Millions in casino revenue earmarked for dead horse racing industry

Millions in casino revenue earmarked for horse racing

JOHN TLUMACKI/GLOBE STAFF

Suffolk Downs saw what may have been its last day of racing on Oct. 4, 2014.

By Sean P. Murphy GLOBE STAFF  JUNE 10, 2015

The first slot machine has yet to be played in Massachusetts, but already a huge amount of casino money is sloshing around in a special fund set up by the Legislature to prop up a sport that has all but disappeared in the state: horse racing.

Suffolk Downs, the only thoroughbred horse track remaining in New England, is certain to close as gamblers have steadily turned to other forms of legalized wagering and the track’s owners have grown tired of absorbing millions of dollars in annual losses.

Even so, thoroughbred racing — basically homeless and unable to support itself — now has more money than it knows what to do with, thanks to the political deal struck four years ago that opened Massachusetts to casinos.

In all, the thoroughbred horse racing industry is projected to receive about $18 million a year from casinos, earmarked to support races that may never come to pass, trainers of horses that may never run, and jockeys who may never ride them.

“Casinos are supposed to benefit the entire state, not just certain segments,” state Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said last week.

 View Story

3 days of Suffolk Downs racing planned

The idea of holding three one-day “festivals of racing” belongs to the union that represents horse owners and trainers.

•  Farragher: A casino arms race
•  Gambling panel chairman faces ethics inquiry

He said the state casino law should be amended to put the money now designated for the horse racing industry to better use.

Already, a $5 million slice of the $195 million paid by casino developers to the state in licensing fees is tied up in a fund with no apparent legal way to spend it. But that is only the first chunk of cash with an uncertain use, absent a stunning reversal in horse racing’s popularity.

When the state’s first casino opens on June 24, it will begin funneling almost $15 million a year into the same fund, according to current projections. And when the state’s three resort casinos come on line in the next few years, they will bump up the total contribution to about $18 million a year, according to current projections.

Governor Charlie Baker said through a spokesman that his administration is committed to “closely reviewing and monitoring” how well the casino law works for possible improvements.

The mastermind of this casino-fueled boon for horse racing is House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo. While proponents of casinos were selling the idea as a way to create jobs and tax revenue for the state, DeLeo, who has deep personal and political connections to horse racing, insisted on the stipulation that tens of millions of dollars in future casino tax revenues go to support an industry that now employs fewer than 2,000 workers.

DeLeo’s father was maitre d’ at Suffolk Downs, and his legislative district of Winthrop and parts of Revere includes a portion of Suffolk Downs and is home to many of its workers.

Before the law was passed in 2011, DeLeo sought to justify the subsidy as a means of preserving jobs not only for horse owners, trainers and jockeys, but also for veterinarians, hay farmers, feed suppliers, blacksmiths, and others who support racing.

“If we can give those people a boost with some additional income, those horses will stay here in Massachusetts and the people at those tracks will keep those facilities going,” DeLeo said in support of the pending bill.

But it’s hard to imagine how the arrival of casinos will spur a rebound in horse racing. As legalized Las Vegas-styled gambling has proliferated from two states to 39 states in recent years, the amount of betting at Suffolk Downs — the truest measure of a track’s success — has plummeted by almost one-third. So, too, has the number of horses available to race there. And attendance has become so anemic that it is not even counted.

The phenomenon is by no means limited to Massachusetts: Few new tracks have opened to thoroughbred racing in the United States in the last 25 years, and many of the country’s best-known tracks date to the 1930s or earlier.

“Younger people don’t like the track because it’s not as exciting as casinos,” said Denis P. Rudd, a Robert Morris University professor who has studied the gambling industry. “You can play a slot machine every second, but you can bet on a horse race only every 20 minutes.”

The Suffolk Downs owners insist that they are done with racing. They are busy considering how best to develop the 160-acre site for a different use. But in the meantime, they are going along with a plan to hold one day of racing per month in July, August, and September, as a sort of last hurrah for an 80-year-old track that once drew crowds of up to 40,000 fans. During its heyday, Suffolk Downs featured daily racing five months a year.

DeLeo, asked last week about the generous funding of the horse racing industry, said the possibility of three days of thoroughbred racing in 2015 made it “premature to consider altering” the funding formula.

