinos and politics

Get the FACTS and join with others to protect ALL communities:

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL


Column: On casinos and politics

By Rick Holmes
MassPoliticalNews.com Posted Jul. 3, 2014 @ 9:37 am

BROOKLINE


A campaign that had been looking for a theme found one last week, with a little help from the Supreme Judicial Court. Now casinos will be on the ballot, and on them minds of voters, as commercials pro and con crowd out candidate pitches in the weeks leading up to Election Day.

The political establishment had hoped it wouldn’t come to this. After years of intense lobbying, the Legislature three years ago agreed, by large, bipartisan majorities, on a modest plan for up to three resort-style casinos and one slots parlor, with voters given a veto of any casino proposed for their community. Licenses have already been granted for a casino in Springfield and a slots operation in Plainville.

Whether Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office tried to keep the casino repeal initiative off the ballot for legitimate legal or purely political reasons no longer matters. The SJC wasn’t buying the constitutional arguments. Coakley is embarrassed either way, and the one thing all candidates for governor seem to agree on is that the voters should have a say.

But which voters? As is often the case in public policy, the question comes down to, "Who decides?" Does the elected state Legislature get to decide how to legalize and regulate casino gambling? Should the voters get to reverse course three years into the process? Do the elected officials and voters of Springfield get to decide whether MGM’s casino proposal fits into their community, or should voters in Hopkinton and Williamstown and Boston’s Back Bay be able to veto that plan?

The difference between policy and politics is that the emotion behind issues like gambling can drown out all nuance, scramble partisan alignments and shape attitudes about candidates in unpredictable ways.

Gambling is a rare issue that pulls from both extremes. Cultural conservatives and nanny state liberals may use different language, but they agree gambling is so bad for people that the government is justified in limiting it.

Then there are the moderates. They may be concerned about the downside of gambling, but they’ve been to a casino or two without being transformed into slot machine zombies. They may not want a casino down the street, but they aren’t offended by one in Springfield, Everett or New Bedford.

Moderates care about economic development as well, and they’ll welcome whatever jobs three casinos and a slots parlor create. Polls show support for casinos on economic grounds has weakened as the economy has improved. Tell that to Springfield, which has an unemployment rate of 8.4 percent, compared to 5.6 percent for the state as a whole. There, MGM’s $800 million investment in a struggling downtown is seen as an opportunity, not a curse.

The casino question is already fueling primary battles in both parties. Democratic governor candidate Don Berwick is appealing to eat-your-vegetable liberals with his strong opposition to casinos in any form, while opponents Coakley and Steve Grossman oppose repeal, though without enthusiasm.

Republican Charlie Baker also says he’ll vote against repeal, though he’s happy to see it on the ballot. His nuanced position — he’d prefer one casino to three — won’t spur enthusiasm in the anti-gambling crowd. Mark Fisher, Baker’s tea party challenger, supports repeal, but on practical, not ideological grounds. He says private casinos will undermine the state’s own highly profitable Lottery operations.


Three independents running for governor are also split, with Evan Falchuk opposing repeal, Jeff McCormick favoring repeal on economic grounds, and Scott Lively opposed to all gambling on moral grounds.

In a hotly contested Democratic race for attorney general, Maura Healey is staunchly in favor of repeal, while Warren Tolman, with strong labor backing, shows more enthusiasm for casinos than any other candidate.

There’s no federal issue involved here, but that won’t stop Republican Brian Herr, who is challenging Sen. Ed Markey, from bringing it up. As chairman of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen, Herr led efforts to stop a casino just over the town line in Milford.

How this will play out in individual races is anyone’s guess. The anti-casino crowd is louder than it is large. The moderates are O.K. with casinos, but not enthusiastic about them. The safest prediction comes from Secretary of State William Galvin, who said last week the ballot question should inspire "a very intensive turnout," — and a lot of money spent by companies that have already invested big bucks trying to bring casinos to Massachusetts.

Rick Holmes writes for MassPoliticalNews.com and the MetroWest Daily News. He can be reached at rholmes@wickedlocal.com. Visit MPN online or follow@masspolinews.

http://brookline.wickedlocal.com/article/20140703/OPINION/140708844#140708844/?Start=2&_suid=1404478159298036535225898877244

Repeal the Casino Deal collects double the amount of signatures needed

Repeal the Casino Deal collects double the amount of signatures needed to maintain anti-casino ballot question's viability with court ruling pending

Opponents of casino gambling gather at a July rally sponsored by at the Council of Churches of Western Massachusetts at Court Square in Springfield. (Dave Roback / The Republican file)

By Robert Rizzuto | rrizzuto@repub.com 
Email the author | Follow on Twitter 
on June 17, 2014

his story was updated Tuesday afternoon to include a quote from Jeff Ciuffreda, president of the Affiliated Chambers of Commerce Greater Springfield.

---

BOSTON — Anti-casino activists in Massachusetts report they have collected more than double the amount of signatures needed to keep a ballot question repealing the state's Expanded Gaming Act alive while everyone awaits a ruling about its fate from the Supreme Judicial Court.

In accordance with state law, a ballot question which gets the 68,911 certified signatures needed to be considered for the ballot must get an additional 11,485 certified signatures if it isn't accepted on the first consideration, as was the case with the question repealing the state's casino law.

Attorney General Martha Coakley in Septemberrejected the proposed anti-casino ballot question, ruling that it's passage would violate the constitutional right to compensation for the taking of private property for public use. About a week later, Coakley, who is running for governor, allowed a challenge to her decision to proceed, kicking up the decision to the state's highest court, which is expected to issue a decision by July 9 at the latest.

