HOW MANY TIMES DO RESIDENTS HAVE TO SAY NO?

Anti-casino activists sue to block ballot question allowing 2nd Massachusetts slots parlor

A proposed ballot question would allow a second slots parlor, which a developer wants to build at Suffolk Downs.(File photo

By Shira Schoenberg | sschoenberg@repub.com 
Follow on Twitter 
on December 22, 2015

A group of anti-casino activists have appealed to Massachusetts' high court to keep a question that would allow a second slots parlor in Massachusetts – most likely at Suffolk Downs – off the 2016 ballot.

Ten Massachusetts residents who oppose expanded gambling filed a complaint with the Supreme Judicial Court against Attorney General Maura Healey and Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin.

"The suit is to encourage them to take a second look at the language and recognize this is not a statewide ballot issue," said Celeste Myers, a leader of No Eastie Casino, which was formed in 2012 and led the East Boston opposition to a proposed casino at Suffolk Downs, a racetrack that straddles Boston and Revere. Myers is one of the plaintiffs in the complaint.

Eugene McCain, who filed the ballot question petition, did not respond to requests for comment.

The proposed 2016 ballot question would allow the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to issue a second slots parlor license. Currently, only a single slots license is allowed under state law. The question specifies that the new slots parlor would have to be located near a horse racing track.

By law, a ballot question cannot apply only to one particular locality.

Healey's office, which certified that the ballot question is constitutional, found that the language is broad enough that it could apply to multiple sites.

But the anti-casino group argues that the language is clearly written to apply to only one location – Suffolk Downs.

They write in their court complaint that the only other potential sites that would fit under the language are Plainridge Park, which already has the state's first licensed slot parlor, and Brockton Fairgrounds, which is applying for a license for a resort casino and would be prohibited from filing another license application under an agreement it signed with the town of Brockton.

The anti-casino activists argue in their complaint that based on geography and on public statements by the petition filer, McCain is trying to develop a parcel of land around Suffolk Downs. So the ballot question would only affect one community and should not be voted on by the entire state.

"It's very specific to our local area," Myers said.

"The suit is to encourage them to take a second look ... and recognize this is not a statewide ballot issue."

The petition also argues that the same issue was voted on during the last statewide election. State law prohibits the approval of a ballot question that is "substantially the same" as a measure that was voted on in the previous statewide election. In 2014, voters rejected a question that would have repealed the state's law allowing casino gambling. The anti-casino group argues that this question is similar because it is an amendment to state's gambling law.

Healey's office will file a brief with the court in the coming months saying why it believes the ballot question is constitutional. The complaint will be considered by a single justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, who can either issue a ruling or transfer the case to another court.

A spokeswoman for Healey declined to comment on the substance of the case.

Galvin spokesman Brian McNiff said Galvin's office does not comment on matters pending before the court. But he noted that the decision about constitutionality is entirely up to Healey. Galvin's only involvement is to certify whether a group gathered sufficient signatures.

Although supporters of the ballot question successfully gathered 74,500 signatures, more than enough to meet the first threshold for getting a question on the 2016 ballot, the process has been quiet. Neither McCain nor an attorney who filed papers for the ballot question with Galvin's office returned phone calls or emails.

Advocates for the ballot question have not filed paperwork with the Office of Campaign and Political Finance to form an official ballot committee. An official committee is required when two or more people or organizations get together and spend money to support or oppose a ballot question. Unless McCain is working by himself, he would have to file a report if he hired a firm to collect signatures.

The Boston Globe reported in September that McCain is a real estate broker and developer living in Thailand who has an option to buy a trailer park in Revere, near Suffolk Downs. McCain told the Globe that he was considering multiple locations for a hotel and mixed-use development, which would include a slots parlor.

The 10 original signers on the petition were from West Springfield, Dover, Hull and Needham. One of them told The Republican / MassLive.com that she was not answering questions about the petition. The others did not respond to voicemail messages left on Tuesday.

Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer at Suffolk Downs, told The Republican / MassLive.com that the racetrack is monitoring the proposal but is not involved in it.

If a second license is authorized, it would still have to be granted by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Gaming Commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said the commission is not considering the issue right now, since it is out of the commission's control. "If we reach a point where we need to, we will," Driscoll said.