Some vestiges of the horse racing industry live on in Massachusetts. A far less popular form of the sport features a driver in a little buggy being pulled along by a horse. But harness racing has lost almost half of its market in recent years.

The state’s sole harness racing track is now owned by the state’s slot parlor, Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville, which is set to make history later this month when it introduces casino gambling in the state. In a way, the Plainridge casino operator will be paying itself by turning over a portion of its slot machine earnings to the state in taxes, only to have the state return it to the Plainridge track operator as a subsidy. Under the casino law, the harness track stands to receive $6 million a year when all four casinos are open, significantly less than is intended for thoroughbred racing.

If horse racing becomes extinct in Massachusetts, the money reserved for it under the casino law can accumulate in an escrow account for up to three years. After that, how to spend what could be tens of millions of dollars is quite uncertain, according to the state Gaming Commission, which has control over the escrow account.

“The resolution to that would depend on any number of currently unknown variables,” the commission said in a statement.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/06/10/millions-casino-revenue-earmarked-for-horse-racing-sport-that-has-all-but-disappeared/nNWm6KJDAmvCtnf5mFvYEM/story.html

Gaming panel enlisted in lawsuit vs. Mohegan

Palmer demands documents

 

 

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

By:

Jack Encarnacao

 

Mohegan Sun’s erstwhile Palmer landlord is roping the state Gaming Commission into its lawsuit that seeks to bar Mohegan from building a casino anywhere but Palmer, demanding the commission turn over any communications between Mohegan and Suffolk Downs that might support the claim that Mohegan undercut its own Palmer casino effort to chase an opportunity in Revere.

Northeast Realty is arguing that any talks Mohegan and its chief executive Mitchell Etess had with Suffolk Downs before the casino developer lost a referendum in Palmer would violate an exclusivity agreement.

“The public records request to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission seeks to identify any communications conducted between representatives of Mohegan Sun including its attorney, Kevin C. Conroy, relating to the Suffolk Downs property, and the MGC including, but not limited to, commission staff and its Investigations and Enforcement Bureau,” Northeast spokesman Paul Robbins said in a statement.

Commission spokeswoman Elaine Driscoll said the commission’s legal staff is reviewing the request, and does “not have a comment on the lawsuit at this time.”

The request, addressed to chairman Stephen Crosby and dated Feb. 28, asks for copies of any communications from Jan. 1, 2013, to Nov. 30, 2013, between the commission and a series of individuals “concerning the possibility or consideration of Mohegan’s participating in any way in the application for a license for and/or development of a gaming facility anywhere on the Suffolk Downs Property.”

The individuals include:

•   Suffolk Downs principals Richard Fields and Joseph O’Donnell.

•   House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and staff.

• Any attorneys or lobbyists associated with the law firms Foley Hoag and DLA Piper, who work for Mohegan.

• The public relations firm O’Neill and Associates, which represents Mohegan.

•   Former state Rep. Kathi-Ann Reinstein (D-Revere) and staff.

•     State Sen. Anthony Petruccelli (D-East Boston) and staff.
Mohegan Sun declined to comment on the records request.
Northeast Realty, which wants Mohegan to abandon its lease on the Palmer site, hit Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo with the same records request in January. Revere’s solicitor responded that a search of voicemail and email records of Rizzo and his immediate staff “failed to produce any records responsive to your public records request.”

http://bostonherald.com/business/business_markets/2014/03/gaming_panel_enlisted_in_lawsuit_vs_mohegan

Massachusetts: The Perfect Location!

The perfect location for a Slot Barn is the Boston Harbor!

Steve Wynn had it right in 2010. Senator "NIMBY" Hart didn't think so.

It has ALL of the services, transportation, water, sewer and TOURISTS.


Thursday, July 15, 2010
Casino Developer Wynn Eyes Seaport
Waterfront gambling
Casino magnate Stephen Wynn sizes up Seaport, eyes Fan Pier

By Thomas Grillo Thursday, July 15, 2010


The Bay State casino game has shifted to South Boston’s waterfront as Las Vegas mogul Stephen Wynn eyes key sites for a gambling resort in one of the most prized development districts on the Eastern Seaboard.