"Our grassroots supporters statewide have amazed me with their tenacity and drive to meet voters and share our message, always growing our base of support and momentum to repeal this bad casino deal," said casino repeal chairman John Ribeiro in a statement. "Once these legal and organizing hurdles are behind us, we see a clear path to victory because voters are fed up and know we can do better than casinos for Massachusetts."

Organizers said the final push toward collecting the approximately 26,000 signatures they collected in the latest round was aided by voters who "flooded the casino repeal table" at the Democratic State Convention this past weekend in Worcester. The group claims that more than half of the delegates to the convention offered their signatures to allow the repeal effort to go before the voters in November.

"The interest and excitement around this question is tremendous and only growing," said casino repeal campaign manager Darek Barcikowski in a statement. "The one thing we kept hearing from voters is that this mess keeps getting worse and that the state just doesn’t need the downsides we know will come with casino gambling."

Jeff Ciuffreda, president of the Affiliated Chambers of Commerce Greater Springfield which endorsed the MGM casino, said it is frustrating to watch the effort play out while Springfield is on the edge of several major development projects.

"Downtown Springfield should have shovels in the ground as we speak. The people behind the repeal do not respect the voters of Springfield, and have no answers for our stressed economy and struggling workforce," Ciuffreda said. "The gaming act provided our city an opportunity, and we seized that opportunity. They are delaying our future and should not be allowed a do-over."

The company which stands to lost the most if the question proceeds and passes is MGM Resorts International, which last week was granted the state's first casino license, pending a decision by the court.

If the Supreme Judicial Court decides the ballot question is illegal, MGM gets the license the next day for its Springfield casino project. If the court allows the question to proceed, MGM would be granted the license the day after the Nov. 4 election, assuming that voters don't vote to kill the law.

Penn National Gaming's investments may also be in jeopardy as the company has already begun construction on its $225 million slots parlor at the Plainridge harness race track in Plainville.

In the greater Boston area, Mohegan Sun's proposal at Suffolk Downs is still in competition with Wynn Resorts proposal for Revere. Since licensing in that region is expected to come after the court case, the potential for a loss of millions isn't the same as with the Western Mass. region where MGM outlasted several other casino campaigns.

Activists say they intend to gather signatures through the final deadline Wednesday at 5 p.m. The signatures will be filed with city and town clerks and with Secretary of State William Galvin's office by July 2.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/repeal_the_casino_deal_collect.html

Anti-casino group says it received warm welcome at Massachusetts Democratic Convention in Worcester

Handing out “Repeal the Casino Deal” buttons inside the DCU Center, Anti-casino activist John Ribeiro said initiative petition activists have more than 20,000 certified signatures ready to submit to local officials next week in order to qualify their repeal proposal for the November ballot. (Republican File Photo)

By State House News Service 
on June 14, 2014

WORCESTER — While Democrats on Beacon Hill led the charge in 2011 to put a law legalizing casinos on the books, anti-casino advocate John Ribeiro told the News Service he is getting a “great” reception at Saturday’s Democratic Convention.

Handing out “Repeal the Casino Deal” buttons inside the DCU Center, Ribeiro also said initiative petition activists have more than 20,000 certified signatures ready to submit to local officials next week in order to qualify their repeal proposal for the November ballot - 11,485 signatures are required in the next and final round of submissions.

Asked to reconcile the “great” reception with the fact that Democrats led the push to pass the casino law, Ribeiro said, “When the speakership changed, one hundred votes changed overnight.”

Celeste Myers, a leader in the No Eastie Casino group who said she is challenging Rep. Carlo Basile, an East Boston Democrat, said she believes casinos could become a major issue in statewide campaigns.

“We’d love all the candidates to show up for us,” Myers told the News Service, who said she wanted No Eastie Casino to serve as a resource.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/06/anti-casino_group_says_it_rece.html

Yes! REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

PLEASE: 

Educate yourself if you don't already understand the Community Destruction that accompanies Casino Gambling! 

JOIN with others, your friends and neighbors to protect ALL Massachusetts Communities! 

Contribute! Contribute your time! Contribute what you can afford to stand for your community! 

Get the FACTS here:
REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL

Casino repeal activists say they have enough signatures

By Mark Arsenault and Martin Finucane

| Globe Staff June 17, 2014

Casino repeal activists say they’ve collected more than twice the required signatures to clear the final hurdle to get on the November ballot.

The activists announced today that they had collected more than 26,000 signatures. Only 11,485 signatures were needed.

It is the second round of signature-gathering under the state’s initiative petition process. In the first round, the activists collected more than 90,000 signatures, the activists said.

“Our grassroots supporters statewide have amazed me with their tenacity and drive to meet voters and share our message, always growing our base of support and momentum to repeal this bad casino deal,” casino repeal chairman John Ribeiro said in a statement.

Both sides of the gambling debate are keeping close watch on the Supreme Judicial Court, which is expected to rule by early July whether a casino repeal measure may move ahead to the November ballot.

Casino opponents have been working to place a repeal measure on the statewide ballot since lawmakers legalized Las Vegas-style casino gambling in Massachusetts nearly three years ago. Attorney General Martha Coakley ruled last year that the repeal measure was an unconstitutional taking of the implied contract rights of casino applicants and therefore could not be on the ballot. Opponents appealed to the SJC; the court heard arguments on the case in May.

The state’s 2011 gambling expansion law authorized three resort-style casinos, no more than one in each of three regions of the state, and one slot machine parlor. In February, the state gambling commission awarded the slot parlor license to the Penn proposal in Plainville.

