Lawsuits against Massachusetts Gaming Commission remain in play

Massachusetts loses bid to toss Boston lawsuit on casino

Posted: Friday, July 10, 2015

BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts gambling regulators on Thursday lost their bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Boston challenging the award of the state’s most lucrative casino license to Wynn Resorts.

In a lengthy hearing covering three lawsuits related to the Wynn project, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet Sanders denied the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s request to dismiss Boston’s lawsuit outright. The commission had argued that the city’s 153-page lawsuit was “effectively unanswerable” because it was so verbose.

The judge, addressing a range of other issues Thursday, also rejected Boston’s efforts to begin taking testimony from witnesses in the highly charged case.

Sanders said she’ll hold a Sept. 22 hearing to consider the state’s other arguments for throwing out the lawsuit. Among those arguments is that the casino licensing competition and award process is not subject to judicial review.

Thomas Frongillo, a private attorney representing Boston, said the case raises serious questions about the integrity of the state’s gambling regulatory process. “This is a significant case for the public,” he said, arguing that Boston’s lengthy complaint was warranted because the alleged misconduct pervaded virtually every aspect of the multiyear licensing process.

Boston and two other cities — Revere and Somerville — have filed separate lawsuits against the commission. The cities say commission members bent rules time and again to favor Wynn’s project over one by Mohegan Sun for the Suffolk Downs horse racing track in Revere. Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs workers also are plaintiffs in Revere’s lawsuit.

Among Boston’s many allegations are that commission members changed application rules and regulations to benefit Wynn and that Wynn representatives knew criminally suspect figures had an ownership stake in the former chemical plant site they hope to develop.

Boston recently issued 17 subpoenas to current and former state officials and others tied to the project. It alleges that former state troopers working as private investigators for Wynn may have known about the criminal ties to the property, a revelation the city says should lead Wynn to lose its license, if proven true.

Wynn, which is not a party in any of the three lawsuits, has threatened to sue Boston for defamation.

Revere also has asked the court to start the discovery process in its case. But Judge Sanders on Thursday ruled that such evidence gathering is premature.

“There are serious issues that need to be address here first,” she said.

Sanders, meanwhile, granted Somerville its request to continue its lawsuit against the gaming commission, pending the state’s review of the traffic and environmental mitigation plans for Wynn’s $1.7 billion resort casino complex for the industrial Everett waterfront across from Boston.

The three lawsuits are among a number of hurdles facing the state’s marquee casino project.

A group of Massachusetts taxpayers also have filed suit challenging Wynn’s casino project. That complaint is against Wynn and the state transit authority, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and focuses on a controversial land deal between the two.

Wynn is one of three licensed casino operators in Massachusetts. MGM is building an $800 million resort in Springfield, and Penn National Gaming operates Plainridge Park, a recently opened slots parlor in Plainville.

http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/massachusetts-loses-bid-to-toss-boston-lawsuit-on-casino/article_36e369d6-17ae-501e-9683-fd5a26ce39ae.html

Lawsuits against Massachusetts Gaming Commission remain in play

Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby, is pictured a at a public hearing in West Springfield. The commission is facing lawsuits from Boston, Somerville, and Revere, among others. (DAVE ROBACK / THE REPUBLICAN FILE)

By Gintautas Dumcius
on July 09, 2015

BOSTON - A Superior Court judge on Thursday kept alive a flurry of lawsuits against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and tied to the panel’s awarding of an Eastern Massachusetts casino license to Wynn Resorts.

The city of Boston, one of three cities suing the five-member panel of gambling regulators, alleges that the commission acted unethically and violated its own rules by giving the license to Wynn for a planned casino in neighboring Everett. The other cities make similar claims. An outside attorney hired by the city of Boston, Thomas Frongillo, says Boston was also denied “host community status,” despite the expectation that three-quarters of the Wynn casino’s traffic will go through Boston’s Charlestown neighborhood.

Earlier in the day, at a Gaming Commission meeting in South Boston, its chair Stephen Crosby defended the commission’s licensing. “Because the gaming establishment is not in Boston,” he said, when asked why Boston wasn’t designated a “host community.” “It’s right in the (state gambling) law. It’s pretty straightforward. If the gaming establishment is in a community, it’s a host community. If it isn’t, it isn’t.”

He added, “We believe we have abided by all the rules and have treated everybody fairly and have extended ourselves on behalf of many of the parties, to be sure they had a fair shot.”

The commission awarded the resort casino license to Wynn, which plans to build a $1.7 billion facility in 2014. Wynn is hoping to open the casino in 2018.