Wynn, chief executive of Wynn Resorts Ltd., has hired a local lobbyist and public relations firm and raised the idea of building a Bay State casino with analysts in April.

“Our next project will undoubtedly be in China, unless we get involved in Massachusetts,” the billionaire said in the conference call with analysts.

Meanwhile, a source told the Herald that a Wynn representative has approached Joseph Fallon, owner of Fan Pier on the city’s waterfront, about the possibility of locating a resort casino in the Seaport District overlooking Boston Harbor on a portion of his spectacular 12-acre site.

The Fallon Co. broke ground in 2007 on a $3 billion neighborhood proposal spanning nine city blocks. While the first 500,000-square-foot office building is slated to open later this year, and a temporary building houses upscale retailer Louis and a restaurant, the project has stalled due to lack of tenants and financing.

Since the 1970s, Wynn has created some of the world’s most famous casinos including Bellagio, The Mirage, Treasure Island at The Mirage and the Golden Nugget in Las Vegas, as well as the Atlantic City Golden Nugget and Beau Rivage in Biloxi, Miss. In April, Wynn opened Encore at Wynn Macau, an expansion of its existing casino with a new 414-room luxury hotel with restaurants and retail in a region of China.

While Wynn declined to comment yesterday, he is among those lobbying the Legislature to approve a measure to authorize resort-style casinos.

Development Associates LLC, a Wynn subsidiary, has paid nearly $400,000 to Boston lobbyist ML Strategies to advance the company’s interest in a casino here. In addition, Wynn has hired Howell Communications, a Boston public relations firm run by political strategist Ray Howell, to promote a bid.

Former City Councilor Michael J. McCormack, who represented Donald Trump in 1993 when the New York real estate developer sought to build a casino on Long Island in the middle of Boston Harbor, said if there’s to be a casino in Boston it should be built where people want to go. “What’s better than a casino with phenomenal views of the Boston Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean?” he said. “I think it’s a fabulous location.”

Others agree. “The waterfront is a perfect location for a casino,” said Dean Stratouly, a Boston developer. “It’s close to the convention center, the airport and the downtown hotels. A casino at Seaport would bring more hotels and lots of entertainment venues.”

But Vivien Li, executive director of the Boston Harbor Association, said she’s not convinced there’s enough space for a casino and all the parking required for gamblers.

Concerns about a waterfront casino and its impact on the South Boston neighborhood have already prompted an ill-fated effort to quash such a development.

State Sen. Jack Hart, a South Boston Democrat, introduced an amendment to the Senate’s casino legislation that would prohibit a casino in South Boston, the Boston neighborhood that includes the Seaport District. The measure never came to a vote because it was ruled unconstitutional, according to a spokesman for Senate President Therese Murray.

“I’m not surprised that a developer would consider the waterfront for a casino given its location next to the convention center,” said Hart. “But I think I speak for the majority of the people of the neighborhood when I say that folks would rather see a casino at Suffolk Downs.”

If Wynn secures a Boston site and the Legislature authorizes casinos, it could set up a high-stakes battle against at least two other development proposals for an Eastern Massachusetts license.

Suffolk Downs has proposed a $600 million resort casino that would feature a hotel, 5,000 slot machines, 200 table games, restaurants and shops at the 75-year-old racetrack. In Milford, David Nunes and Warner Gaming have proposed the Crossroads resort off Interstate 495. The 26-acre complex would feature a 267,000-square-foot casino, a 250-room hotel and amenities such as retail, bars and restaurants.

A law allowing casinos in Massachusetts is stuck in committee on Beacon Hill as lawmakers try to hammer out a compromise between House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo, who also supports slot machines at racetracks, and Gov. Patrick, who doesn’t. Success for the gambling legislation would likely open a floodgate of bidders for lucrative Massachusetts casino licenses.

Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1268038

Massachusetts: How much should one community endure?

As a Massachusetts taxpayer who watched the unfolding Big Dig [Bipartisan] Disaster, the incompetence and corruption of Beacon Hill revealed itself.

The next generation will finalize payments for that massive monument to stupidity!

No amount of "But...but....but...." will excuse the Beacon Hill Bobble Heads 'trust me' assurances.