Chris Murphy, a Plainville resident and president of People for Plainridge, a grassroots group that supported the Plainridge Park Casino slots parlor there, said anti-casino activists were like “a petulant little child stomping their foot and a parent eventually having to pay attention to them.”

“I think that opens up a whole can of worms. ... They’re opening up an extraordinary mess, all for a decision that’s already been made by the people of Massachusetts,” he said.

He predicted that if the repeal proposal comes to a vote, it will be rejected.

The state commission has voted to award a license to the only viable project vying for the Western Massachusetts resort license, an MGM proposal in Springfield. The vote will become final if the high court nixes a repeal vote.

The commission hopes to choose later this summer between two companies competing for the Greater Boston license.

The final license, for Southeastern Massachusetts, is scheduled to be issued in 2015.


More coverage:
• Casino enemies prepare for potential vote
• Candidates quiet on repeal vote for Mass. casino law
• Justice hearing casino repeal case tied to Suffolk Downs
• Yvonne Abraham: No sure bet on casinos


Martin Finucane of the Globe staff contributed to this report.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/06/17/casino-repeal-activists-say-they-collected-enough-signatures-make-ballot-high-court-allows-vote/80FVxDsJdccfHfk9M3VAdM/story.html

Darn Voters flip-flop on casino issue when $$$$ intrudes

A Boston Slot Barn location will cost Massachusetts taxpayers + $500 MILLION to subsidize Predatory Gambling [according to Senator Petrucelli]! 

Ya liked that Big Dig so much and what it sucked from the rest of the Commonwealth, ya want a Do Over? 

NOSE DIVE! 

Voters flip-flop on casino issue

Monday, June 9, 2014

Joe Battenfeld

In a serious blow to expanded gambling in Massachusetts, a new Suffolk University/Boston Herald poll shows support for Las Vegas-style casinos has dramatically slipped in just the past few months.

The Suffolk/Herald poll conducted last week shows Bay State voters oppose casinos by a 47-37 percent margin, a near reversal of sentiment. In February, a Suffolk/Herald poll had voters approving of casinos by a 51-37 margin.

The new numbers could give more ammo to casino opponents, who are trying to repeal the casino law.

The Supreme Judicial Court is currently weighing whether to allow a referendum to repeal the 2011 law on the November ballot. Casino opponents got enough signatures, but Attorney General Martha Coakley rejected it, saying it was unconstitutional.

The poll results suggest Coakley’s stance could hurt her gubernatorial campaign. The poll of 800 likely voters asked respondents whether they “approve or disapprove of plans to locate gambling casinos in Massachusetts” and nearly half said they disapprove — the first time a poll has registered such a negative response.

The 2011 law allows for a total of three casino resorts, one in western Massachusetts, one in the central part of the state and one in the Greater Boston area. The Gaming Commission is currently deciding whether to back a Greater Boston casino in Revere or Everett, but the poll offers little comfort to casino developers at either site.

When asked “whether it makes sense” to open a casino in Revere or Everett, a resounding 55 percent of voters chose “neither.” Just 18 percent picked Revere as the best location, while just 5 percent chose Everett.

David Paleologos, the director of Suffolk University Political Research Center, said the results show support for casino gambling has taken a huge dive in just a short time.

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/06/voters_flip_flop_on_casino_issue

Candidates quiet on repeal vote for Mass. casino law

Candidates quiet on repeal vote for Mass. casino law

By Michael Levenson

  | GLOBE STAFF   MAY 18, 2014

They position themselves as bold and gutsy truth-tellers.

But when asked about the thorny issue of casinos and whether they believe voters should be allowed to repeal the state gambling law, some candidates running for governor and attorney general resort to sidestepping and evasion.

The refusal of several candidates of both parties to say whether they support placing a repeal referendum on the ballot in November and how they would vote on that question underscores how fraught the politics of casinos have become in Massachusetts, three years after lawmakers opened the state to Las Vegas-style gambling.

The issue leapt into the public debate earlier this year after Attorney General Martha Coakley, the early frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for governor, said no to a proposed ballot question to repeal the casino law, ruling that it would violate the state Constitution. Casino opponents took the issue to the Supreme Judicial Court, which is currently weighing whether the ballot question passes legal muster.

Unlike more partisan issues such as taxes, the debate on the proposed ballot question has created unpredictable political crosscurrents among Democrats and Republicans, with some simply refusing to state where they stand.

In the governor’s race, Democrat Steve Grossman would not say whether he believes voters should be allowed to repeal the casino law.

“Now that this important matter is in the hands of the SJC, I’m certain the court will make the right call and look forward to supporting it,” he said.

He added, however, that he would personally vote against a repeal of the gambling law, arguing it “holds the potential to create 15,000 good-paying jobs.”

Charlie Baker, the Republican gubernatorial candidate, was also evasive on the casino issue.

He said he would support placing the repeal referendum on the ballot but would not say how he would vote on such a repeal. “Charlie will make that decision once it is determined whether it is on the ballot or not,” said his spokesman, Tim Buckley.

In the attorney general’s race, Democrat Warren Tolman initially declined to say where he stands on placing the question on the ballot, instead issuing a statement that spoke to his general philosophy on ballot questions. Pressed again for an answer, an aide said Tolman would vote against a repeal but “hopes it does get on the ballot.”

John Miller, a Republican candidate for attorney general, said he sees no constitutional reason to keep the question off the ballot but would not say how he would vote on the referendum.