Here are several takeaways from the two-hour hearing in Suffolk Superior Court, which drew a standing-room-only crowd to watch a face-off between attorneys from the Gaming Commission; the cities of Boston, Somerville and Revere; and Mohegan Sun, which was Wynn’s rival for the license:

1. Judge Janet Sanders – who also recently handled the Partners HealthCare unsuccessful expansion bid - rejected an argument from attorneys for the Gaming Commission who said that the city of Boston’s 153-page lawsuit should be thrown out because it was too long. “The claims are meritless in addition to being too long,” said the commission’s outside attorney, David Mackey, before the judge denied the commission’s motion. The Gaming Commission is expected to take another tack in a new push to dismiss the Boston lawsuit later in July.

2. Judge Sanders encouraged the Gaming Commission to keep providing records to the plaintiffs outlining the commission’s decision to award the casino license to Wynn. The commission says it has already provided 108,000 pages of documents, but they had held some back, citing privacy and competitive casino information concerns.

3. But the subpoenas the city of Boston pushed for are on hold until the judge makes further determinations on which lawsuits move ahead. Most of the subpoenas deal with allegations of improper access to a “wiretap room” in the state attorney general’s office. The subpoenas allege that private investigators working for Wynn received access to the room. The Gaming Commission became aware of the allegations last week, when it received the subpoenas, the commission’s lawyers said. The commission’s investigations bureau is now looking into the claim. Wynn, which was not included in the city of Boston’s lawsuit against the commission, has denied the claims in the subpoenas.

4. The next big court date is in September. Judge Sanders set Sept. 22 as the day for a hearing on motions to dismiss several of the lawsuits and other legal requests. Be prepared for another couple of months of fierce fighting, through legal letters and in the press, between Boston City Hall, the Gaming Commission, and Wynn Resorts. Earlier this week, Wynn threatened to file a defamation lawsuit against the city and Boston Mayor Marty Walsh over “your campaign of falsehoods,” particularly what was included in the subpoenas. A city of Boston spokeswoman said earlier in the week Walsh stands by all the assertions city of Boston attorneys have made.

CASINOS

• Lawsuits against Massachusetts Gaming Commission remain in play
• West Springfield gets $100,000 from gambling fund; Springfield's request denied
• Gaming commission to boost MGM Springfield preservation fund
• Request to delay MGM Springfield casino to be studied by Massachusetts Gaming Commission
• Contamination found at MGM Springfield casino site

http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2015/07/lawsuits_against_massachusetts.html

Mayor, Wynn reps meet to talk casino rivalry

The planned Everett casino site.

Boston Globe

By Adam Vaccaro

Boston.com Staff | 06.11.15 | 9:03 PM

Boston Mayor Marty Walsh met this week with representatives from Wynn Resorts, the casino company at the center of the city’s lawsuit against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

The meeting Wednesday marked the first between the mayor and Wynn representatives since the city filed a lawsuit against the gaming commission in January. The suit challenged the gaming board’s decision last fall to award Wynn with the Greater Boston area’s sole casino license, to put a resort in Everett.

RELATED LINK

• Walsh doubles down in Wynn casino fight

Last year, the mayor had sought “host city” designation from the Massachusetts Gaming Commission for the prospective Everett casino. Such a designation would give residents in the neighborhood of Charlestown—which would bear the brunt of the traffic for the casino planned just over the city’s boundary with Everett—the right to vote on whether to have the resort. Host community status would also give the city significantly more leverage in seeking mitigation payments.

After the gaming commission rejected Walsh’s claim for the designation, the city and Wynn failed to reach a surrounding community agreement on mitigation pay for the casino, planned just over the city’s boundary with Everett.

Wynn received the regional license from the gaming commission in September, and the lawsuit from the city challenging that decision came in January. Walsh expanded the lawsuit in May, adding new claims. Among other things, the city is asking that the entire Boston-area licensing process be restarted, and that if the Everett casino stays, the city be granted host community status.

So, with the meeting on Wednesday, could the two sides be seeking a resolution? Walsh didn’t say much about the contents of the meeting, except to say Wynn officials reached out to arrange it.

“They reached out to us to talk about transportation issues [in Charlestown],” Walsh told Boston.com. “There’s an open lawsuit right now so we really couldn’t get into the particulars. ... They reached out to me to see if we could have a conversation, and I accepted the offer. And we sat [at City Hall] and we spoke a little bit about hypotheticals.”

Asked if the meeting was positive, Walsh said, “There’s a lawsuit, we have to figure out what to do with the lawsuit.”

No further meetings are scheduled, according to a Walsh spokesperson.

Walsh also demurred when asked whether Wynn could present a deal that would make the lawsuit go away. “No,” he said, before saying, “No comment.” He added: “It’s not a number for me, it’s about respect for Charlestown.”