Suffolk Downs previously proposed hosting a resort casino. But in 2013, East Boston voters rejected the plan. Suffolk Downs then proposed building the entire casino to the Revere side of the racetrack, since Revere voters supported the plan. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, however, awarded the resort casino license to Wynn Resorts in Everett instead of to Suffolk Downs.

City of Boston officials say McCain has not reached out to them. Revere's economic development director did not return a phone call.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/12/anti-casino_activists_sue_to_b.html

CZR: Caesars Entertainment bankruptcy trial pushed back

Remember when Caesars was salivating to invade Massachusetts? 

It wasn't necessary to be a financial analyst to recognize this belly-flop!

Suffolk Downs said "YES!" 

East Boston said "NO!"  Smart move!  

Consider subscribing to the site below to receive gambling industry reports: 

CZR:  Caesars Entertainment bankruptcy trial pushed back
12:59 pm, Tue, Jun. 23, 2015

Read now »

CZR: Caesars Entertainment files bankruptcy update

Caesars was salivating to invade Massachusetts.

Gary Loveman is a slick ConMan, Mathematical Genius who revolutionized GAMBLING ADDICTION, COMPS, and tactics designed to LURE YA IN and pick your pocket!

[Several great books detail Loveman's brilliance, including Kristina Binkley's "WINNER TAKES ALL" that explains Harrah's determined 90% of their PROFITS originated from 10% of the patrons and much else.]

The only ones to loose $$$$ will be the little guys. 

Caesars Entertainment files bankruptcy update • 3:27 PM

Clark Schultz, SA News Editor

• Caesars Entertainment (NASDAQ:CZR) has filed a monthly report with the bankruptcy court for its operating unit.
• Net revenue of $346.2M and operating expenses of $418.1M were reported for the month.
• The balance sheet is the central focus of the bankruptcy with the company looking to eliminate a sizable portion of the listed debt.
• SEC filing

Read comments

Suffolk Downs survived again

Suffolk Downs survived again

Before the lights truly went dark on Suffolk Downs, Patrick received a bill for his approval extending the former horse track's simulcasting rights through March, giving the track owners three additional months to figure out what comes next after losing out on a casino license.

Sen. Anthony Petruccelli, who sponsored the original bill that would have let Suffolk Downs takes bets on out-of-state races through July 2016 without any live racing of its own, painted the move as a job saver, linking simulcasting to 100 Eastie jobs. Art courtesy of Wikipedia.

Stop Predatory Gambling and the leaders of Repeal the Casino Deal were quick to jump on an amendment slipped into a banking reform bill on Christmas Eve that would have revised the state's policy on ATMs at casinos.

Sen. Stephen Brewer, who will retire from the Legislature next week, attempted to use the banking bill as a vehicle to clarify state regulations that currently ban cash machines from the "premises" of gambling facilities. The amendment would have restricted ATMs to areas off the gaming floor.

While Brewer and backers say the change was necessary to create a level playing field between state and federal banks and address confusion about the Legislature's intent for ATMs in the 2011 casino gaming law, the swift outrage from anti-gambling groups worried about giving problem gamblers access to quick cash caused the House and Senate to back down on New Year's Eve.

With Attorney General-elect Maura Healey joining the chorus for more deliberation, the banking bill was sent to Patrick without any changes to casino ATM rules.



http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2015/01/03/28370-was-week-was-state-politics

Caesars lawsuit against gaming commission chief dismissed...for now

Caesars lawsuit against gaming commission chief dismissed

By Mark Arsenault

  | GLOBE STAFF   MAY 31, 2014

YOON S. BYUN/GLOBE STAFF/FILE 2013

Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby.

A federal judge dismissed a high-profile lawsuit Friday against Massachusetts Gaming Commission chairman Stephen Crosby, in which Las Vegas gambling giant Caesars Entertainment contended that Crosby exercised bias against the company to favor a rival casino project.

Crosby, reached by phone Friday night, said the court had backed up what the commission had said all along, that Caesars’ legal claims were “specious.”

But the gambling company is not giving up and will appeal the ruling to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Caesars said in a statement.