And yet Mayor Menino and Senator Petrucelli would seek yet another massive destruction on those same Boston neighborhoods that have been so severely impacted.

Is anyone asking about the influence of the 'Charitable' organizations both possess?

What else don't we know about?

Why else would anyone sane person believe this is sensible?

Back room deals. Secret meetings. No transparency. Is it time to end corruption in Massachusetts? Why should Massachusetts taxpayers write a check for + $500 MILLION to fund this Folly? Who is asking?

East Boston
No Eastie Casino group hones message
Posted by Jeremy C. Fox Town Correspondent April 19, 2012

Around 40 residents of East Boston and neighboring communities gathered at Sacred Heart Catholic Church on Wednesday to rally opposition to a proposed casino at Suffolk Downs.

Grassroots opposition to building a $1 billion resort-style casino at Suffolk Downs is becoming increasingly organized, with dozens of anti-casino residents of East Boston and Winthrop uniting to share information and strategize.

Some area residents began vocally opposing a casino in their backyard long before lawmakers passed legislation last November to allow gaming in the Commonwealth, and their efforts have increased as the process of considering a resort casino for the site has moved forward.

Residents are building their network of opposition at community meetings and through Facebook groups such as No Eastie Casino and Suffolk Downs Neighbor, both of which have also built websites dedicated to casino opposition.

About 40 casino opponents came together at Sacred Heart Catholic Church in East Boston on Wednesday night. At this stage, they said, their first priority is to inform their neighbors and build momentum so that when the time comes for a vote, they have the numbers necessary to defeat Suffolk Downs’ proposal.

Before any casino can open, voters get a say. In large cities such as Boston, the state casino law limits a referendum to the local ward or neighborhood, unless the mayor and City Council opt for a citywide vote.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is against a citywide vote, but the opposition group plans to push the issue.

“Anything you can do to help spread the word [will help], because I think a lot of people are hearing one side of the story,” said Brian Gannon, 38, who has lived in East Boston's Jeffries Point section for three years.

Educating residents in East Boston and Revere is crucial, opponents say, because it appears likely that only those communities will participate in the eventual vote. While state legislation legalizing casino gambling would allow Boston to expand a vote citywide, Mayor Thomas M. Menino prefers to restrict the vote to East Boston, and there appears to be little enthusiasm among city councilors for fighting the mayor’s wish.

John F. Ribeiro, who grew up in East Boston and has now “moved out to the country” in neighboring Winthrop, created the Suffolk Downs Neighbor Facebook page and website and has become a de-facto leader of the grassroots opposition. At Wednesday’s meeting, Ribeiro said he’s up late many nights reading studies and news reports on how casinos operate and their impacts on local communities.

Ribeiro said that through loyalty programs and loans to gamblers, casinos can access credit reports and create complex profiles of their customers, including all debts, assets, and available credit. The casinos, he said, can target individual gamblers and manipulate slot machines in real time to keep them playing until they have exhausted all cash and credit available to them, a concept he said the industry calls “playing to extinction.”

Ribeiro also reviewed a long list of issues that he said can accompany the introduction of a casino into a community, including increased traffic, crime, political corruption, gambling addiction, car insurance rates, and property taxes, as well as decreasing home values and revenues for local businesses.

“In two years of studying the issue … I haven’t found a single community that’s better off for adding a casino,” Ribeiro said. “That’s the bottom line for all of this. Our backyard is full. We do enough for the state of Massachusetts, and we don’t need another thing to detract from the way of life here in East Boston.”

Other residents shared Ribeiro’s belief that the neighborhood — already home to Suffolk Downs, Logan International Airport, industrial sites, and hazardous materials storage — shoulders more than its burden of the region’s undesirable facilities.

Orient Heights resident Michael Russo, 42, lives in a home his grandfather bought in 1935 and said he plans to remain in the neighborhood for the rest of his life.

“I don’t think that we need another thing to impact that way of life,” Russo said. “I’m just deeply concerned about the state advocating something that could really topple a lot of the good things that are happening in this neighborhood right now.”