“If my personal views are made public, any decision that I make would be clouded and tainted by politics,” he said.

Boston College political scientist Dennis Hale said the candidates may be reluctant to state their views because “so many players have a lot invested in this, and by players I don’t mean just the casino owners,” but also powerful local officials and unions.

Some candidates, however, were forthright in their answers. Democrat Donald Berwick, independent Jeffrey McCormick, and Republican Mark Fisher, all candidates for governor, said the question should be on the ballot, and said they would vote for it.

“The evidence is strong that the casinos harm small businesses and distort the lives of neighborhoods,” Berwick said.

McCormick offered a similar argument, saying casinos “bring some obvious downsides, such as a predatory effect on hard-working people, increased crime, gambling addiction, and the potential erosion of surrounding small businesses.”

Fisher said casinos foster crime and addiction and “separate people from their hard-earned cash.”

Democrats Juliette Kayyem and Joseph Avellone and independent Evan Falchuk, all running for governor, said they would support placing the question on the ballot, but would vote against it.

Avellone said that although he is “not a big supporter’’ of casinos, “we have a law that allows for local control, it is working and we should let it play out. I don’t believe in government by referendum.”

Falchuk also said he would vote “no” on the repeal “because I think we are stuck in this country with an endless back-and-forth on so many issues.”

Coakley rejected the ballot question in May, ruling it would “impair the implied contracts” between gambling firms and the state and illegally break those companies’ contract rights without compensation.

If the SJC overrules her and places the repeal on the ballot, Coakley said she would vote against it.

“If implemented correctly, gaming has the potential of creating thousands of jobs and millions in economic development,” she said in a prepared statement.

Maura Healey, a Democrat and former Coakley aide running for attorney general, said she disagrees with her former boss and believes voters should be allowed to repeal the casino law. She also said she would support such a repeal.

“I believe casinos are bad for Massachusetts and that the state should support industries that create jobs without preying on consumers,” she said.

 

The right to vote on casinos is a legal issue, not a political one

By Joan Vennochi

| Globe Columnist May 05, 2014

 

 

Whether Massachusetts citizens have the right to vote on casinos should be a strictly legal question. But other issues could be a distraction, as they often are when gambling is on the line.

Justice Margot Botsford put her finger on the underlying challenge for the Supreme Judicial Court during Monday morning’s oral arguments.

 

“What puts us under a black cloud,” noted Botsford, is how a vote to repeal the state’s three-year-old gambling law might look to the outside world — like “Taxachusetts, in another iteration,” as she put it. However, as Botsford mused, “That is a political question.”

Related

• SJC hears arguments
• Coakley defends ballot decision

The SJC should focus on the law, as opposed to the optics, as justices weigh the arguments about whether a measure to repeal the state’s gambling law should be on the ballot. But the cost to the industry and potentially the state, not to mention the message this would send about Massachusetts, was clearly on the minds of some justices.

“So, a five-year contract that has already been awarded after a thorough process outlined by the Legislature, at great cost to the applicant, can simply be taken away with a big ‘never mind’?” Justice Robert Cordy asked Thomas O. Bean, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, who are trying to get the question on the ballot.

“Yes,” replied Bean, who was repeatedly interrupted by Cordy, as the lawyer tried to make the case that no “implied contract” exists between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the casino interests bidding for a license.

If no contract exists, Bean argued, the state has no obligation to compensate license applicants.

 

However, Cordy’s concerns were also echoed by outgoing chief Justice Roderick Ireland, who noted the extent of the investments being made by casino operators as they bid for the right to get a license.

“They’re paying an awful lot of money for that,” said Ireland, who was appointed chief justice by Governor Deval Patrick, a major force behind the casino law.

State solicitor Peter Sacks, who represented Attorney General Martha Coakley during this morning’s arguments, probably did more to help the plaintiffs than their own lawyer was allowed to do.

In September, Coakley ruled that the question didn’t belong on the ballot because repealing the state’s gambling law would illegally take away property rights from casino applicants.

As Sacks explained, the attorney general’s position differentiates a licensee: The state can take away an actual license to operate a casino, but it can’t take away the right to bid for a license. The license process set up by the Legislature represents an implied contract between the applicant and the state, according to Coakley’s office.

“I’m still confused,” said Botsford, as she and other justices pressed Sacks to explain the legal reasoning behind the argument.

His premise is indeed confusing: According to the attorney general’s argument, there’s a property right in the license application process — not in the actual license. By this logic, if voters chose to repeal the gambling law, there would be no need to compensate Penn National, which in February was granted a license by the state Gaming Commission to operate a slots parlor. But, remarkably, the mere applicants for licenses to operate three casinos — one in Springfield, one in the Greater Boston area and one in southeastern Massachusetts — could have claims against the state.

Politics may explain the tortured nature of the AG’s stance.

When Coakley, a Democratic candidate for governor, ruled against the ballot question, she found herself on the side of the casino operators. That’s not necessarily the best place for a gubernatorial candidate to be, especially with Democratic primary voters. So, the attorney general found a legal argument that puts her partly with the plaintiffs and partly with the casino operators.

Carving out safe political middle ground is one thing for a political candidate. It should not be the guiding principle for the state’s highest court.

Update: An earlier version of this piece incorrectly suggested that, in drawing a legal distinction between applicants and licensees, the Attorney Gerneral’s Office had changed its position.




http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/05/the-right-vote-casinos-legal-issue-not-political-one/YBz6AB5wpFXKoyzgdRRY1I/story.html

 

SJC: Cost has nothing to do with LEGAL ISSUES!