The lawsuit was filed in December, two months after Suffolk Downs dropped Caesars as a partner in a $1 billion casino venture at the East Boston racetrack, over concern that the company would fail its mandatory state background check. Commission investigators had raised red flags about the company, including that Caesars had signed a licensing deal with a hotel chain owned in part by a businessman allegedly tied to Russian mobsters.

Caesars said in its suit that Crosby was predisposed to favor a rival casino application by Wynn Resorts because of his past business relationship with Paul Lohnes, one owner of a plot of land in Everett where Wynn has proposed a casino.

The suit cited a controversy on Crosby’s failure to immediately file a formal disclosure of his association with Lohnes. Crosby disclosed the relationship one year after he became aware of the potential conflict, according to court documents.

In December, Crosby recused himself from a commission discussion of the Everett land, and in May he removed himself from the debate about awarding the Greater Boston resort casino license.

In a highly technical, 38-page ruling, US District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton acknowledged that it would be unconstitutional for a state official to conspire to deprive an applicant of the opportunity to compete for a state license for the purpose of favoring a former business partner.

“Such actions would shock the conscience as truly outrageous and thus constitute a violation of substantive due process,” Gorton said. “Caesars can only reach that negative conclusion, however, by assuming a series of improbable inferences, themselves resting on the shaky foundation of a number of naked assertions.

“Stripped of its sensational accusations of Crosby’s nefarious motive, assertions the court does not assume to be true at this juncture, plaintiff has simply alleged a violation of procedural due process that the court considers a close call. Courts must accept well-pled facts as true but need not indulge in improbable conspiracy theories.”

Caesars strongly disagreed with the ruling.

“Caesars and the citizens of the Commonwealth deserve to know the truth about the conduct of the leader of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, whose subsequent recusal from the [Greater Boston region] selection process has further impeded implementation of the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act,” Gary Loveman, chairman and chief executive of Caesars Entertainment said in a statement issued late Friday night.

The Expanded Gaming Act, signed by the governor in 2011, allows the establishment of three resort casinos and one slot machine parlor in Massachusetts.

“Throughout his ruling, Judge Gorton acknowledges the merits of the claims made by Caesars in its lawsuit,” Caesars stated. “The opinion states that the court is ‘disturbed by Crosby’s failure to avoid the appearance of impropriety and convinced that public trust in the casino licensing process has suffered as a result.’

“The ruling further acknowledges Crosby’s ‘ethical lapses.’ The company emphatically disagrees with the court’s assertion that it is not empowered to rule on these ‘lapses.’ ”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/30/caesars-suit-against-gaming-commission-chairman-crosby-dismissed/mk9LMTY7EV5aY5fGGojrsM/story.html

Gaming Board: There Won’t Be a Tie on E. Mass. Vote Because There Won’t Be a Tie on E. Mass. Vote

Gaming Board: There Won’t Be a Tie on E. Mass. Vote Because There Won’t Be a Tie on E. Mass. Vote

By Adam Vaccaro

Boston.com Staff

May 29, 2014

When the Eastern Massachusetts casino licensing process devolved into a hot mess earlier this month, headlined by commission chair Stephen Crosby’s recusal from any further business having to do with the license, one question stood out. What to do if the now-four-member commission’s vote on whether to award the casino to the proposed Everett and Revere sites results in a tie?

 

Worry not, because today the commission gave its answer. It translates pretty well to this: “Dude. C’mon. There won’t be a tie.”

 

From Commonwealth Magazine:

• Related

• A Whirlwind Week on Mass. Casino Scene
• First Casino License Could Be Awarded in Mid-June

[Acting chair James] McHugh expressed confidence that the plan would avoid a 2-2 impasse. "The likelihood is nonexistent after going through those tools and still be tied," he said. "It's just not going to happen.

 

Those tools refer to a question-and-presentation protocol that is meant to build consensus across the commission. The board’s previous vote—awarding a slot parlor to Penn National Gaming in Plainville—resulted in a close 3-2 vote.

 

According to MassLive, McHugh, shrugging off the mathematics that suggest a tie is very possible in a four-person vote, added: “It’s inconceivable to me that we won’t reach a decision.”