Robert DeSalvio, the president of Wynn’s Everett operation, and Jacqui Krum, general counsel for Wynn, attended the meeting with the mayor. A Wynn spokesperson confirmed the meeting occurred.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2015/06/11/mayor-wynn-reps-meet-talk-casino-rivalry/M9eJqTxCpMk86G8oBDbGMJ/story.html?p1=menu_news_latest

Remember when....?

Senator 'Bad Memory' Petrucelli claimed he COMMISSIONED  a study that determined a Slot Barn at Suffolk Downs [by whatever elegant name] would cost ALL Massachusetts taxpayers + $500 MILLION.....anyone remember?

And then he refused to produce the study, sputtered, stuttered, claimed 'well....it wasn't really a report....'

In the Boston area, currently so gridlocked with traffic that folks avoid the area, you have Boston-centric political hacks who almost appear to be reasonable people convinced that additional traffic is viable.

Setting aside all other issues surrounding Predatory Gambling, what have you?

The Nip 'N Tuck King, Steve Wynn has been chased from every other location he's pursued: Foxborough, Florida, New York [because of his anti-union position], Bridgeport, CT, Pennsylvania.....

Mohegan Sun with declining revenues in Connecticut because of Gambling Market Saturation and much else.....

And a Gambling Commission that has spent extravagantly creating a legacy of lawsuits.....

You've seen how it works. The sensible solution is REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!


Hub suit could help kill casinos

Photo by:

Chitose Suzuki

HIGH STAKES: Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh is weighing the city’s next move in its effort to obtain host community status for casinos proposed by Mohegan Sun in Revere and Wynn Resorts in Everett.

 

Saturday, May 10, 2014

By Richard Weir

 

 

A possible costly lawsuit by Boston over being rejected as a host community to proposed casinos in Revere and Everett this week could help fuel the anti-
casino movement statewide, gaming experts told the Herald.

A court fight could run up against a proposed ballot question seeking to repeal the state casino law. If the measure is approved by the Supreme Judicial Court, the question will be added to the Nov. 5 election ballot — bad timing for casino fans.

“It will slow (the licensing process) down and give all the momentum to the casino opponents,” said William Thompson, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, professor and expert on casino law and gambling. “The casino people don’t want to talk about the city boundary fight. The proponents want to talk about creating [LOW WAGE] jobs. They don’t want to have to get into a debate about one city getting screwed over another. That defeats their argument.”

Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh is now mulling his next move after the Gaming Commission this week rejected the city’s request to be a host community to the two proposed gaming palaces. The panel made Boston a surrounding community instead — ending any chance for a vote in the city on the casinos.

“We felt all along that we had a legitimate shot at being a host community. We still feel we have a shot at being a host community. Now it’s just a matter of what the process is going to be,” Walsh said yesterday.

While the mayor acknowledged a lawsuit could hit taxpayers with a “substantial cost” in legal fees, he would not rule it out.

“There’s clearly many litigation options I think that’s out there. We have to see exactly which ones we have. We have one against the decision yesterday, probably against the commission,” the mayor said.

Elaine Driscoll, a spokeswoman for the Gaming Commission, shot down a possibility Walsh raised about filing an appeal of the panel’s 4-0 vote Thursday, saying, “the gaming act does not include a provision for appealing a commission decision regarding the determination of a gaming 
establishment.”


Driscoll declined to say whether a potential lawsuit by the city would slow down or halt any action by the commission in awarding the Greater Boston-area gaming license. No date has been set for that vote.

Boston College’s Richard McGowan, an economics professor and gaming expert, said he does not believe a “long shot” lawsuit by Boston would “hinder” the commission.

“I think the commission wants to award the license and see what happens from there,” McGowan said, noting that House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo has “made it very clear” that the law intended host communities to be the municipality where the casino is physically located.

 

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/05/hub_suit_could_help_kill_casinos?

 

 

Wynn Reaches Deals With 4 Boston-Area Communities

Wynn Reaches Deals With 4 Boston-Area Communities

BOSTON (AP) — Wynn Resorts says it has signed agreements with four more Boston-area communities as it seeks to build a $1.2 billion resort-style casino in Everett.

 

The Las Vegas gambling giant announced Monday that it has reached ‘‘surrounding community’’ agreements with Cambridge and Medford and ‘‘neighboring community’’ agreements with Lynn and Melrose. The communities join Malden, which entered into a ‘‘surrounding community’’ agreement with Wynn in 2013.

 

The agreements, which can be found on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission website, include annual payments to the communities and commitments to hire local employees and use local businesses.

