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

Island Tribe to move ahead with Class II casino

New leadership to follow plan for bingo & poker on the Vineyard

Article | News | February 25, 2014 - 10:50am | By Walter Brooks

 

Aquinnah Wampanoags vote again for a Class II casino

New leadership will follow plans for bingo, poker on island

Vineyard bingo buffs and poker partisans may soon be able to save a boat ride to the Cape and a bus ride to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun to lose their money if the latest development in the local Wampanoag Tribe's effort to establish a Class II casino in Aquinnah is successful.

Last week a new referendum vote by the members of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Martha's Vineyard failed to overturn the decision by two votes to prevent the tribe from proceeding with plans for a Class II casino although the town will still have to approve a bylaw change to allow it.

According to a story in the Vineyard Gazette, the new tribal chairman Tobias Vanderhoop told the newspaper, “The outcome of the referendum did not change the previous two actions that had endorsed the proposal of a casino project here. At this point, the previous actions remain enforced and the project will move forward."

A 6,000 square foot Class II Casino cometh

The plans call for the 6,000-square-foot community center on right in Aquinnah to be converted into a Class II gaming facility.

Class II gaming may be conducted by a tribe if it is located within a state that permits such gaming for any purpose by any person, organization or entity and such gaming is not otherwise specifically prohibited on Indian lands by federal law.


Class II gaming is a unique and rather strange gaming classification. It exists only in the U.S. and deals only with Native American gaming. In Class II gaming, players are competing against each other rather than against the house. Before a Class II “slot machine” game can be played, therefore, there must be at least two players who are playing at the same time.

Governor is still in the way

Gov. Deval Patrick has filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed gaming facility on Martha's Vineyard.

The governor is asking the Supreme Judicial Court to affirm a 1983 land settlement between the Commonwealth and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head in which the state contends the tribe forfeited its right to tribal gaming on the island.

According to the Aquinnah, Class II gaming is regulated solely by the tribe and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and includes “a variety of machine games, bingo and poker.” Casino gaming is considered Class III gaming.

Tribe to move ahead with temporary gaming facility

The tribe plans to move ahead with plans to convert an unfinished community center in Aquinnah into a temporary gaming facility, and former Tribal Chairman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais had said its gaming facility would “blend in with the rest of the island” and the tribe would work with local businesses.

Wikepedia states that "Class II gaming is defined as the game of chance commonly known as bingo (whether or not electronic, computer, or other technological aids are used in connection therewith) and, if played in the same location as the bingo, pull tabs, punch board, tip jars, instant bingo, and other games similar to bingo. Class II gaming also includes non-banked card games, that is, games that are played exclusively against other players rather than against the house or a player acting as a bank. The Act specifically excludes slot machines or electronic facsimiles of any game of chance from the definition of class II games".

Read the story in the Vineyard Gazette here.

Related Content:

Governor sues Aquinnahs to stop Island casino

Aquinnah move upsets state's casino scenario

Gov. Patrick unmoved by new Aquinnah claim

Martha's Vineyard Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe to build a casino on the island

Aquinnahs switch lawsuit to Federal Court - Mass. has a $2 million Powerball winner

Vanderhoop election unsettles gaming scene

Gaming Games

 

 

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/02/25/24274-island-tribe-move-ahead-class-ii-casino

 

 

....the proposed Aquinnah casino....

One more reason to REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

We can thank the Bobble Heads for bringing endless lawsuits and fights to the Commonwealth!

Home of the NEW Aquinnah Casino!

 

Tribal referendum fails to defeat proposed Aquinnah casino

 

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

February 25, 2014

 

A referendum before the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) to kill an island casino failed to get the necessary two-thirds majority during a recent vote, a tribe member confirmed today.

 

The referendum sought to overturn an earlier vote by the membership to open a small gambling facility in the tribe's unfinished community center on tribal lands in Aquinnah.

 

“It failed by three votes,” said Beverly Wright, chairman of the town's Board of Selectmen and a tribe member.

 

According to the tribe's constitution, the question can't be brought before tribe members for another year, Wright said. "I don't know of anyone in the town who is in favor of the facility being built in Aquinnah," she said.

 

Wright supports the tribe's rights to a casino under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, but opposes a casino on Martha's Vineyard, she said.

 

Tribe leaders did not immediately return calls or emails Tuesday morning, but Tobias Vanderhoop, chairman of the tribal council, told the Vineyard Gazette that the referendum did not change two previous votes of the tribal membership. “At this point, the previous actions remain enforced and the project will move forward,” Vanderhoop is quoted as saying by the island newspaper.

 

The tribe contends it has federal rights to a casino on tribal lands under IGRA, which is disputed by Gov. Deval Patrick. The dispute is currently being argued in legal briefs in U.S. District Court in Boston.

 

Patrick filed suit with a single justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court seeking to block an island casino, but tribe attorneys recently had the case moved to federal court. In the latest brief filed Monday, tribe attorneys seek to have the case remain in federal court where the question of whether IGRA trumps the tribe's land settlement is best answered, according to court documents.

 

The tribe attorneys cite two opinions from federal agencies within the past year that the tribe is authorized to provide gambling on tribal lands, records show.