 

However, he did provide a look at what might happen in the event of the inconceivable. Developers could try and sway commissioners who remained on the fence (despite the fact they already voted—hence the tie), or the commission could ask each to come back with a final offer and vote again. But, going back to Commonwealth Magazine, that part of the plan is still sort-of-kind-of a work in progress.

McHugh said that it would be difficult to precisely predict how the applicants would go about "improving" their offers to deal with any objections.

Anyway, don’t worry about all that because there totally won’t be a tie. There won’t! There just won’t.

 

The board said it would vote on the Eastern Massachusetts license in late August or September, according to MassLive.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2014/05/29/gaming-board-there-won-tie-mass-vote-because-there-won-tie-mass-vote/U3TpwkyziMDWTLpZlzyIfL/story.html

 

 

This has NEVER been about HORSE RACING!

Suffolk Downs offers to abandon racing for casino

By Mark Arsenault and Andrea Estes

| Globe Staff May 15, 2014

 

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff/File

The owners of Suffolk Downs told state gambling regulators last month that they would close the last thoroughbred racetrack in New England if it in any way threatened to derail a proposed Mohegan Sun casino on racetrack land in Revere.


The owners of Suffolk Downs told state gambling regulators last month that they would close the last thoroughbred racetrack in New England if it in any way threatened to derail a proposed Mohegan Sun casino on racetrack land in Revere.

“If, by continuing to race, Suffolk Downs would invalidate or jeopardize Mohegan Sun’s application or gaming license, we would not do it,” wrote Charles A. Baker, the track’s secretary, in an April 30 letter to the state gambling commission. “We would not let racing or any other activity on the remainder of Suffolk Downs’ land get in the way of a successful gaming establishment . . . in Revere.”

 

Baker’s comments to state regulators appeared to undercut the track’s longstanding argument that building a casino at the track was the only way to stave off its closure. They came after a lawyer for the gambling commission told track officials that commissioners wanted to know more about a provision in the lease between Suffolk Downs and Mohegan Sun that gave track owners the option of having Mohegan Sun operate the racetrack.

City of Boston officials had flagged the provision as evidence that the track, most of which lies in East Boston, was so intertwined with the casino that the city is a “host community.” If Boston is considered a host community, it would have more power over the project, including the right to kill it with a binding vote in East Boston.

A few days after Baker received the call from the commission lawyer, Suffolk Downs deleted the provision. In the letter, which was sent to gambling commission general counsel Catherine Blue, Baker said the wording was removed and had “no further force and effect.”

Days later, with the provision deleted, the commission voted to deny Boston host status. City officials are still considering whether to file suit.

Mayor Martin J. Walsh of Boston criticized the commission Wednesday for allegedly helping Suffolk Downs weaken Boston’s case by flagging the questions over the racetrack management provision.

 

“This is a clear example of the commission demonstrating a predisposition to deny the obvious — that Boston deserves the status of a host community and the voters have an absolute right to vote,” Walsh said in a statement.

Boston officials argue that this is the second time the commission has inappropriately helped applicants eliminate potential problems. They also complained that the commission stepped in to help Wynn Resorts redo its property deal in Everett, after investigators raised the possibility that secret investors with criminal records may have undisclosed interests in the property.

“Were we to choose to file a lawsuit, this action clearly increases the likelihood of our success,” Walsh said. He has not yet said if the city will sue.

For months, track officials have been saying they would maintain racing for at least 15 years if Mohegan Sun wins the sweepstakes for the Greater Boston resort casino license, over a rival project by Wynn Resorts in Everett.

Track officials stood by that declaration Wednesday. “Suffolk Downs has never wavered in our commitment to keeping the track open as long as gaming is licensed on our property,” said Chip Tuttle, the track’s chief operating officer, in a statement.

An East Boston anticasino group is also raising questions about the call between the commission’s staff and Suffolk Downs, among other issues. Leaders of No Eastie Casino are asking for investigations by the inspector general and secretary of state into whether the regulators “colluded” with officials at Suffolk Downs to undermine the City of Boston’s attempt to win the right for its citizens to vote on the casino proposal on racetrack property.

In a letter to Inspector General Glenn Cunha and Secretary of State William F. Galvin, the group alleged that the call on the racetrack provision “was made with the specific intent of precluding the city of Boston’s claim to host community status for the gaming establishment currently proposed at Suffolk Downs.”