Jessica Curtis, 31, lives with her husband in the Wood Island area of East Boston and is an attorney for a consumer advocacy group. She has read the casino legislation, and she reviewed some of its provisions for her neighbors on Wednesday, explaining the roles of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and Boston’s Host Community Advisory Committee in deciding where a casino license will be granted and what mitigation efforts will be required.

“One really important thing to note, and the reason why we’re all gathered in this room today, is that both of these decision-making bodies already have assumed that a casino is going to happen, and their job is to make it happen in the best way possible,” Curtis said.

“And one thing that I think is really important for us to keep in mind as a community is that just because something is legal, just because this is now the law, doesn’t mean it’s good for us,” she continued. “There are a lot of things that are legal that are not good for us.”

Curtis exhorted other residents to contribute their ideas and skills to oppose the casino proposal, and several spoke of the need to spread the word to the neighborhood’s immigrant groups in their native languages. The group plans to continue meeting at the church approximately every two weeks as their effort continues.

Beacon Hill's Mushroom Farming

Mushroom Farming at its best! [You know - grown in the dark and fed a diet of manure?]

This reveals that the Beacon Hill Bobble Heads....oops! I mean articulate, experienced and wizened elected officials who carefully slapped together misguided legislation behind closed doors failed to grasp reality in their delusional stupor.

Included were outrageous, unachievable deadlines - of which this is merely one by folks, few of whom have worked in the private sector or understand the complexities of integrating the Racing Commission or much else.

Sometimes arrogance knows no bounds.

Mass. gambling panel hoping to delay key deadline
April 17, 2012Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission is pressing lawmakers and Gov. Deval Patrick to push back a key deadline for the panel to take over the regulation of horse racing and simulcasting, saying the expanded duties will make it harder to get new casinos up and running.

Commission chairman Steven Crosby said Tuesday that the panel will meet the May 20 takeover deadline if needed, but said delaying the change makes more sense for the state.

Under the casino law approved by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Deval Patrick, the new five-member gambling commission is supposed to oversee virtually all gambling in the state, except for the lottery.

But Crosby said adding the responsibilities of the state racing commission to the gambling panel’s to-do list now will only create another hurdle to the gambling commission’s principal task of licensing three up to three casinos and a single slots parlor.

“We don’t think postponing this hurts anyone,’’ Crosby said.

A spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, declined to comment on the request, which would likely require new legislation.

Crosby said the gambling commission is also working to better respond to city and town leaders who are already asking questions about potential casinos in their communities.

Crosby said in some cases smaller towns are overwhelmed and may need organizational and financial support to help assess the prospect of a casino.

“They are really at sea at how to handle this stuff,’’ Crosby said. “This area is going to get bigger and bigger and more complicated.’’

Crosby said the challenge is how to get information and help to communities without creating the perception of favoritism, since it will ultimately be up to the commission to award the coveted licenses.

Commission members also said they’re also hoping to get better information on potential jobs numbers and revenue from casinos. Crosby noted the law allows the commission wide latitude to authorize “up to’’ three casinos.

After the meeting, Crosby told reporters he wants to know if it makes more sense to license all the casinos at once or stagger them. He also said he wants to know if locating two casinos relatively close to each other will make a difference in potential revenue for the state.

The panel is also keeping an eye on two other issues — the question of what to do if Internet gambling is legalized, and how to handle the question of tribal gambling given an ongoing lawsuit.

A federal judge in February threw out the lawsuit that alleged the casino law is unconstitutional because it gives an advantage to federally recognized Indian tribes.

Lawyers for KG Urban Enterprises, which wants to build a casino in southeastern Massachusetts, said they planned to appeal the decision to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.

Commission member James McHugh, a retired state appeals court justice, said it could take until the end of the year for the appeals court to rule.

If the court decides that part of the state law unconstitutional, it could upend the process of granting a license to a casino in the southeastern part of the state, McHugh said.

The commission also announced that it will hold what it’(s calling a “daylong educational forum for the Massachusetts Gaming Commissioners and the public on best practices in gaming administration, regulation, and enforcement.’’

The commission said the forum — scheduled for May 3 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center — will include presentations and panel participation by industry leaders who have experience regulating gambling in other states.