The Gambling Industry GAMBLED, knowing the risks!

Voters has a right to VOTE!

SJC questions whether casino repeal would cost Mass.

Ted Fitzgerald/Boston Herald/pool

Justice Robert J. Cordy questioned attorney Thomas O. Bean.

 

By Mark Arsenault and John R. Ellement

| Globe staff May 05, 2014

They sat shoulder to shoulder before the state’s highest court Monday, though their opinions on the case at hand could not have been further apart.

Anticasino activist John Ribeiro, on one side, is part of a group asking the Supreme Judicial Court to allow a measure to repeal the state’s 2011 casino law to appear on the November statewide ballot, so voters can decide directly if they want casinos in their state.

Next to Ribeiro in the crowded courtroom sat casino executive Michael Mathis, president of MGM Springfield, hoping that the justices would quash the repeal effort so his company can begin construction soon on a gambling resort that would generate thousands of jobs.

Related

• Coakley defends decision to keep casino repeal off ballot
• Vennochi: Right to vote on casinos is a legal issue, not a political one

For about 50 minutes Monday, they watched as justices peppered lawyers on each side of the dispute with tough questions, probing their arguments in a closely watched case that could affect the future of the casino industry in Massachusetts.

Lawyers argued about the consequences of a possible repeal, and whether the state would have to reimburse casino developers for money spent trying to win a license.

“If common sense prevails, we’ll be on the ballot in November,” Ribeiro, head of the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign, said after the oral arguments.

Mathis, on the other hand, said his company has already spent $30 million to $40 million on its pursuit of a casino license in Springfield, and “to not even be able to open our facility . . . I think is troubling.”

 

A decision on the repeal measure is expected this summer. Secretary of State William F. Galvin needs to know the outcome of the case by July 9 in order to prepare the ballots.

Galvin said Monday that casino opponents will be permitted to collect required signatures while the court deliberates. Those seeking to repeal the casino law must collect 11,485 new, valid signatures by June 18 to stay in contention for a spot on the ballot, he said.

Ribeiro said he is confident the anticasino group will collect enough signatures.

Repeal proponents want the court to overrule a decision by Attorney General Martha Coakley that the repeal petition is unconstitutional and should not appear on the ballot.

Coakley rejected the petition because the repeal would “impair the implied contracts” between the state gambling commission and casino license applicants and illegally take those contract rights without compensation, the attorney general has argued in court documents.

The gambling commission has already awarded one license, for a slot machine parlor, to a Penn National Gaming project in Plainville. During Monday’s arguments, Justice Robert Cordy cited the slot license in sharp questioning of Thomas O. Bean, the lawyer for those seeking a repeal vote.

“So a five-year exclusive license that has already been awarded after a thorough process outlined by the Legislature, at great cost to the applicant, can simply be taken away with a big never mind?” Cordy asked Bean.

“Yes,’’ Bean replied.

At another point, Cordy pressed Bean again.

“They can do this without compensation, without compensation for all of the investments that were made at the encouragement of the Legislature?” asked Cordy, who was legal counsel to former governor William Weld, a Republican, before joining the SJC. “They can do it without compensation?”

“That is correct,’’ Bean said.

“Wow!” Cordy replied.

Bean was insistent that the process used by the state gambling commission did not obligate taxpayers to compensate casino companies if the state shifts gears and bans, rather than welcomes, legalized gambling.

Moreover, Bean said that casino companies have known since the gambling law took effect three years ago that people were trying to repeal it. The companies decided to risk their own cash, and taxpayers should not be forced to compensate them for their actions, he said.

But Carl Valvo, the lawyer for casino gambling advocates, said that the law was designed to combat the “evils of unemployment’’ and the “evils of blighted communities’’ and that unilaterally changing the rules would require compensation to the casinos.

Justice Ralph Gants, who has been nominated by Governor Deval Patrick to become the next chief justice of the SJC, asked Valvo whether the state could be required to compensate casino companies for “billions of dollars’’ in lost profits?

“The Commonwealth would be subject to compensation for the taking of the license,’’ Valvo said.

Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks told the court that taxpayers could be forced to repay some of the money spent by the industry, but only under limited circumstances.

Under questioning from the justices, Sacks said the gambling commission retains the power to reject all the applications and not issue casino licenses.

“But that doesn’t mean the procurement process can be just canceled in the middle after everyone has invested a substantial amount of money,” he said. Casino applicants, he said, have implied contracts with the state that entitle them to a decision on their applications, even if that decision is no.

While Cordy, for one, sounded skeptical that the repeal should be permitted to go forward, lawyers who frequently watch the court said it is hard to project how the justices will rule from the questions they ask at oral arguments.

Despite the possibility of repeal, the gambling commission continues working toward awarding the casino licenses it controls.

Two projects, Wynn Resorts in Everett and Mohegan Sun in Revere, are competing for the sole resort casino license in Greater Boston. The commission expects to choose the winner later this year.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/05/sjc-hears-arguments-possible-compensation-for-casinos-gambling-law-repealed/CSHdK0NRf8gyG9JdCvY7dK/story.html

The Casino Predators don't want you to vote!

The more Massachusetts voters learn about the Predatory Gambling Industry, the more they OPPOSE subsidizing these giants!

That MGM offered self-defeating message that repeal is anti-business is simply false. The crushing impact of state subsidized multi-national billion dollar monopolies with special advantages and protections is the attack on businesses and the regional economies of Massachusetts.
Please note that the SJC matter has nothing to do with business climate and economic development. The merging of the two is a ploy to distract from the legal technicalities of the court case.