The commission’s spokeswoman, Elaine Driscoll, said the commission’s lawyer called representatives of Suffolk Downs to highlight items about which the commission would be looking for more information, including the racetrack provision. “At no time did the commission or its staff request the removal of that provision,” Driscoll said. “They [Suffolk Downs] voluntarily sought to remove that provision.”



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/14/suffolk-downs-offers-abandon-racing-needed-secure-casino-license/NUVtTHcRV6Allz5wSbaTfJ/story.html


 

They took their chances.

No sure bet on casinos

By Yvonne Abraham

| Globe columnist May 11, 2014
Casino backers know they’re in trouble if an initiative to repeal gambling legislation goes before voters in November. The polls are too close for comfort.

So a new front has opened in the fight to keep the question off the ballot: If voters turn back casinos, gambling boosters say, the state will be seen as hostile to business.

This bosh has traveled fast and far. Last week, it came up at the Supreme Judicial Court hearing on whether the repeal can be put to voters. “What do you say to the argument . . . that if you prevail, this will have a chilling effect on all businesses . . . that are thinking about engaging in activities here,” Chief Justice Roderick Ireland asked an attorney for casino opponents.

“Taxachusetts, in another iteration,” Judge Margot Botsford called the possible PR hit.

But repealing the legislation would say nothing about the business climate in this state. It would say nothing about state government, which beckoned gambling titans hither.

It would, however, say something about voters here. Among the possibilities: That they don’t like casinos. Or that they like it in theory, but not when faced with the prospect of casinos in their backyard. Or that they’re turned off by the ickiness they’ve seen so far, the iffy players in Everett and Suffolk Downs, the disregard for voters in East Boston, the poor judgment of Gaming Commission head Steve Crosby.

If you’re inclined to think Massachusetts is a good place to do business, a casino repeal would hardly be likely to change your mind. “It’s just scare tactics,” says David D’Alessandro, former chief executive of John Hancock. D’Alessandro, a gambling opponent, says companies are attracted to Massachusetts for its universities, its educated workforce, and the great schools and neighborhoods it offers employees and their families. A repeal would change none of that.

 

“It’s an incredible place to grow a business,” says state Senator Dan Wolf, also a casino opponent.

His Cape Air employs 500 people here. “It’s almost insulting to say voting casinos down sends a hostile message to business. It sends a message that . . . we think we can do better.”

The state is “extremely successful without gambling,” says Grand Circle Travel chief Alan Lewis, who reckons that casinos’ expensive fallout — the decline of local businesses, the attendant social problems — will hurt us in the long run.

Not everybody takes such a rosy view of our business climate. But even if you’re one of the pessimists, it’s hard to see how voters repealing the gambling legislation changes anything.

Talk to Mike Widmer, head of the business-funded Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, and you get a pretty grim picture of the climate here. It costs more to do business here, with higher prices for energy, health, labor, and unemployment insurance. A lot of companies decide the higher costs are worth it, then are driven batty by how long it takes to get anything built. “The culture of this state, it’s like chopping through the jungles of the Amazon,” he says. On top of that, there’s tax uncertainty.

We’re no longer Taxachusetts (our corporate burden is lower than most states, according to the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center), but we’ve seen increases under Democrats and Republicans. Last year’s tech tax, eventually repealed, freaked out the innovative companies that are this state’s future. On top of that, Widmer says, we’re “too smug.” Other states try harder to court new businesses.

Okeydokey, that all sounds pretty bad. But we’re supposed to believe that, with all of these woes, repealing gambling legislation would be our Waterloo? That somehow, corporate types faced with all the hurdles or all the great stuff that Massachusetts presents would look upon voters’ rejection of casinos and suddenly decide this state is not worth their time?

Come on. The only companies that should be scared away by a repeal are gambling outfits. And from the start, they knew there were a hundred ways it could fall apart. They knew Massachusetts had banned live greyhound racing at the ballot in 2008. They knew a repeal effort began just days after the gaming law was signed.

They took their chances.



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/05/10/sure-bet-casinos/gvyvusvjkXVfw6AxrWIFHO/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....