 

The ongoing case, as well as the tribe's vow to open an island casino remains a wild card in the ongoing discussion of licensing commercial casinos in the Bay State.

 

On Tuesday, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission began deliberations that are expected to culminate in issuing the state's first license for a slot parlor on Friday. Commissioner James McHugh briefly mentioned the Aquinnah proposal, though he acknowledged not knowing much about it.

 

In early deliberations over site design, slot parlors proposed in Leominster and Plainville are ahead of a slot parlor proposed in Raynham, which was criticized by McHugh for lack of details.

 

The state's other federally-recognized tribe, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, has an approved a compact with Patrick for a $500 million Taunton casino. The Mashpee tribe is awaiting separate approval of its land application with the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140225/NEWS11/140229806

 

 

 

Massachusetts Gambling Commission: Out of Control!

There is simply no excuse for the excesses by the Massachusetts Gambling Commission nor its staffers!

Put a bunch of political hacks in charge of the $$$ and they run amok!

Dear sirs and madams,

I am appalled. Please see the BBJ article linked below.

Is this acceptable to you?  

 

How can legislators, Governor Patrick and candidates for office refuse to address these egregious abuses of the public trust? 

 

Every superfluous dime spent on and by the MGC is funding that is not going to support taxpayers and off-set the costs of the predatory gambling industry.

 

People, infrastructure, institutions are suffering and failing.  

 

These behaviors, excesses and wrong-headed government sponsored actions are inexcusable.

 

Some of you are directly responsible for setting this in motion and culpable for not intervening on the fiscal arrogance being demonstrated by the Mass Gaming Commission.

What will you do to stop this flagrant practice of expenditures that has no ethical or moral standing to be part of our government?

This is wrong. 

 

Kathleen

BBJ preview: How the Mass. Gaming Commission plays by its own rules

Craig Douglas

Managing Editor, Online & Research- Boston Business Journal

Email | Twitter

View Slideshow

Airfare: According to gaming commission reimbursement and credit-card reports, the agency's staffers spent approximately $85,000 on flights in the U.S. and to destinations abroad between May 2012 and Jan. 1, 2014. In one example, a commission staffer took a one-way flight from Hong Kong to Boston priced at $7,257.

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission has left no stone unturned in its rigorous, years-long effort to hand pick the list of casino operators who will ultimately operate in the Bay State. Nor have the commission and its politically connected staffers spared many expenses while traveling near and far.

Tomorrow’s Boston Business Journal provides an in-depth analysis of credit card statements and reimbursement reports highlighting repeated instances of lavish employee spending since the commission’s inception two years ago. The expenditures, which have been criticized by a state watchdog and at least one casino-license applicant, include dozens of charges at luxury hotels and top-rated restaurants in major cities throughout the world.

And unlike other state agencies, the gaming commission has operated without formal guidelines on the amounts and types of personal spending and travel permitted among its employees.

Members of the gaming commission have defended the agency’s spending as necessary and proper.


In doing so, they emphasized the commission’s daunting mission and tight timeline to establish a new multibillion-dollar industry for the state. Those same officials also reiterated that a considerable amount of the MGC’s costs, some $15 million to date, have been reimbursed by casino operators.

Nonetheless, examples of the commission’s extreme spending are many; the accompanying slide show offers a summary of some of the the commission's documented spending to date.

The BBJ's full coverage of the gaming commission and its spending records will be available online and in print Friday, Feb. 21.


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/bottom_line/2014/02/bbj-preview-gaming-commissions.html?utm_source=ML+14%2F2%2F21&utm_campaign=20140221ML&utm_medium=email

Kudos to Joan Vennochi once again!

Doug Rubin also advised Governor 'Slot Barns' Patrick!

What does a casino share with Coakley?

By Joan Vennochi

| Globe Columnist February 13, 2014


This is a busy campaign season for political consultant Doug Rubin.

He represents Attorney General Martha Coakley in her bid to become governor. He also handles public relations for Mohegan Sun in its bid to win a casino license for the Boston region.

Sometimes, that lands Rubin and his company, Northwind Strategies, right in the middle of the same story. This week, Coakley urged Massachusetts regulators to prohibit casinos from placing liens on the homes of patrons who borrow money and then fail to pay it back. The AG’s exhortation followed a Boston Globe story about the longtime practice of two Connecticut casino operators to loan money to gamblers and then go after their homes when they don’t pay up.

One of those casino operators is Rubin’s other client — Mohegan Sun.

 

If that sounds complicated, it is.

The test for the hottest consultant in Mass. will be to keep all his interests straight — and separate.

In its initial response to questions about its credit and collection policies, Mohegan Sun defended the practice of using liens. “Your inference that our methods of seeking repayment are somehow more aggressive than other gaming companies is not accurate,” wrote Charles Bunnell, chief of staff of the Mohegan Tribe, in a letter to the Globe. After Coakley warned of the dangers of that practice, Mohegan Sun put out a statement saying “We have always indicated our willingness to work with the Gaming Commission within whatever regulatory framework they establish.”