Another take on Massachusetts Gambling Commission

Mass. casino panel holds first meeting
By BOB SALSBERG
The Associated Press
Bloomberg Business Week
April 11, 2012
BOSTON

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, meeting for the first time, said Tuesday it would reach out to a pair of New Jersey-based firms and take a variety of other steps to lay the foundation for casino gambling in the state.

The five-member panel voted to enter into negotiations with consulting firm Spectrum Gaming Group and Michael & Carroll, a law firm, after hearing presentations from executives of both, who cited their knowledge and experience in casino regulation and law enforcement in New Jersey and elsewhere.

The commission's inaugural 3 1/2 hour meeting, held at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, focused almost entirely on administrative and organizational matters. The panel, created under the gaming law signed by Gov. Deval Patrick last fall, will eventually be responsible for licensing and overseeing up to three resort-style casinos and one slots parlor in the state.

It will likely be three to five years before a casino is operating, though the selection of a slots parlor could come sooner.

The panel's first action was to adopt a mission statement that pledges to seek "the greatest possible economic development benefits and revenues to the people of the Commonwealth," while reducing as much as possible "the potentially negative or unintended consequences" of the casino law.

The mission statement also said the panel would try to offer casino developers an "appropriate return on investment," which chairman Steven Crosby said was important to attracting the highest-quality bidders to the state.

The panel, which has been fully formed for less than a month, also took the first steps Tuesday to assembling a staff. Janice Reilly, a former top aide to Crosby when he served as state Secretary of Administration and Finance, was named to a $97,000 post as chief of staff to the commission.

The commission said it would look to name an interim executive director while conducting a search for a permanent one.

In addition to Crosby, the commissioners include James McHugh, a retired state appeals court justice; Gayle Cameron, a retired New Jersey State Police official; Bruce Stebbins, former business development administrator for the city of Springfield; and Enrique Zuniga, former head of the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust.

Crosby will earn $150,000 a year as chairman while the other commissioners will be paid $112,500 annually.

The panel had originally aimed to hire a single gaming consultant but opted to reach out to both firms because of their varying types of experience.

With ties to former Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole and retired FBI agents who were involved in casino-related corruption probes in Atlantic City, N.J., the firm of Michael & Carroll was praised by the panel for its extensive knowledge of law enforcement. The firm said it could help draw clear lines of jurisdiction in Massachusetts and avoid the "ambiguity" that sometimes hampered criminal investigations during the early days of casinos in New Jersey.

Spectrum officials cited broad experience in working with casino regulators in other U.S. states and abroad and said they could help the commission create a strategic plan.

Spectrum is no stranger to the idea of casinos in Massachusetts. In 2008, the firm was awarded a $189,000 contract to review Patrick's original casino proposal and was later paid $33,724 by House Speaker Robert DeLeo's political committee to provide casino-related consulting services.

The commission said it would begin negotiations with both firms, with no price tag announced for potential contracts and no guarantee that agreements would be reached.

"It's a little weird to have a double-team arrangement," Crosby said of the decision to engage both firms. "I don't see an easy, clean break between the two."

McHugh said there were attractive qualities about both consultants, adding that the panel needed "a focus on planning, a focus on structure and a strong framework from which we can move forward."

Cameron recused herself from the vote, citing previous professional contacts she had with both companies.

The panel also voted Tuesday to retain the Cambridge-based law firm of Anderson & Kreiger for help in developing ethics rules for gaming commissioners and staff, and for other legal advice.

Massachusetts: Convening the East Boston Coven?

Rumor has it that the Mayor of Boston, the one who received a $10,000 Charitable Contribution from a Wyoming owner of Suffolk Downs that seemed to buy the Mayor's undying loyalty, will convene a Coven to study the 'proposal.' [Senator Petrucelli's devotion only cost $6,000.]






Since the exalted Mayor refused to allow other parts of the City to participate, the public can be assured the the Coven will be slanted to ensure the Mayor's bought-and-paid-for position will be replicated.

Genuflect, please!





Massachusetts taxpayers can't even count on the Beacon Hill Bobble Heads who are controlled under a tight leash by House Speaker Racino DeLeo to protect their future interests.






Here's a small refresher course --

From: Massachusetts: Illegel Campaign Contributions

The donations went to an array of politicians, including Governor Deval Patrick; Mitt Romney when he was governor; US Senators John F. Kerry and Charles Schumer; several congressmen from Massachusetts; Boston Mayor Thomas Menino; and former state senator Dianne Wilkerson....