 

The announcement comes as the gaming commission is set to hold a public hearing May 1 on Boston’s bid to be designated a ‘‘host community’’ for Wynn’s proposed Everett casino and Mohegan Sun’s proposed casino in Revere.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/04/28/wynn-reaches-deals-with-boston-area-communities/DzUfrl2S5mu2ujkiV4B6tJ/story.html

Walsh calls for top gambling regulator to recuse himself

Yoon S. Byun/Globe staff/file 2013

Stephen Crosby.

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff April 17, 2014

 

 

 

 

Mayor Martin J. Walsh is calling on the state’s top gambling regulator to recuse himself from any decisions about licensing a casino in the Greater Boston region, accusing him of bias against the city and its efforts to gain more influence over two casino proposals just beyond its borders.

“Throughout the process, Chairman [Stephen] Crosby has made several statements, which the city deems prejudicial,” Elizabeth Dello Russo, a lawyer for the Walsh administration, wrote in a blistering letter to the commission on Thursday.

 

Dello Russo accused the commission of trying to “stack the deck” against Boston, to deny the city a fair hearing on its claim for more say over a Wynn Resorts casino proposal in Everett and a Mohegan Sun casino plan in Revere. The letter mentions a federal lawsuit by Caesars Entertainment that also accuses Crosby, chairman of the state gambling commission, of bias.

“Taken together, the pending federal lawsuit, recent commission statements, current press articles, and the commissions’ own actions, create a cloud over the proceedings when Chairman Crosby participates,” the city stated.

Crosby and the commission declined last evening to respond, through the commission’s spokeswoman, Elaine Driscoll. The commission’s legal staff is reviewing Boston’s letter, she said.

The relationship between the new mayor and the gambling commission is off to a bumpy start: Walsh last month unexpectedly upset the casino licensing sweepstakes by declaring to the commission that the city is a “host community” to the two casino projects under the 2011 state casino law, with rights to hold binding votes in Boston on the proposals.

The question of Boston’s status could have enormous influence on the development of the state’s nascent casino industry. If Boston wins “host” status, both casino projects would be in jeopardy: It is unlikely either development would survive a neighborhood referendum in Boston.

 

The mayor insists that the Charlestown neighborhood should vote on the Wynn project and that East Boston residents deserve to vote on the Mohegan Sun proposal.

The commission, in response to Walsh’s demand for “host” status, delayed its June target date for the award of the lucrative casino license, and set up a month-long process to sort out Boston’s assertions. The commission invited interested parties to submit briefs by Thursday on whether Boston qualifies as a host community for one or both of the casino projects.

Walsh, in the city’s letter, objected to the process, calling it “unfair.”

“The process . . . unreasonably limits and compromises the city’s ability to receive and present evidence in support of the city’s declarations as a host community,” and would violate Boston’s due process rights, the city told the commission. The Walsh administration also complained about an inability to present or cross-examine witnesses, pursue discovery, and to create “an appropriate evidentiary record” for a legal review in court.

“In sum, the proposed procedure represents a thinly veiled attempt to stack the deck against the city on the host community issue so that the commission” can issue the Greater Boston license “without the city’s interference in the process,” the city alleged.

The mayor’s spokeswoman, Kate Norton, warned that Walsh will not participate in a procedure he believes is unfair, and said that the city is “keeping all of its options open” in pressing its claims that it is a host community to the two proposals.

What happens next would appear to be up to the commission. The panel could move ahead and decide the host dispute without the city’s participation, and then defend the action in court if Walsh sues. Or the commission could come to some accommodation with the mayor. The commission received several briefs on Boston’s host community assertions in time for Thursday’s deadline, and intends to post them on its website by Friday, according to Driscoll.

Wynn and Mohegan Sun say their projects, while very close to the city line, are not in Boston, and therefore the city is not a host community.

Both casino companies say Boston qualifies for a lesser designation under the law that would permit Walsh to negotiate compensation to offset the negative effects of a casino, but would not give Boston neighborhoods the right to vote on the developments.

State casino law defines a host community as “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located” or proposed. A gaming establishment, under the law, is “a gaming area and any other nongaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants, or other amenities.”

Walsh has argued that both casino projects depend on Boston’s transportation network, and that the city is “a key selling point” of each project. The mayor also says that access to the Wynn development is over a private way in Boston and that the Mohegan Sun proposal at Suffolk Downs is “intimately related and cannot be disentangled from the Suffolk Downs site,” most of which lies on the East Boston side of the Boston-Revere city line.

On Thursday, Walsh raised an additional point about the Wynn proposal, urging the commission to investigate issues raised by recent Globe articles on the Everett property Wynn intends to buy, and lingering concerns about whether the sellers have undisclosed partners.