Rubin’s shop helped craft both statements from Mohegan Sun. In the first, liens are fine. In the second, doing away with them is fine, too. Coakley’s letter to the state gambling commission came directly from the AG’s office, not from Rubin’s operation — a technical way to separate what he’s doing for two clients with, in this instance, very different interests.

“This is not an uncommon issue for consulting firms like ours to encounter,” said Rubin. “We are very careful to draw clear lines with our clients.” He said Northwind didn’t “discuss the issue” with Coakley before she sent her letter to state regulators — or before she made a decision to block a ballot question that calls for repeal of the state’s new gambling law.

As a candidate for governor, Coakley says that casinos are not her first choice for an economic development plan, but since expanded gambling is now legal in Massachusetts, she wants to make sure it’s done right. As AG, she issued a ruling last September that kept a question calling for the repeal of casino gambling off the ballot. She argued that the money casino operators put up to take part in the licensing process amounts to an implied contract with state officials; therefore, if the ballot question wins and the law is repealed, that would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property from casino operators.

The ballot question’s backers appealed the AG’s ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court, which is expected to take up the matter sometime this spring. In January, several casino companies pursuing Massachusetts gambling licenses — including Mohegan Sun — asked the SJC to let them join the suit. In their motion, the casino companies argued they have an interest in the AG’s side of the case, because their property rights are at stake.

That means Coakley and Rubin’s client are officially aligned on the referendum question. That may work well for Rubin, but it could pose problems down the road for Coakley, who is seen as the likely Democratic nominee. Republican Charlie Baker, who supports casino gambling, said he supports the voters’ right to weigh in, via ballot question.

For Rubin, being the man in the middle of Massachusetts’ biggest political stories is further proof of his ascendance in the world of consulting. His company is also involved with a local effort to bring the summer Olympics to Boston in 2024.

Last September, a lengthy Boston Magazine profile dubbed him “the hottest political consultant in Massachusetts.” In the piece, Governor Deval Patrick, for whom Rubin worked as strategist and chief of staff, called their relationship “a blessing.” Elizabeth Warren recounted how she told Rubin she would get into the Senate race only if he worked for her.

Now, in the heat of multiple campaign battles, the Bay State’s hottest consultant must keep all his interests straight — and separate.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/02/13/what-does-casino-share-with-coakley/RdEfA9czfjqwnaK7Tf09qN/story.html?s_campaign=email_BG_TodaysHeadline

 

Governor Slot Barn's Hallucination

Mass. governor unveils $36.4B budget plan that increases spending, includes gambling revenue

By STEVE LeBLANC Associated Press

First Posted: January 22, 2014

BOSTON — Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick delivered his final state budget plan to Beacon Hill lawmakers Wednesday, a $36.4 billion proposal that would increase spending by 4.9 percent over the current budget.

Patrick said his blueprint for the fiscal year starting in July seeks to expand early education, help close the achievement gap in schools, ensure affordable health care and address violence among young people and in urban areas.

"I'm proud of this budget," Patrick told reporters. "It's a good budget. It's a sensible budget."

Patrick opted not to revive a plan from last year's budget proposal that sought to hike the state's income tax rate from 5.25 percent to 6.25 percent, coupled with a reduction in the sales tax from 6.25 percent to 4.5 percent to help pay for long-term transportation needs.

Lawmakers rejected the proposal, adopting instead a 3 cent-per-gallon hike in the gasoline tax and a $1-per-pack cigarette tax increase.

"I don't think we can come back year after year asking for significant tax increases," Patrick said.

For the first time, the budget plan builds in expected gambling revenue from the state's 2011 casino law.

The budget anticipates about $20 million in revenue from the sole slots parlor allowed under the law.

That license is expected to be awarded early this year and the venue could be up and running by the end of 2014, midway through the fiscal year.

Patrick said much of the new spending in his budget proposal is focused on education, including a $100 million increase in local education aid to cities and towns, bringing total so-called Chapter 70 funding to $4.4 billion.

The $100 million works out to about an extra $25 million for each the state's K-12 students.

Patrick also wants to spend an additional $15 million in early education programs to help close a stubborn achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and white students.

The budget also proposes an extra $32.6 million for the state Department of Children and Families, including more than $9 million to help the department move toward a 15-to-1 caseload ratio for the number of families each social worker is expected to help.

The state has come under fire following the disappearance of a 5-year-old Fitchburg boy in the agency's care.

The budget also increases spending on the state Office of the Child Advocate, which is investigating the disappearance and feared death of the boy.

The budget would boost funding for the state transportation department and the MBTA by $141 million to end the practice of paying for transportation staff on the capital budget.

The budget plan also includes extra spending on helping inmates re-enter communities and discouraging youth recidivism.

There's about $97 million in additional taxes in the budget.

Patrick is again proposing $57 million in new revenue by applying the state's sales tax to candy and soda. That proposal has been rejected by lawmakers in the past, but Patrick again made the argument in favor of the tax saying the money would go to support public health and infrastructure projects.

The plan also includes another $40 million in taxes that Patrick has proposed before, including applying the room occupancy tax on transient rentals, like summer homes.

Besides taxes, the budget also relies on a $175 million withdrawal from the state's rainy day fund.

Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and Finance Glen Shor said the fund will likely remain at the level of $1.2 billion at the end of the fiscal year since 10 percent of capital gains dollars are automatically deposited in the fund.

Not everyone was pleased with the budget plan.

House Republican leader Rep. Brad Jones faulted Patrick for proposing new taxes and relying on the state's rainy day fund to balance his budget. Rebecca Haag, head of the AIDS Action Committee, said the budget doesn't provide enough money to sustain the fight against HIV and AIDS in Massachusetts.

Patrick's budget now heads to the House and Senate, who will craft and debate their own versions of the spending plan before delivering a single compromise budget to Patrick before the end of the current fiscal year June 30.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/story/738ba327ae9c413dbde6bde2c8e9a637/MA--Massachusetts-Budget

Tribe touts federal OK of compact

Tribe touts federal OK of compact

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

January 04, 2014

 

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is declaring victory and vowing to have shovels in the ground by the end of this year for its Taunton casino now that the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs has approved its state compact, essentially by default.

 

The deadline for the BIA to either approve or reject the compact within 45 days passed at midnight Friday with no action by the federal agency. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, that makes the agreement between tribe leaders and Gov. Deval Patrick a binding deal.

 

"This is a huge, huge day," Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council Chairman Cedric Cromwell said Friday. "It's a historical day for the tribe, for the state of Massachusetts and for the city of Taunton. We're very excited."

 

The compact is a contract between the state and tribe detailing how the tribe will operate a federal Indian casino within the state. Among the things outlined is how much the tribe will pay the state in gross gambling revenue. That ranges from zero to 21 percent based on the level of competition the tribe has from commercial casinos.

 

The most likely scenario is that the tribe will pay the state 17 percent, based on two commercial casinos and a slot parlor in other regions. If the slot parlor is in Region C, the amount would drop to 15 percent, and if a commercial casino is licensed in Southeastern Massachusetts, the tribe wouldn't pay anything.

 

"To get this far in the process is monumental," Cromwell said.

 

A spokesman for KG Urban Enterprises, the lone commercial applicant in Region C thus far, disagreed with Cromwell's perspective and noted that the tribe does not yet have land in trust for the casino — another requirement. KG Urban is suing the state over its preferential treatment of the tribe in Southeastern Massachusetts and a judge is considering motions for summary judgment.

 

"Chairman Cromwell's statement that the Mashpee have received a 'license' to open a casino is false," said Jeff Harris, counsel to KG Urban. "The Mashpee tribe has no license to do anything in the commonwealth of Massachusetts related to gaming that it did not have yesterday. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the United States Constitution, Indian casinos (and gambling of any kind) are illegal except on Indian lands. ... The Mashpee tribe has no Indian lands."

 

The compact, Harris said, is "thus legally irrelevant and is nothing more than a distraction. The notion that the tribe will 'break ground on a casino by the end of 2014' is nothing short of absurd."

 

Patrick issued a statement praising the compact's approval. The first compact he negotiated with the tribe was rejected by the BIA, which said the state offered too little in return for the tribe paying 21 percent of gross gambling revenue.

 

"I'm pleased that the commonwealth's compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has been given final approval under federal law," he said. "This is another important step toward growing jobs and opportunity in the southeast region and a good deal for both the commonwealth and the tribe."

 

Not everyone is happy with the outcome. Allin Frawley, a Middleboro selectman and casino critic, questioned the logic of entering into a compact before the tribe has the casino land into federal trust.

 

"I have an issue with a process that gives approval by not rendering a decision, especially considering the first compact was rejected," Frawley said. "The timing of this was clearly orchestrated with this type of 'default decision' in mind. Our state and federal government has failed the people of the state of Massachusetts and especially Region C."

 

Nedra Darling, a spokeswoman for the BIA, said Friday she had no new information on the compact status. On Thursday, she said in an email the compact was still under review, but acknowledged that once the deadline passed without a formal decision, it is considered approved so long as it meets the provisions of Indian gaming law.

 

The state paid $2.3 million out of $5 million authorized by the Legislature to negotiate the two compacts with the tribe. Mashpee Wampanoag leaders have declined to say how much compact negotiations cost.

 

The tribe still needs to get a separate favorable BIA decision on its application to have 155 acres in Taunton and 170 acres in Mashpee taken into trust for its initial reservation.

 

But Cromwell said the compact decision means "when we have land into trust, we can game on that land."

 

The land application for what the tribe calls Project First Light is in the final stages of consideration, Cromwell said Friday, noting that the environmental review should be complete within a couple months.

 

Casino opponents have said despite the compact, the tribe's federal hurdles are insurmountable. The tribe must overcome a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, known as the Carcieri decision, that calls into question the federal government's ability to take land into trust for tribe's recognized after 1934. The Mashpee tribe gained federal recognition in 2007.

 

"We don't have a Carcieri problem," Cromwell said. The tribe has filed the necessary paperwork to show it was under federal jurisdiction before 1934 and to demonstrate its ties to Taunton, he said.

 

"People have said we wouldn't get this far, and we have," Cromwell said.