Menino, Petruccelli should return donations from racetrack owner

Massachusetts: How to escape campaign limits

Mayor Mumbles, Senator NIMBY and the Vultures

$500 MILLION? Senator Anthony Petrucelli Porks Us With the BILL!

In his study, Vitagliano suggested widening Route 1A from Curtis Street in East Boston to Mahoney Circle in Revere. This would include property taking and cost $40 million; widen Revere Beach Parkway in Revere, Everett and Medford at a cost of $90 million; perform a Copeland Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $75 million; perform a Mahoney Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $30 million; perform a Brown Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $25 million; install a Route 1A to Route 16 connector on Railroad Ave. in Revere at a cost of $45 million; construct a haul road in East Boston at a cost of $20 million; build a Route 1A-Chelsea Street Bridge connector in East Boston that would cost $40 million; perform a Route 1A/Boardman Street grade separation in East Boston that would cost $10 million; build a Route 1A-Route 16 interchange that would cost $15 million; perform a Revere Street grade separation in Revere that would cost $10 million; improve traffic signalization along the Route 1A corridor at a cost of $5 million; and finally mitigation for traffic impacts on the local communities would be $15 million.

The total cost of the improvements would have a price tag of $420 million according to Vitagliano.

To date, requests for a copy of the report Senator Petrucelli authorized and Massachusetts taxpayers paid for has not been produced.

What are they hiding?

DeLeo: Food For Thought

....incestuous relationship on Beacon Hill...

Robert A. DeLeo tied to tribe flak
Fundraiser for speaker has casino client
By Joe Battenfeld

A fundraiser for House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democratic legislators who have final say over a Mashpee Wampanoag casino bid is also on the tribe’s payroll as a public relations consultant.

Brooke Scannell, the spokesperson for Wampanoag tribal chairman Cedric Cromwell, is a $3,000-a-month fundraiser for DeLeo’s PAC, Committee for a Democratic House, according to records.

DeLeo was a major force behind the state’s new casino law that gives the Mashpee Wampanoags first crack at a casino in southeastern Massachusetts.

Scannell is also a fundraiser for state Sen. Jennifer L. Flanagan (D-Leominster), who was on the six-person conference committee that helped craft the casino bill last year, and a half-dozen other current and former legislators.

“It’s an incestuous relationship on Beacon Hill and it’s no wonder taxpayers are so cynical,” said Kathleen Conley Norbut, former president of United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts and founder of the Western Massachusetts Casino Task Force.

DeLeo’s office referred all fundraising questions to David Martin, who is the treasurer for DeLeo’s campaign and PAC. Martin did not respond to an email request for comment.

Scannell, head of the Scannell Group, defended her dual roles in an email.

“My company consults to clients including campaign committees and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe,” she wrote.

“The public relations services provided to the Tribe do not include lobbying legislators on gaming or any other issues. I do not discuss the Tribe’s interests with any of my company’s other clients.”

Gov. Deval Patrick’s campaign has refused to accept any contributions from gambling interests — let alone employ one as a fundraiser. [Except that he did until he was caught!]

But DeLeo and other lawmakers have raked in tens of thousands of dollars from gaming interests.

“It shows the coziness that exists up on Beacon Hill. ... That’s been going on for years,” said John Ribeiro, an East Boston casino opponent.

The state’s new gaming law gives the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe a head start in negotiating with the Patrick administration for casino approval. The Legislature must vote to give final approval of a Wampanoag casino by July 31. The tribe wants a gambling resort in Taunton.

Scannell has been the fundraiser for DeLeo’s PAC since 2009 when she began representing the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. She has also been on the campaign payrolls of state Sen. Katherine Clark (D-Melrose), state Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), state Sen. Kenneth J. Donnelly (D-Arlington), state Rep. Carlo P. Basile (D-East Boston), state Sen. Barry R. Finegold (D-Andover) and ex-state Sen. Steven Tolman, a Watertown Democrat, records show.

DeLeo, Flanagan, Clark, Basile and Tolman supported the new casino law while Spilka, Donnelly and Finegold voted against it.