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!  The only sensible solution.

Casino repeal goes to Mass. SJC



(NECN: Peter Howe, Boston) - The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has already awarded a license for a slots parlor in Plainville, the Plainridge Park Casino, and appears to be weeks away from awarding MGM Springfield the western Massachusetts casino license.

Monday morning, the state’s highest court took up oral arguments over an important question: Is it too late for voters to get a chance to say "no?"

Attorney General Martha Coakley has ruled, on technical grounds involving state constitutional protections around private property rights, the referendum to repeal the 2011 law authorizing up to three destination resort casinos and a slots parlor should not be allowed on the Nov. 4 state ballot.

MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis warned that his company is already thinking about suing the state if the question is allowed on the ballot and gets approved.

"I’m very hopeful that our legal argument would prevail, but certainly, we would preserve all our legal rights, as we would have to" if the question wins, Mathis said.

What’s before the Supreme Judicial Court is an extraordinarily knotty set of questions about just what kinds of "property rights" casino applicants and casino license winners have, and at what stage in the process, and what legally can be voted away by voters at the ballot box.

Justices including Margot Botsford and Ralph Gants seemed to struggle with Coakley’s office’s logic that casino license holders could have their licenses revoked at any time – but companies that are in the process of applying for a casino license have a property right that can’t, under the state constitution, be removed without compensation.

Justice Robert J. Cordy, in his questioning, appeared to express astonishment at the idea companies could invest millions in seeking and winning casino licenses and then have those licenses suddenly revoked. Of course, court experts always warn that justice’s questions from the bench can’t reliably be taken as indicators of how they’ll ultimately rule.

John Ribeiro, the head of ballot question committee Repeal The Casino Deal, said he was encouraged by how the questioning went.

"By the way I read it, I think we're going to be on the ballot in November. If common sense prevails, we'll be on the ballot in November," said Ribeiro.

Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, who has crusaded for years against casinos as a predatory industry that would be bad for the state’s economy and culture, explained what he said was the more narrow finding the SJC should reach.

"People have a right to vote," he said. "That's all this is about. It's not about the policy arguments. It's about whether people have a right to vote on this very important issue."

Chief Justice Roderick J. Ireland, in a question from the bench, made clear that members of the court have heard some business-community leaders’ arguments that a repeal would hurt the state's business climate.

"What you do you say," Ireland asked, "to the argument that has been made, if you prevail, this will have a chilling effect on all businesses in the future that are thinking about engaging in activities in this state?"

Casino foes outside court said polls show more and more Bay Staters recognize casinos just drain dollars from other businesses, especially entertainment and hospitality businesses, and create a wave of social problems like gambling addiction, personal bankruptcy, family strife, divorce, and suicides.

"The more people learn about casinos, the less likely they are to have one nearby," Ribeiro said. "What this is all about is giving all the people in the state the right to vote on this."


With videographer Christopher D. Garvin and video editor Mike Bellwin



http://www.necn.com/05/05/14/Casino-repeal-goes-to-Mass-SJC/landing_business.html?blockID=866014&feedID=11106

Experts: Martha Coakley opposition to casino question may backfire

Experts: Martha Coakley opposition to casino question may backfire

Monday, May 5, 2014

By:

Jack Encarnacao

 

Attorney general and gubernatorial hopeful Martha Coakley will put herself firmly in the cross hairs of the divisive casino debate today when her office argues before the Supreme Judicial Court that people should not be allowed to vote on a ballot measure to overturn the state’s casino law, according to political observers on both sides of the aisle.

Democratic political strategist Scott Ferson, who formerly represented the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe in its quest to open a casino, said the case will be a problem for Coakley “if one of her opponents picks up the baton and hits her over the head with it.”

Charley Manning, longtime adviser to Bay State GOP candidates, including Mitt Romney, said,
“We’ve always been a state where people like to have their say-so on important issues, and casino gambling is an important issue. Politically, it’s going to hurt her in this campaign season.”

Coakley in September denied a petition to place a casino repeal on the November ballot because she argues it violates the implied contract rights of casino developers who have spent millions applying for licenses. The group Repeal the Casino Deal, which has gathered more than 73,000 signatures, appealed her decision to the SJC, which will hear arguments today.

Coakley’s stance has highlighted an awkward arrangement — her campaign strategist Doug Rubin and his firm, Northwind Strategies, also represents Suffolk Downs, partners with Mohegan Sun in the hunt for the lucrative Boston-area casino license. It also comes as polling indicates a softening of casino support in the Bay State, as communities have voted proposals down and the state Gaming Commission struggles to keep on schedule amid a host of controversies. Rubin has denied any involvement in Coakley’s decision to deny the ballot question.

“The Attorney General’s Office conducted an independent and strictly legal review of the ballot initiative,” Coakley’s campaign said in a statement issued yesterday. “The Attorney General believes the most important thing is that we get the right result, and her office will work cooperatively with all parties once the Court issues a final ruling.”

Justices today will hear arguments from Coakley’s staff, a lawyer for the Repeal the Casino Deal ballot committee and one representing other intervening parties, including casino license applicants.

A decision likely will be issued sometime in June.

Thomas Bean, an attorney for the repeal group, said Coakley is overreaching in applying principles related to public bidding laws to casino regulation.

“We believe there is no implied contract,” Bean said. “The people should have the opportunity to enact laws in the way the Legislature does, if the people think the Legislature has gone in a direction with which the people disagree.”