Boston seeks do-over on casino designs

 

Boston seeks do-over on casino designs
Monday, March 24, 2014

By:Jack Encarnacao

Boston wants the state’s environmental secretary to send Suffolk Downs back to the drawing board, arguing the engineering studies are based mainly on the jettisoned plan for a Caesars casino in East Boston — not the new Mohegan Sun site in Revere.

City Hall’s comment letters call on Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan to compel the developers to generate a new impact report that reflects the Revere plan, after Mohegan relied on engineering that was done for the rejected Caesars Entertainment casino on the track’s Eastie side.

The city wants Sullivan to combine his review of the Revere casino and East Boston horse stable demolition projects — filed separately on the theory that the stable work is unrelated to the casino, effectively denying Boston that basis to claim host community status.

City lawyer Elizabeth Dello Russo calls Mohegan and Suffolk’s separated plans “inadequate and legally inappropriate,” citing regulations designed to prevent developers from segmenting projects to avoid environmental review thresholds.

“The secretary should require the re-filing of appropriate documentation to allow for the necessary public and agency comment as required in order to avoid, minimize and mitigate damage to the environment,” Dello Russo writes, arguing the plans are connected because Suffolk would be Mohegan’s landlord and share in casino profits.

Mohegan CEO Mitchell Etess countered in a statement, “Extensive research, community process and multiple studies clearly demonstrate that the project has no unmitigated measurable impacts. With that said we remain committed to working with the Commission and the City of Boston to answer any questions they may have as this project moves forward.”

Boston’s comment letters on the Mohegan plan also say:

• There was no alternative pitched to Boston for a Route 1A flyover road that was part of the Caesars casino plan in Eastie.

• There needs to be further discussion of “odor impacts” from manure in proposed new barns on Suffolk Downs’ Boston side, to include “maximum storage durations for each pile” and estimates of “maximum odor generation potential on a peak summer day, in odor units per second.”

•  City zoning relief would be required to allow for the “accessory keeping of animals” in the stables.

The city’s letters were delivered Friday, a day after Mayor Martin J. Walsh appeared before the state Gaming Commission to argue that Boston should be host to Mohegan’s casino and its license competitor, Wynn Resorts in Everett, in part because the properties are accessed by Hub roads and transit assets. The city delivered similar comments last month on the Wynn proposal, finding wide-ranging fault with traffic counts, proposed road improvements, and contamination cleanup plans.


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/03/boston_seeks_do_over_on_casino_designs?utm_source=Copy+of+ML+14%2F03%2F24&utm_campaign=20140324ML&utm_medium=email

Caesars accuses state gaming czar of cashing in IOU

Claims bias doomed casino bid

Photo by:

John Wilcox

OLD TIES EYED: The owner of the proposed casino site in Everett apparently invested in a company formerly owned by Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby.


Friday, March 14, 2014

By:

Jack Encarnacao

 

The owner of the proposed Everett casino site apparently lost on his investment in a company once owned by Massachusetts gaming czar Stephen Crosby, according to a Gaming Commission report.

Now lawyers for Caesars Entertainment are citing that as the reason for the state’s unflattering background check on the Las Vegas gambling giant that caused Suffolk Downs to drop Caesars as its partner, throwing their East Boston bid into chaos.

A transcript of a Feb. 26 hearing reviewed by the Herald shows Caesars lawyer Joan Lukey telling a judge that Everett site owner Paul Lohnes “invested or loaned” in Crosby’s company, “saving it and Mr. Crosby from financial ruin,” and that Crosby was “biased against Caesars and (Suffolk Downs) from the beginning” due to his friendship with, and debt to, Lohnes.

“We also know facts about whether he was paid back or not, which would be relevant to this court,” Lukey said, adding that said facts became known after Caesars filed its amended complaint, so can’t yet be specified in court.

Lukey and Caesars declined to comment. The Herald has learned that part of Lukey’s basis is a Gaming Commission report released Dec. 16 that says Crosby solicited Lohnes to invest in his publishing company in 1983, and that the company was sold in 1990 after it “experienced only limited success.”

“While records have been lost, it appears that Lohnes did not recoup his investment, neither was he entitled to any recoupment according to the terms of his loan,” reads the report, which explored the background of Wynn Resorts and the ownership history of the Everett land Wynn would build on if the commission grants it the sole Boston-area casino license.