The Globe has reported that one co-owner of the proposed Everett casino site has refused a commission requirement to sign a pledge that there are no secret partners in the deal. The city of Everett is exploring a move to take the land by eminent domain and selling it to Wynn.





http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/17/mayor-martin-walsh-calls-for-state-top-gambling-regulator-recuse-himself/nVeGjMdlakuYhAb33eQi2J/story.html

 

 

 

State wants environmental study at Revere casino site

State wants environmental study at Revere casino site

Published 04/03/2014

 

Mohegan officials foresee no setback

Boston - Massachusetts officials have ordered Mohegan Sun to conduct a new environmental impact study for its proposed casino in Revere, but the developers don't see it as a setback.

Mohegan Sun officials had hoped that an earlier report prepared by Caesars Entertainment for a casino that would have straddled the East Boston-Revere line at the Suffolk Downs horse track would be enough. That proposal collapsed.

But Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard Sullivan Jr. said the plan has changed substantially from Caesars' and must be evaluated separately.

Mohegan Sun is competing with Wynn Resorts, which wants to build a casino on a former industrial site in Everett, for the lone gambling license in greater Boston.

Mohegan Sun officials said they have already been reviewing the issues raised in Sullivan's decision and can easily address most concerns. If awarded a license, they can begin construction on scheduled, they said.

"Friday's decision keeps the Mohegan Sun project on track to meet or exceed the permitting and contribution timetable detailed in our submissions with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission," Gary Luderitz, Mohegan Sun's vice president of development, told The Boston Globe.

The gambling commission, which expects to award a license by the end of June, does not require applicants to have approved environmental impact studies to receive a license, but they do need approval before construction begins.




http://www.theday.com/article/20140403/BIZ02/304039446/1044

 

Decision on Boston area casino license could be delayed

State panel will consider Boston’s case for host-city status

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe Staff April 03, 2014

 

The state gambling commission will undertake a nearly monthlong process to determine how much influence the City of Boston will have over two casino proposals on the city’s border, potentially pushing the awarding of the Greater Boston resort casino license back to August or later.

 

“We are bending over backwards to give the city a fair opportunity — a very fair opportunity — to make its case,” said commission chairman Stephen Crosby, who noted the commission had wanted to award the license in May or June. “A big price is being paid by a lot of people.”

 

At stake is whether Boston qualifies under the 2011 casino law as a “host community” to a Wynn Resorts casino plan in Everett and a Mohegan Sun casino proposal at Suffolk Downs in Revere. Host communities have the power to decide the fate of casino projects through binding referendum.

Related

• Coverage: Casino gambling in Mass.

On Thursday, the commission scheduled a hearing for May 1 on Boston’s status.

 

Mayor Martin J. Walsh last month unexpectedly declared to the commission that the city is a host community to the two projects, both very near the city line. He insists that the Charlestown neighborhood should get to vote on the Wynn project and that East Boston residents deserve to vote on the Mohegan Sun proposal.

 

The new mayor has also raised doubts about the commission’s power, under state law, to decide whether Boston qualifies as a host.

 

“There is a significant preliminary legal question concerning whether the commission has jurisdiction to decide the issue of Boston’s host community status,” Thomas Frongillo, a lawyer representing the city, wrote in a March 25 letter to the commission.

 

Walsh said through a spokesperson Thursday that “the City is now evaluating today’s response from the Gaming Commission and exploring the possible next steps in this process.”

 

State casino law defines a host community as “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located” or proposed. A “gaming establishment,” under the law, is “a gaming area and any other nongaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants, or other amenities.”

 

Walsh has said that both casino projects depend on Boston’s airport; bus and rail service; harbor tunnels; roadways; and other means of transportation, and that the city of Boston is “a key selling point” of each project. The mayor also says that access to the Wynn development is over a private way in Boston and that the Mohegan Sun proposal is “intimately related and cannot be disentangled from the Suffolk Downs site,” most of which lies on the East Boston side of the Boston-Revere city line.

 

Wynn and Mohegan Sun say their projects are not in Boston, and therefore the city is not a host community. Both casino companies say Boston qualifies for a lesser designation under the law that would permit Walsh to negotiate compensation to offset the possible negative effects of a casino, but would not give Boston neighborhoods the right to vote on the developments.

 

If Boston wins host status, both casino projects would be in jeopardy: it’s unlikely either development would survive a neighborhood referendum in Boston.

 

The commission will accept public comments on the question of Boston’s status. People or groups that want to weigh in may submit briefs by April 17. Reply briefs — directly commenting on anything raised in the original briefs — will be due by April 24.

Mark Arsenault can be reached at mark.arsenault@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @bostonglobemark

 

 

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/04/03/casino-license-award-delayed-gambling-commission-deals-with-boston-host-community-dispute/QsDaNla1Oq1B3Q33GrD81J/story.html?utm_source=ML+14%2F04%2F04&utm_campaign=20140404ML&utm_medium=email

 

 

 

 

Mohegan Math - The Real Conflict

...not exactly what Massachusetts taxpayers thought they were getting....