 

The tribe looks forward to a final record of decision this year, he said. "I believe in the process and where we are at, we will have land in trust in 2014, and we'll be able to put a shovel in the ground by the end of the year," Cromwell said.

 

Taunton Mayor Thomas Hoye Jr. was more cautious, but no less enthusiastic about the compact approval.

 

"It's exciting," he said. "It's a long process to say the least. I think it's one where we are starting to see light at the end of the tunnel. We're confident we'll be able to move forward."

 

Michelle Littlefield, a casino opponent in Taunton, said she remains convinced the casino will never be built and is skeptical the tribe's land application is even complete.

 

"I'm not fazed by it," Littlefield said. "This has been going on for how long now — seven years?"

 

The key phrase, Littlefield said, is the compact must not violate Indian gaming law, which opponents believe it does.

 

Both the governor's office and Cromwell said the BIA was consulted before the deal was struck. The Legislature approved the compact in November.

 

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140104/NEWS/401040310/-1/NEWSLETTER100

 

Tribe, guv claim compact has been okayed

Estimated pay-off to state is $2.1 billion over next 20 years - Tribe claims it's the first license for a resort casino in Massachusetts - Construction may begin before year's end

 

Article | News | January 4, 2014 - 6:00am | By Matt Murphy, State House News Service

 

Estimated pay-off to state is $2.1 billion over next 20 years.

Mashpee Wampanoags, Governor Patrick claim Taunton Casino Compact gets federal approval

Estimated pay-off to state is $2.1 billion over next 20 years

The second tribal gaming compact negotiated between the Patrick administration and the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe worth an estimated $2.1 billion in revenue to the state over 20 years has been effectively approved by the federal government.

The sign-off from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs clears the path for the tribe to build a casino in southeastern Massachusetts if it is successful in its bid to have land taken into trust in Taunton.

After a setback more than a year ago when the federal government rejected the first agreement between the state and the tribe for a casino in Taunton, the Bureau of Indian Affairs effectively approved the new compact on Friday when it let a deadline of midnight on Thursday pass without responding.

Cromwell says D.O.I. approval letter is on its way

Tribe Chairman Cedric Cromwell told the News Service on Friday that he spoke to someone in the U.S. Department of Interior and was informed that a "deemed approved" letter would be arriving within the next couple of weeks when the compact would be officially posted in the federal register.

"It's essentially the first license for a resort casino in Massachusetts," Cromwell told the News Service on Friday. "This is a monumental and historic day for the tribe."

The compact, which was ratified by the Legislature in November, authorizes casino gambling on tribal land, and grants the state 21 percent of gaming revenue if Taunton is the only licensed casino in the state, or 17 percent if the tribal casino is the only casino in the southeastern region. Should the Gaming Commission grow tired of waiting for the tribe to have land taken into trust and issue a commercial casino license in the region, the tribe would not have to share any revenue with the state from a casino.

"I'm pleased that the Commonwealth's Compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has been given final approval under federal law. This is another important step toward growing jobs and opportunity in the Southeast region, and a good deal for both the Commonwealth and the Tribe," Gov. Patrick said in a statement.

Following the Legislature's approval and the compact's signing by Patrick in November, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had 45 days to review the deal. Without an affirmative or negative ruling from the bureau by midnight Thursday, the compact was deemed approved.

"We're very excited that the contract was deemed approved, and there's no other way to look at it. I know we have a compact now and it's very exciting," Cromwell said.

First compact was rejected by Feds

The first compact negotiated between Patrick and the tribe was rejected in October 2012 when the federal government objected to the balance of concessions made by the state to justify a revenue-sharing agreement that would have sent 21.5 percent of net casino revenue back to Massachusetts.

The government also ruled the administration overstepped its bounds in seeking to include hunting and fishing rights in the compact, and for trying to exert authority over issues such as regulation of suppliers and entertainment services.

Some lawmakers, including Rep. Antonio Cabral of New Bedford, feared a similar fate for the revised compact, despite the administration's collaboration with Interior Department during the second negotiating process.

Tribe still awaits "Land in trust" approval by B.I.A.

Rep. Robert Koczera, another New Bedford Democrat who opposed the compact, said there was no reason to ratify the compact until the tribe is able to resolve the land-in-trust issues with the federal government. Other states have ratified compacts after land has already been taken in trust, he said during the House debate.

Koczera and other lawmakers argued the Mashpee face many hurdles in their quest to get the federal government to grant them land-in-trust to build a casino, including a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would make the tribe ineligible because it received federal recognition in 2007, long after a 1934 cutoff date.

Cromwell said he was confident that the tribe would have federal approval for the land to be taken into trust in 2014, citing the recent completion in early December of two final environmental impact hearings in Taunton and Mashpee. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is now going through a 45 day public comment period on the environmental review, according to Cromwell.

Construction may begin before year's end

The tribe has also been going through the state environmental permitting process for a casino, and Cromwell said it's possible that construction on a casino in Taunton could begin before the end of the year.

"Everything folks have said we can't do, we've been doing," Cromwell said. "We're talking 2014 we'll have land in trust and be able to put a shovel into the ground."