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2014/05/experts_martha_coakley_opposition_to_casino_question_may?utm_source=ML+14%2F05%2F05+%28ACLU+%2B+SEIU+509%29&utm_campaign=20140505ML&utm_medium=email

 

SJC will hear bid for ballot item to repeal casino law

Much at stake in repeal effort

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe Staff May 05, 2014

 

 

The state’s highest court on Monday is expected to hear two irreconcilable positions in a high-profile case about access to the statewide ballot, and the outcome could decide the future of the gambling industry in Massachusetts.

Casino opponents have asked the Supreme Judicial Court to permit a measure seeking the repeal of the state casino law to appear on the November ballot. If such a referendum passed, it would roll back the casino industry in Massachusetts, three years after lawmakers passed legislation to open the state to Las Vegas-style gambling.

 

Those fighting the repeal say the casino issue was debated ad nauseam in the Legislature for years, and Massachusetts should not chase away an industry poised to invest billions of dollars in the state’s struggling cities.

It will be up to the court to decide whether the repeal may go forward to the ballot. A decision is expected this summer. Secretary of State William F. Galvin needs to know the outcome by July 9 in order to have enough time to prepare the ballot, according to court documents. If the repeal goes ahead, casino industry leaders say their development efforts would be hamstrung until the issue is decided at the election. The state gambling commission “has not and will not take a position on either the SJC proceedings or the repeal effort,” said its chairman, Stephen Crosby, in a statement.

Governor Deval Patrick said he had not thought about the legal question of whether the repeal should qualify for the ballot, but offered a strong defense of the law he signed in 2011. “It’s a thoughtful bill being thoughtfully implemented . . . and I think done with great care,” Patrick said Friday. “It will be good for the Commonwealth.”

The gambling industry already has had a bumpy rollout in Massachusetts, punctuated by lawsuits, failed local referendums, sniping between communities, and, most recently, a public dispute over Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s efforts to assert authority over two casino proposals on the city’s borders with Revere and Everett.

John Ribeiro, the 44-year-old Winthrop activist who leads the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign, said gambling opponents had anticipated the repeal would gain momentum when the state moved toward licensing as many as three resort casinos and one slot parlor.

 

“We recognized the flaws in the law and that it would be messy,” Ribeiro said. “Now you have Boston pitted against Revere, pitted against Everett. You have Winthrop left out in the cold. You have other communities around the state that are in the same situation — they have no say.

“You can’t simplify it any more than the people should have a right to vote,” he added.

However, former state economic development secretary Dan O’Connell, head of the business advocacy group Massachusetts Competitive Partnership, said the repeal effort sends bad signals to businesses looking to expand into Massachusetts.

“We’re concerned about changing the rules in the middle of the game,” O’Connell said. “If this issue is rehashed once again on the ballot — a rather blunt-edged way to deal with a public policy issue — we don’t think that’s a good thing for the state’s reputation, and for a business-friendly climate of regulatory predictability.”

Despite the possibility of a repeal, the state gambling commission has continued working toward awarding the casino licenses it controls.

In February, the commission chose a Penn National Gaming project in Plainville as the winner of the state’s sole slot parlor license. The commission has just one viable applicant for the Western Massachusetts resort casino license: an MGM proposal in Springfield. MGM has asked regulators not to officially award MGM the license until the repeal is settled.

Two projects are competing for the Greater Boston license: Wynn Resorts in Everett and Mohegan Sun in Revere. The commission expects to choose the winner later this year.

A resort casino license in Southeastern Massachusetts is on a later timetable.

Casinos have gone before the voters in municipal elections over the past year, with mixed results. Voters in Revere, Springfield, Everett, Plainville, Leominster, and Raynham supported the industry; voters in West Springfield, Palmer, East Boston, and Milford rejected it.

Casino opponents had hoped to get the repeal onto the ballot without going through the courts, but state Attorney General Martha Coakley dealt the repeal effort a setback last fall, concluding that the petition was unconstitutional. Coakley said the repeal would “impair the implied contracts between the commission and gaming license applicants” and illegally take those contract rights without compensation.

Leaders of the repeal movement appealed to the Supreme Judicial Court, and collected signatures while the appeal was pending. They collected more than the minimum 68,911 valid signatures necessary to qualify to go forward, if they get a favorable ruling from the court.

Lawyers for the repeal campaign say there are no valid implied contracts between the operators and the gambling commission. “Having voluntarily entered into a heavily regulated industry subject to pervasive government control, applicants lack a private property interest that requires compensation when the government chooses to modify the program that created the benefit in the first place,” the repeal campaign has argued in court documents.

Parties on both sides have weighed in with briefs in the case, including Mayor Domenic Sarno of Springfield, the town of Plainville, the Massachusetts Building Trades Council, and the antigambling group Stop Predatory Gambling.




http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/04/state-highest-court-hear-casino-law-repeal-case/OmsgACLMem3MrRmdQz609L/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline

The legal fight

Coakley sides with pro- and anti-casino forces on petition

BY: Bruce Mohl

May 01, 2014

 

Links to all the briefs filed with the SJC can be found here.


As the Supreme Judicial Court prepares to hear arguments on whether a question repealing the state’s casino gambling law should appear on the November ballot, Attorney General Martha Coakley finds herself in an odd position, putting forward legal arguments in the case that side with casino companies trying to block the question and with casino opponents working to repeal the law.