Walsh questions power of gambling panel in dispute

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff March 26, 2014

Globe File

Stephen Crosby (left), the head of the state gambling commission, and Boston Mayor Martin Walsh.

Mayor Martin J. Walsh is doubling down on his assertion that the city of Boston has the power to decide the fate of two casino proposals on its borders, and rejecting the authority of the state gambling commission to rule otherwise.

The city declared last week that under the 2011 casino law it is a host community to a Wynn Resorts casino plan in Everett and a Mohegan Sun casino proposal at Suffolk Downs in Revere, the thoroughbred racetrack that straddles the East Boston-Revere city line. If Walsh gets his way, the Charlestown neighborhood would win the right to vote on the Wynn project, and East Boston voters would decide the future of Mohegan Sun’s plan.

 

The commission, in response, tentatively planned a formal hearing next week to review Boston’s assertions.

But Walsh now says that the city’s declarations that it is a host community were not an invitation for the commission to get involved in the matter.

 

“To the contrary,” Thomas Frongillo, a lawyer representing the city, wrote in a follow-up letter Tuesday, “there is a significant preliminary legal question concerning whether the commission has jurisdiction to decide the issue of Boston’s host community status.

“Although the commission has apparently determined that it has jurisdiction, it cites no authority . . . to the effect that the Legislature has specifically so empowered it,” Frongillo wrote.

Walsh’s administration further assets that while state law empowers the commission to determine if a municipality qualifies for the lesser designation of “surrounding community” to a casino proposal, “the gaming act . . . contains no provision addressing how disputes concerning a municipality’s host status shall be resolved.”

State law and regulations “allow the city to determine its status as a host community,” the administration said, adding that it considers the commission’s notices of a hearing on the subject “to be invalid.”

If Walsh’s assertions hold, both casino projects would be in jeopardy. As mayor of a host community, Walsh could demand millions of dollars in compensation from each developer just to permit the projects to come to a vote.

Neither proposal would be likely to survive a neighborhood referendum in Boston, which would leave the region with no valid applicants for the state’s most lucrative gambling license.

Commissioners insisted Wednesday that the casino law gives them “clear and broad authority to make the necessary decisions on all matters regarding the interpretation and implementation of the expanded gaming statute.” In a statement, the five-member panel cited a section of state law which reads: “The power and authority granted to the commission shall be construed as broadly as necessary for the implementation, administration, and enforcement” of the casino law.

Where the dispute goes next is unknown. The commission has canceled its tentative plans for a hearing next week reviewing Boston’s host community assertions.

In the meantime, the panel “is reviewing the latest correspondence from the city of Boston and . . . considering the proper way to proceed,” the commission said.

The commission had hoped to grant the Greater Boston resort casino license by June, and it remains to be seen if the host community dispute will delay the award.

“We will take the time necessary to ensure that all parties have a fair and appropriate opportunity to present their points of view,” the commission said.

Clyde Barrow, a University of Massachusetts Dartmouth casino specialist, said the power to settle host community disputes “was left completely unresolved in the legislation.” The disagreement between Walsh and the commission could go to court if it cannot be solved by negotiations, he said.

In nearly all cases around the state, casino host community rights have gone unquestioned.

State casino law defines a host community as “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located” or proposed. A “gaming establishment,” under the law, is “a gaming area and any other nongaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants, or other amenities.”

Walsh has said that both casino projects depend on Boston’s airport, bus and rail service, harbor tunnels, roadways, and other means of transportation, and that the city of Boston is “a key selling point” of each project.

The mayor also says that access to the Wynn development site is over a private way in Boston and that the Mohegan Sun proposal is “intimately related and cannot be disentangled from the Suffolk Downs site,” most of which lies on the East Boston side of the Boston-Revere city line.

Mark Arsenault can be reached at Mark.Arsenault@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @bostonglobemark.



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/03/26/boston-mayor-martin-walsh-questions-power-state-gambling-commission-host-community-dispute/tMGF6rMZ7zIYd4rw2VsxWL/story.html



 

Meeting Scheduled with Mayor Walsh

Dear friends and neighbors,

Thank you for calling on Mayor Walsh and other representatives yesterday to speak out against the unfair ruling of the Mass Gaming Commission and to respect the vote of the people of East Boston. We must demand that our voices continue to be heard and make it clear No Eastie Casino (NEC) is as strong as ever.

As a result of NEC's ongoing requests to meet with the new mayor, we are pleased to report that we have been granted a meeting with the Mayor early next week. We thank Mayor Walsh for meeting with us and, at this point, support the legal approach Mayor Walsh and his team have taken. We will use our meeting to ask him once again to speak out against the unfair ruling of the Mass Gaming Commission and ensure the vote of East Boston is respected.