The Gaming Commission report goes on to say Crosby and Lohnes have had limited contact with one another since 1990, meeting “purely socially” no more than 10 times over the past 23 years and were together at a May 2012 dinner party at the home of a mutual friend.

Crosby declined to comment on the loan repayment, citing the ongoing litigation. Lohnes could not be reached for comment.

“As we have said before, this lawsuit filed by a disappointed party is groundless and we are confident that we will prevail,” commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said. “We look forward to responding to the allegations at the appropriate time. In the meantime, we will continue to mount a vigorous defense.”

Former state Inspector General Gregory Sullivan, research director at the Pioneer Institute, who’s called for Crosby to recuse himself from the Boston-area casino vote due to his ties to Lohnes, said Caesars appears to be laying the groundwork to claim Crosby wants to pay Lohnes back by voting for the Everett casino.

“If Caesars could demonstrate that there’s an unpaid obligation outstanding by Crosby to Lohnes, then that would be strong evidence of the fact that there was a conflict,” Sullivan said. “Lohnes’ loan and/or his ownership interest would represent the quid, and the awarding of the casino would be the quo.”

Crosby recused himself from the commission’s Dec. 13 vote on Wynn’s land option, which reduced the sale price from 
$75 million to $35 million, which the commission considered fair market value.


http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/03/caesars_accuses_state_gaming_czar_of_cashing_in_iou


 

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

 

Massachusetts taxpayers get porked again!


And the COST OF INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS will only cost......?


 And no one asks.......

Revere Casino: 42 Acres of Money-Printing, Apparently

Thursday, December 26, 2013, by Tom Acitelli

[Via The Boston Globe]
Above is a rendering, shooting star included, of the would-be casino at Suffolk Downs, the one to be built entirely within Revere now that Eastie has washed its hands of the affair.

Details on the spread and its hoped-for revenue right this way. >>

The casino-resort, to be built by gaming kingpins Mohegan Sun and subject to another vote in February as well as a state O.K., would unfold over approximately 42 acres and would include about 4,000 slot machines, 100 game tables and a poker room.

And! As far as Revere's winnings, the city would get $33 million upfront from Mohegan Sun, according to a newly released host agreement; and a minimum payment of $25 million each of the casino-resort's first three years. If, however, the gambling den really cleans up, Revere could get that much more. As The Globe's Mark Arsenault put it: "In other words, if the casino topped $850 million in gambling revenue by just one dollar in any of its first three years, the city's payment would increase by more than $1 million." It's a can't lose, right?

Meanwhile, neighboring Boston is withholding judgment upon the Revere casino until Mayor-elect Marty Walsh takes office next month. Stay tuned.

· Revere's Cut for Suffolk Downs Casino Might Grow [Globe]
· Revere Trumps Boston in New Deal [Herald]
· Our complete casinos coverage [Curbed Boston]


http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2013/12/httpwwwbostonglobecommetro20131225reverecutforsuffolkdownscasinomightgrowm4yg51oduwsey8e5qe0kxistory.php

 

Sorry for you, Revere!

East Boston , Everett , Malden , Revere

Revere casino vote set for February 25

Posted by Your Town December 27, 2013

 

By State House News Service

 

Following a Revere City Council vote to set Tuesday, Feb. 25 as the date for a referendum vote, Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs on Friday launched a campaign to build support for its $1 billion resort casino proposal.

Voters in Revere will vote up or down on the recently announced host community agreement with Mohegan Sun, which guarantees the city between $25 million and $30 million in annual revenue, up to $33 million in pre-opening payments, about $45 million in infrastructure improvements, and new athletic fields.

After Palmer voters rejected Mohegan Sun’s plans for a resort casino in that town and East Boston voters turned down a casino at the East Boston racetrack, Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs teamed up on a revised casino plan on 52 acres owned by Suffolk Downs in Revere, where voters in early November had approved plans for the East Boston casino.

The Revere casino plan is competing with Steve Wynn’s Everett casino proposal for the eastern Massachusetts license.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/2013/12/revere_casino_vote_set_for_february_25.html?camp=localsearch:on:twit:HLboston/eastboston&dlvrit=1106843