Coakley, a Democratic candidate for governor, ruled in September that the question did not belong on the ballot because it represented an illegal taking of property belonging to casino applicants. But with state regulators starting to issue slots and casino licenses, her position, focused solely on the application process, is being overtaken by events. She isn’t backing away from her legal stance, but she’s opposing other arguments by casino proponents to keep the question off the ballot. By implication, Coakley seems to be saying that if the court doesn’t accept her original argument, voters should be given the chance to vote to repeal the casino gaming law.

The central issue before the SJC is whether the ballot question would effectively take private property rights of casino and slots parlor applicants without properly compensating them for the money they’ve already spent pursuing licenses. (Ballot questions by law cannot include appropriations.)

In her briefs, Coakley focuses on what she calls the “implied contracts” that arise between the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and casino and slots parlor applicants during the application process. She basically argues that the state can’t invite companies to participate in what amounts to a bidding process for casino licenses and then cancel the process before it is completed without compensating the bidders.

“Basic fairness to those who accepted the commission’s invitation to apply for licenses, and who invested millions of dollars in the process, requires recognition of such an implied contract to complete that process,” her brief says.

But Tom Bean, the attorney representing anti-casino groups, says no implied contract exists simply because an application process is going on. Even if an implied contract does exist, Bean says, it’s a moot point because most, if not all, of the slots and casino licenses are expected to be awarded before the ballot question, if approved, becomes law.

Coakley herself acknowledged in her original rejection of the ballot question that “applicants for gaming licenses will have no property rights in any licenses they may receive at the end of the application process.” In other words, she believes a license can always be revoked by lawmakers or voters who approve a law taking away the license. But she believes the licensing process itself creates an implied contract that cannot be taken away without compensation.

In a phone interview, Bean said it was hard for him to understand Coakley’s argument that applicants for licenses had stronger property rights than actual license recipients. “From the very beginning, I didn’t think the AG’s position made any sense,” he said.

Carl Valvo, the lawyer for the casinos, goes further than Coakley on the property rights issue in his brief. While he supports her contention that license applicants acquire property rights that cannot be taken without compensation, he also says a company winning a casino or slots parlor license also acquires property rights. His claim raises a question often raised by casino opponents: How did voters shut down the state’s existing dog tracks using a 2008 ballot question without paying compensation to their owners?

Valvo points out that a dog racing license and a casino license are very different. A dog racing license was renewed annually, available to anyone, and not transferable. By contrast, a casino license lasts 15 years, requires an $85 million upfront licensing fee, grants the winner an exclusive franchise in an area of the state, and is transferable. “Based on these factors, a gaming licensee’s property interest in a duly awarded license is clear,” Valvo said in his brief.

Bean responds in his brief that the Legislature never authorized the gaming commission to enter into a binding or implied contract with casino applicants or licensees because to do so would prevent the state from exercising its “core police and regulatory powers” in overseeing gambling. He says strong legal precedents buttress his position and adds that casino applicants knew what they were getting into when they became engaged in the licensing process.

“Having voluntarily entered into a heavily regulated industry subject to pervasive government control, applicants lack a private property interest that requires compensation when the government chooses to modify the program that created the benefit in the first place,” Bean’s brief states.

Valvo layers another argument, one that hasn’t received attention to date, on top of the property rights claim. He argues that the proposed ballot question should be invalidated because it asks voters to not only ban casinos and slots but also simulcast betting on dog races held in other states around the country. He notes that a 2006 decision by the SJC held that ballot questions must be crafted so that they offer a “unified statement of public policy.” He argues dog racing and casino/slots gaming are two distinct issues that can’t legally be addressed in the same ballot question.

“Although these two policy questions may be said to be related at some high level of generality, the activities they address are quite different – each has its own regulatory history, each raises significant different issues relating to local effects (both positive and negative), and each offers economic development and revenue opportunities of markedly different kinds and magnitude,” his brief says.

In gathering signatures for the ballot petition, Valvo says, the sponsors themselves acted as if the dog-betting and casino issues were separate. Grey2K USA, which led efforts to ban dog racing in Massachusetts, asked people to sign the petition to help fight greyhound cruelty. He said the group’s pitch to would-be signatories ignored the casino issue, on which its leader said the organization had no official position. By contrast, anti-casino groups appealed for signatures without even mentioning the proposed ban on simulcasting of dog races.

Attorney General Coakley’s brief, written by her aide Peter Sacks, says the question should not be disqualified because it includes a ban on simulcast dog wagering. She argues that casinos, slot machines, and simulcast wagering on out-of-state dog races are all closely related. She notes all three forms of gambling were authorized by the 2011 gaming law, are regulated by the state gaming commission, and likely will be made available at the state’s casinos and slots parlor. The proposed slots parlor in Plainville, for example, has already been given the simulcast rights of the harness track at which it will be located.

Coakley said the fact that backers of the ballot question have different motives for advancing it doesn’t mean the issues are unrelated. She said the question offers a “unified statement of policy” by giving voters the chance to repeal key elements of the 2011 gaming law in one fell swoop. Bean, the attorney representing casino opponents before the court, sides with Coakley on this issue.

The last point of contention before the SJC is whether Coakley’s summary of the petition is accurately written. Valvo asserts the summary contains several inaccuracies that invalidate the question; Coakley disagrees.

The SJC hears oral arguments on the question Monday and then has until July to render its decision.

 

If the question makes it on to the ballot, it could become one of the dominant political issues in the fall. Groups supporting casinos are expected to spend heavily to defeat the question, while opponents will probably rely on a more grassroots campaign funded by wealthy donors who personally oppose gambling.

 

 

 

http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/Voices/Back-Story/2014/Spring/004-The-legal-fight.aspx#.U2PFx61dVyE