With Revere's February 25th vote rapidly approaching, Revere's casino opposition movement, Don't Gamble on Revere, is growing quickly but is in urgent need of funding and overall support. If you are interested in donating or becoming involved, please visit the group's website here: http://www.dontgamblerevere.com/.

Also, be sure to check out voices from No Eastie Casino and Don't Gamble on Revere in yesterday's WBZ broadcast:

• Walsh Debates Boston Casino Status

Thanks again and stay tuned for more,

The No Eastie Casino Team

 

 

 

Casinos top agenda at Walsh meeting

By Andrew Ryan

| Globe staff January 13, 2014

Mayor Martin J. Walsh held his first department head meeting Monday at City Hall, an event that drew 60 to 70 commissioners and Cabinet chiefs to the Eagle Room. It was standing-room-only for the 45-minute summit, which included officials from parks, finance, police, fire, public works, and more.

“Mayor Walsh convened his first department head meeting to bring the leaders of each city department together and thank them for the tremendous work they do for the people of Boston,” Walsh spokeswoman Emilee Ellison said. “He again emphasized his open door policy, inviting everyone to bring their ideas to the table.”

Walsh has appointed a handful of his own people, but the majority of department heads and Cabinet chiefs are holdovers from the administration of Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

It was another busy day for Walsh, who acknowledged he is still getting used to the pace of his new job. He spoke to reporters in the morning after addressing a conference at the Hynes Veterans Memorial Convention Center.

“When I said the line ‘one day at a time,’ I mean it literally, one day at a time,” Walsh told reporters. “I can’t tell you what’s going to happen tomorrow, but today we have a full agenda meeting a lot of State House — State House — I mean City Hall, staff.”

The most pressing issue Monday was a filing deadline for two proposed casinos. Wynn Resorts has proposed a casino in Everett, near the Boston line. Mohegan Sun has pitched a gambling resort on the Revere side of Suffolk Downs, the racetrack that straddles the East Boston-
Revere city line.

The state gambling commission rejected Walsh’s request for an extra month to review documents to determine if Boston has grounds to assert it is a host community for one or both projects.

Both developers have invited Boston to negotiate compensation for the city as a “surrounding community.”

Under state law, host communities have far more leverage in negotiations than those designated surrounding communities, and host communities have the right to vote on casino proposals.

On Monday, Walsh decided tentatively to accept Boston’s status as a “surrounding community” to both casinos, but he reserved the right to assert host status. He reiterated that he could take his fight to court, but seemed skeptical of taking legal action.

“I don’t know if there is grounds to fight the two proposals . . . but we’re going to look into that,” Walsh said. “We spoke about it over the weekend. The grounds, some people say they are there. I just think if we go that route, it’s going to be very expensive for the city.”

Earlier in the morning, Walsh gave opening remarks at the meeting of the Professional Convention Management Association, a trade group for people who put on conventions. Walsh was preceded on stage by two men dressed as pilgrims.

“As I was walking in, I guess there was some discussion of should I speak in a Dorchester accent so people really get a feel, or should I fake it,” he said. “But I don’t have to fake it. I have the real accent, and this is it.”


http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/13/mayor-martin-walsh-walsh-holds-first-department-head-meeting-facing-casino-deadline/MlbuHCSwxZVQHOKPauuzEN/story.html

 

Councilors clash over casino vote coucil

Councilors clash over casino vote coucil

A showdown is expected next week on the City Council that will pit proponents of an East Boston-only referendum on a Suffolk Downs casino against a small, but growing, number of councilors who feel the entire city should vote on the planned gaming palace.

“I’m thrilled that Councilor (Tito) Jackson agrees with me,” Councilor Matt O’Malley said in response to Jackson announcing on Boston Herald Radio yesterday he supports a citywide vote. “This is something that will affect the city, for good or for ill, and that’s why I believe every Bostonian should have an opportunity to weigh in on the issue.”

O’Malley, a backer of a citywide casino vote since 2011, said if East Boston voted for the casino but a majority of city residents opposed it — or vice versa — “that would stop the process.”

Jackson is calling for a citywide referendum, saying while Eastie will bear the brunt of increased traffic and crime spawned by a casino “there will be a human cost” in terms of “addiction issues” that will span the city.

Jackson’s sudden support of a citywide vote rankled City Councilor President Stephen J. Murphy, who argues the casino is a lawful development project approved by the state Legislature.

“I think he will rue the day as a city councilor that he opened an economic development fight with another district councilor,” Murphy said of Jackson.