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which expects to issue resort casino licenses in the east and west by May, reserves the right to issue a commercial casino license in the southeast should it decide that the Wampanoag's land in trust application is unlikely to be approved, or resolved, in a timely manner.

The 2011 expanded gaming law gave the commission that discretion, while also setting aside the southeast region for the Mashpee tribe in hopes of limiting casino construction in the state to three.

KG Urban Enterprises, a group of developers seeking to build a casino along the New Bedford waterfront, is suing the state and arguing the 2011 gaming law is discriminatory, favoring Indian tribes.

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2014/01/04/23451-tribe-guv-claim-compact-has-been-okayed

From the Boston Herald, lean on facts and comprehension:

Feds OK Mashpee pact with Mass. on casino

 

Photo by:

Christopher Evans

ALL IN: Gov. Deval Patrick, left, shakes hands with Cedric Cromwell, chairman of the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe after Patrick signed a casino compact bill at the State House in July 2012.

1

Saturday, January 4, 2014

PrintEmailComments [0]

By:

Donna Goodison

The Mashpee Wampanoags came one step closer yesterday to building a resort casino in Taunton, after federal officials effectively approved the tribe’s gaming pact with the state.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ approval of the agreement, which outlines terms such as how much gaming proceeds will go to the state, follows its rejection of a prior pact.




http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/01/feds_ok_mashpee_pact_with_mass_on_casino

Federal decision on Mashpee Wampanoag compact expected Thursday

Federal decision on Mashpee Wampanoag compact expected Thursday
By Marc Larocque

Taunton Gazette Staff Reporter

Posted Dec 31, 2013

 

TAUNTON —

Taunton city officials and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe are expecting an affirmative decision on a revised tribal-state gambling compact to be issued by the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs within the next few days.

Officials from the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe have said that reaching the state-tribal compact, which was signed by Governor Deval Patrick in November, was a “monumental” step in for the tribe’s plan to build a casino in Taunton.

However, representatives for the tribe declined to comment further on Tuesday until the Bureau of Indians Affairs makes its decision. A spokesman from the Bureau of Indian Affairs said on Tuesday that the decision is still under review.

Essentially, the state-tribal compact is only one hurdle the Mashpee tribe is facing in its efforts to create a destination casino at the interchange of routes 24 and 140 in Taunton. The big question remains whether or not the tribe can get federal land-in-trust approval for the 146-acre site in Taunton.

Taunton Mayor Thomas Hoye Jr. said he hasn’t heard news yet of potential federal approval for the state-tribal compact, but added that, “It’s supposed to be very soon.”

Hoye said he believes that the revised state compact should be approved, given that the state, the tribe and the Bureau of Indian Affairs worked together to remedy problems that the federal government had with the first proposed agreement.

“I know the state vetted it with the BIA," he said. "They felt, both the state and the tribe felt strongly that the second edition would be approved by the BIA.”

A source working with the tribe said that they expect the decision to be announced on Thursday.

The proposed compact is the second reached between Massachusetts and the tribe, after the first deal was rejected in 2012 because the Department of the Interior determined that the agreement was not in the tribe’s best interest.

The new proposed compact calls for the Mashpee tribe to pay the state 17 percent of casino revenue. But if a slots parlor opens in southeastern Massachusetts, the revenue share would drop to 15 percent.

Under the terms of the original, then rejected deal, the Mashpee would have paid the state 21.5 percent to the state, with no protection from slots, but with a 15 percent cut instead if another resort casino opened in southeastern Massachusetts.

Under the new revised state-tribal compact agreement, if a commercial casino were to open in southeastern Massachusetts in addition to the proposed Mashpee casino, the tribal casino would pay the state nothing. In the unlikely event that a tribal casino opens, and there are no commercial casinos anywhere in the state, the Mashpee would pay the state 21 percent of casino revenue.

The Department also previously took issue with unrelated concessions, such as aboriginal fishing rights, being included in the casino agreement.

Opponents of the Mashpee tribe’s efforts point to a 2009 Supreme Court decision on Carcieri v. Salazar, which involved the Narragansett Tribe in Rhode Island, saying that the ruling from the case makes it impossible for the Mashpee to meet the requirements to attain sovereign land. The ruling said that the federal government was limited from holding land in trust on behalf of tribes that were not federally recognized after 1934.

The Mashpee tribe earned federal recognition in 2007. But representatives of the tribe have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction prior to 1934, and should qualify as applicants for land-in-trust.


http://www.enterprisenews.com/news/x1039482683/Federal-decision-on-Mashpee-Wampanoag-compact-expected-Thursday?zc_p=1

 

You weren't paying attention!

The Boston Herald article, picked up by SHNS was posted here:

Gaming panel’s staff has ties to casino hopefuls

The Boston Herald, much like the Boston Globe and other media in the Commonwealth, GAMBLING on future advertising revenues, have been CHEERLEADERS for Predatory Gambling, ignored FACTS, Community Destruction and the adverse impacts.

Suddenly, the Boston Herald publishes what was publicly available information....the Herald not know for heavy lifting or solid reporting.

Yet the handwriting was on the wall!

Did you have a problem with the Stan McGee appointment without scrutiny?