Sal LaMattina, the district councilor from East Boston who has long spoken out in favor of an Eastie only vote, added: “Would I get involved in Allston-Brighton when they want to expand Harvard?”

At least one other councilor, Charles C. Yancey, who is also running for mayor, favors a citywide vote.

Councilor Frank Baker said he will make up his mind Friday, when the council’s Committee on Economic Development and Planning will hold a hearing on the casino vote. Councilor Ayanna Pressley did not return a message yesterday.

All of the other eight councilors polled by the Herald yesterday — including mayoral candidates John R. Connolly, Michael P. Ross, Rob Consalvo and Felix G. Arroyo — said despite Jackson’s shift, they won’t change their votes, contending East Boston residents should have the only vote since they will be living next to a casino.

Councilor Bill Linehan, the committee’s chairman, said Friday’s hearing, at which the casino developers and members of Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s team who crafted the city’s lucrative host agreement are to testify, will likely set the stage for a council vote next Wednesday on whether to hold the casino referendum on Nov. 5, the same day as the municipal elections.Linehan said it will take a council amendment to current state law for Boston to opt out of a ward-only vote -

See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_politics/2013/09/councilors_clash_over_casino_vote#sthash.Yq59Tgrs.dpuf

Walczak Slams Vornado For Filene's Crater!

Bill Walczak Issues Warning To Gaming Commissioner

The mayoral candidate takes aim at Vornado Realty, who brought the city that crater in Downtown Crossing.

By David S. Bernstein|Boston Daily|August 12, 2013

 

Bill Walczak has carved out an anti-casino niche for himself in the Boston mayoral race. He is now about to up the ante (so to speak), with a letter to Gaming Commissioner Stephen Crosby—in which Walczak takes aim at Vornado Realty, widely blamed around town for the gaping hole in Downtown Crossing where Filene’s Basement used to be.

Noting that the Commission last week ruled out Plainville Race Track for a slot license, on the basis of its background check on ownership, Walczak calls on Crosby to perform a similar examination of Vornado, which owns nearly 20 percent of the Suffolk Downs venture.



Here is the full text of the letter, supplied to Boston magazine by the Walczak campaign:

Dear Mr. Crosby: I applaud the Gaming Commission’s recent decision to exclude the Plainville track from contending for a slot parlor license due to its problematic financial practices by its former CEO. This lack of oversight and dubious business practices should not be allowed in the Commonwealth.

For this reason I call on you to disregard the special exemption given to the owners of the Suffolk Downs track to avoid scrutiny of its 19.9% ownership interest by Vornado Realty Trust LLC (“Vornado”), and call on you to thoroughly vet them before allowing its gaming license application to proceed. Unless Vornado has a similar background check in the process by which you evaluate the Suffolk Downs application, or unless Suffolk Downs divests itself of the Vornado interest, you should reject the Suffolk Downs application. The Suffolk Downs application already has had special consideration limiting the area for which a vote is necessary before being allowed to seek licensure, as opposed to allowing the entire city to vote on the casino, as other communities were required to do. Now they’re asking for another special favor to not have an investigation of 19.9% of its ownership.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is empowered by M.G.L c.23K, §12(a)(1) to perform background checks on any potential gaming establishment to guarantee the integrity, honesty, and good character of the applicant. Therefore, I would like to ask the Commission to compel the Vornado Realty Trust LLC to participate in a thorough background check in order to be vetted for a gaming license. This company’s history in the city of Boston and elsewhere gives me great pause and provides for grave concerns for East Boston, Suffolk Downs and the city of Boston if they are allowed to go forward without scrutiny during your licensing process.

In March 2013, Vornado placed its 19.9% share of Suffolk Downs into a blind trust, allegedly with intentions to divest it to another owner. As of today, it has not divested its interests. Though Vornado’s share is technically owned by Hemenway & Barnes, we do not know the conditions of the blind trust nor the leverage Vornado has over the current operations of Suffolk Downs. Because we do not know how long they will wait to divest their shares, and do not know what influence it could have over gaming operations, the Gaming Commission should treat Vornado as owners of Suffolk Downs, and investigate them fully like all other applicants in the licensingprocess.

Vornado has proven worthy of public distrust. In Boston, it left a cavernous hole in Downtown Crossing at the former Filene’s Department Store site from 2008 to 2012. Were it not for Mayor Menino placing pressure on the company the site would likely still be fallow. In New York City, they left the site of the iconic Alexander’s Department Store to decay until the city was forced toprovide public funding to renovate the property. The Gaming Commission and the city of Boston should examine this company fully and to the extent allowed under the gaming law for the good of all involved.
I urge you to perform a thorough investigation of Vornado.
Thank you for your time and attention to my request.
Sincerely,William J. Walczak
Candidate, Mayor of Boston