Did you have a problem with Genting entering the Commonwealth with NO SCRUTINY?


Getting in bed with Genting
Mashpee Wampanoag/Genting Tribe: The Problem With Sovereignty

Did you have a problem with Mayor Menino and Senator Petrucelli receiving 'CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS' from the owner of Suffolk Downs, avoiding public scrutiny and campaign limits?

Senator Petrucelli COMMISSIONED a study he couldn't remember or couldn't find or whatever....that indicated MASSACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS would be porked for + $500 MILLION for infrastructure improvements for Suffolk Downs.....

Did you notice that the Massachusetts Gam[bl]ing Commission holds public hearings at times inaccessible for working people?

 
The BIA has conducted public meetings in the Commonwealth and those meetings are in the EVENINGS!


You have Governor Slot Barns whose wife works for Ropes and Gray who agreed to support an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, Alas! Developed amnesia after his re-election!

Secretary Bialecki and Senator Rosenberg, both 'Casino Point Men,' and CHEERLEADERS for Predatory Gambling profited from Gambling investments.

Plainridge conducted an ILLEGAL RAFFLE for years, yet the Attorney General, Martha 'Always Running for Higher Office' Coakley refused to commit anything to writing.

The Gam[bl]ing Commission was aware of Sticky Fingers Piontkowski's shenanigans in April, yet allowed the town to negotiate a Host Community Agreement in BAD FAITH, announcing the crime only before the community vote.

Did the AG investigate?
Who was cheated? Who was short-changed? Who else knew?
What about the Massachusetts Racing Commission?
Who is Martha protecting?

Martha doesn't have a rug big enough to sweep this under!


You have Political Hacks, appointing Political Hacks, protecting Political Hacks.....

....promoting GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ADDICTION

....that has failed to fulfill its phony promises of paving the street with gold elsewhere.....

...and when the rules don't work....why, simply CHANGE THE RULES!

Much wasn't included......

 

 

It's time to REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

 

 

The only sensible option.

 

 

Questions trail state gambling commissioner

Critics raise doubts about Stephen Crosby’s judgment after revelations he waited months to disclose potential conflict

By Andrea Estes and Scott Allen

| Globe Staff December 08, 2013

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff

Stephen Crosby, the gambling panel chairman.

After Las Vegas casino mogul Steve Wynn toured the former industrial site in Everett where he was thinking of building a casino in November 2012, state gambling commission chairman Stephen Crosby didn’t mention that one of the land owners was his former business partner.

A month later, when Wynn negotiated an option to pay an estimated $70 million for the land if Crosby’s commission approved a casino on the site, Crosby again said nothing about his four-decade relationship with Paul Lohnes, co-owner of the land.

Even when Everett voters overwhelmingly approved Wynn’s proposal in June, leaving the fate of the $1.3 billion project up to Crosby’s commission, Crosby said nothing.

Only after state and federal investigators began looking into whether Lohnes’ more recent business partners include people with extensive criminal records did Crosby tell Governor Deval Patrick about his connection to Lohnes. And only when the Globe began asking questions about the connection did Crosby announce he was withdrawing from the commission vote on the Everett land deal, scheduled for Dec. 13.

Related

• 12/5: Crosby recuses himself from Everett casino review
• Coverage: Casinos in Massachusetts

 

Now, some are wondering why Crosby waited so long to make public his seven-year business partnership with Lohnes and whether disclosing it is enough to allow him to continue taking part in the decision over who should receive the license for Greater Boston’s only casino.

“I think he owes it to the public to recuse himself in any decision involving the Greater Boston region,” said Gregory Sullivan, a former state inspector general and now research director at the Pioneer Institute, a public policy think tank. “A secret disclosure made to [Patrick] does not in my view begin to address the conflict in question.”

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff/File

Officials toured a proposed casino site. The land is owned in part by Paul Lohnes, a former business partner of state gambling commission chairman Stephen Crosby.

The state Ethics Commission has informed Crosby that he could continue to vote on matters related to Everett, after he filed a detailed disclosure in late October about his relationship with Lohnes, a friend since they served in the National Guard together in the 1970s.

Patrick, who appointed Crosby in December 2011, agrees. “We are confident that the commission is acting in a fair and impartial manner,” said Patrick’s communications director, Jesse Mermell.

But Sullivan says Massachusetts’ fledgling casino industry is a special case with significant public concern about its integrity, creating a mandate for regulators to do more than simply meet the letter of the law. Crosby himself, the former dean of the McCormack School of Policy and Global Studies at UMass Boston, said on the day Patrick selected him that he should be a symbol of good government.

“It will be up to me and the commission to assure both the public and the participants in the gaming industry that the process for developing expanded gaming in Massachusetts is honest, transparent, and fair,” Crosby said.

Crosby said he learned about Lohnes’s potential involvement in the Everett casino project in the fall of 2012 — around the time Wynn visited the land — but he didn’t immediately disclose that he and Lohnes had made large amounts of money together as publishers of cable TV guides from 1983 to 1990. A third business partner has said Lohnes provided crucial investment money in the early years when the company was struggling.

Crosby now says he waited to reveal the connection in part because “nobody knew if Wynn was for real or not,” and because he had not had any contact with Lohnes for years.

“I never see the guy. He wasn’t a public figure,” Crosby said. Under state ethics rules, he wasn’t automatically required to disclose personal connections to people selling land for a casino, he noted, but he did when it became relevant.

“You disclose when there is an action to be taken that could be influenced by your relationship,” Crosby explained on Friday. “As soon as there was an issue on the table,” he said, he not only disclosed, but recused himself from voting.

So far, the commission has voted only twice on the rival Greater Boston casino proposals — approving the developers of both Suffolk Downs and a Milford proposal later rejected by voters — but its actions have shaped the fates of the rival projects over the past year.

In October, concerns raised by commission investigators prompted Caesars Entertainment to withdraw from plans to operate the Suffolk Downs casino. Investigators had raised questions about the company’s character: Caesars had made a licensing deal with a company linked to Russian mobsters, they said.

Caesars’s abrupt withdrawal is believed to have played a significant role in the proposal’s rejection by East Boston voters a few weeks later, leaving Suffolk Downs to carry on with a casino plan located on the part of their property in Revere where voters supported the idea. Crosby, who has also disclosed that he played football at Harvard with one of the Suffolk Downs principals, has indicated he supports allowing the project to continue despite opposition in East Boston.

Another key vote on the Everett proposal is scheduled for Dec. 16, after results of the commission’s background check on Wynn Resorts are expected to be released. But the commission has long been guiding the Everett project through the complex process.

Crosby presided over at least two commission meetings this summer about Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino’s request to recognize his city as a cohost for the Wynn casino on the grounds that a sliver of the site was actually in Boston. Wynn officials saw Menino’s move as a threat because Menino was strongly backing the rival casino plan at Suffolk Downs.

The panel never voted because Menino eventually withdrew his request to become a host, but Crosby made public remarks that seemed to favor Wynn Resorts, urging the two sides to resolve the issue using materials provided by Wynn.

Crosby disclosed his Lohnes connection to the governor’s office on Aug. 22 in the middle of Wynn’s tiff with Menino, but he didn’t mention the connection at public meetings. By contrast, another commission member, former judge James McHugh, disclosed to the audience when his former law partner, Jon Albano, came before the panel on behalf of a casino developer. Albano also represents the Globe.

Crosby said he felt compelled to reveal his relationship with Lohnes when his investigators raised concerns that Lohnes may have secret partners in the land deal “and/or other difficult issues which could threaten the public trust in this process,” according to Crosby’s statement to the Globe on Wednesday.

By the time of his disclosure, a federal grand jury was investigating whether Charles A. Lightbody, a Revere businessman who served jail time for assault and pleaded guilty for his role in a massive identity theft ring in New York, was an undisclosed partner of Lohnes. Lightbody had boasted to friends that he would make $18 million from the land sale if the Everett casino was approved.

Just before the Globe reported on Nov. 21 that the grand jury was hearing testimony, Wynn officials announced plans to renegotiate the deal with Lohnes’s company, FBT Everett Realty, lowering the sale price to leave less for any undisclosed partners. Wynn has not revealed the reduced price, but, considering that FBT bought the land for $8 million in 2009, Lohnes and the other owners still stand to make millions if the resort is approved.

But Crosby minimized the land controversy’s impact on Wynn, suggesting to reporters that the possible involvement of Lightbody would not hurt Wynn’s chances of winning a license. “It didn’t have anything to do with Wynn,” Crosby said. “This is nothing Wynn knew anything about.”

Crosby withdrew from the debate and voting over the land deal on Dec. 4, after the Globe began asking questions about his connection to Lohnes.

“At that point we knew more about the funny business . . . I was trying to figure out how to handle the situation,” Crosby said on Friday. “The land issue is a unique circumstance: There is a person I know who was in the position to make an incredible windfall profit out of the casino property” and he felt he shouldn’t vote on a deal that could directly benefit Lohnes.

Except for the Everett land vote, Crosby has said he intends to participate fully in the selection of a Greater Boston casino, despite calls for him to step aside from Sullivan as well as from Clyde Barrow, a gambling expert at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Critics note that the gaming commission’s rules require a commissioner to “abstain from participating or voting in any proceeding in which their impartiality may reasonably be questioned,” something both Sullivan and Barrow have done.

And Crosby himself has set a high bar for ethical behavior in the way he has grilled applicants who’ve appeared before the commission, warning them that even the appearance of impropriety may be too much.

“You are in the gaming industry, where issues of appearance matter more than in other industries,” Crosby admonished one witness who had been the subject of a misconduct probe by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the 1990s.

Now, Crosby concedes that his tough questions for applicants could be turned toward him.

“I’m taking this one step at a time. It’s a complicated area. I know people involved in both [Everett and Revere] and I’m on the record as being hard-nosed about all the proposals,” he said, adding, “This deserves a very hard look . . . I agree.”



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/12/08/gambling-commissioner-crosby-waited-months-reveal-personal-business-ties-owner-everett-casino-site/WF5gYFipge0nvEfcOfHYzM/story.html