Florida: The Future Costs of CRIME and PRISONS

Attaching DOLLARS to the cost of Predatory Gambling is essential to the health of the future and to make an informed decision, something Massachusetts lawmakers refused.

The report below sheds light --

http://nocasinos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/CasinosFloridaReport.pdf

SO MUCH for inevitability

SO MUCH for inevitability
High stakes for casino license in Massachusetts
Massachusetts’ biggest players warm up for a casino location battle
By Joan Vennochi Globe Columnist

Suffolk Downs is supposed to have the inside track when it comes to winning a casino license, just like Mitt Romney is supposed to have the inside track on winning the Republican presidential nomination. But now, just as Romney faces unexpected competition from rival Newt Gingrich, Joe O’Donnell & Co. face unexpected competition for their Suffolk Downs vision from New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft and casino mogul Steve Wynn.

Kraft and Wynn are proposing a $1 billion resort casino and business convention complex across from Gillette Stadium. Those with long memories might even call it a “megaplex’’ — a variation of the stadium and convention complex Kraft wanted to be part of in South Boston back in the late 1990s. After Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino shot down that idea, Kraft took his football home to Foxborough. Now he wants to take his dice there, too, setting up another showdown with the mayor who let him down once before.

The battle is joined and the stakes are high. This isn’t about “legacy’’ or repairing the “social fabric,’’ as Kraft babbled with Gingrich-like grandiosity during roll-out interviews. This is about super-rich people making themselves even richer. That’s why Kraft and Wynn want to build a casino at Gillette Stadium and why O’Donnell and his backers want to build one at Suffolk Downs.

Under the state’s new gambling law, there can only be one winner in eastern Massachusetts. That means someone has to lose, which sets up a good, old-fashioned Boston power struggle over bragging rights and bazillions of dollars. O’Donnell, who lost a previous bid to buy the Boston Red Sox, is something of a perpetual bridesmaid in these scenarios. But he does have Menino and House Speaker Robert DeLeo in his corner. Kraft and Wynn might have Governor Deval Patrick on their side. At a minimum, they have Patrick’s contention that the suburbs make a better casino venue.

You could argue that Foxborough is the better spot — as long as you don’t live there, and as long as you don’t really believe Wynn is going to build a gambling complex designed to blend into its “bucolic’’ New England backdrop. What’s he talking about? A casino disguised as a church steeple? A village green lined with show girls?

Suffolk Downs, meanwhile, is not a scenic destination and never will be unless you enjoy looking at gas tanks. Besides, traffic in a vicinity that close to the airport is already a hassle. Menino proudly cites access to the MBTA Blue Line as a plus, but it also makes it easier for every gambling addict with a Charlie Card to hop on the T for the kind of quick fix that puts the grocery money at risk.

Under the new casino law, Kraft and Wynn must win a referendum vote in Foxborough before they can proceed. That same legislation cleverly requires approval only from East Boston and Revere residents for a gambling operation at Suffolk Downs. The Boston City Council could demand a citywide vote, but its members are probably too busy making sure ex-councilor Maureen Feeney becomes the next city clerk to get involved in something as important as the casino fight.

Advantage, O’Donnell — maybe.

A new, five-member state gaming commission will ultimately decide who gets the license. Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley, and state Treasurer Steve Grossman each pick one member; Patrick’s pick will chair the commission. The remaining two members are appointed by a majority vote of the governor, attorney general, and treasurer. The three state leaders recently put out a press release detailing an “open and transparent search process for gaming commission appointments.’’ The proverbial nationwide search is no doubt underway. Menino and DeLeo have no say in who is chosen. Advantage, Kraft.

And so our brave new world of expanded gambling begins. Already wealthy men wrap their quest for greater wealth in the promise of short-term construction jobs and longer-term employment for waitresses, bartenders, and croupiers. Massachusetts, which used to revel in its differences, becomes a little bit more like other places.

There’s so much money on the line, the only inevitability is a brutal battle for a piece of the action.

Fix is in for gaming panel

Well.....Howie Carr at least noticed that change in labels from "Destination Resort" to "Destination...." whatever and the "Gaming Commission" instead of "Gambling Commission," but regrettably, little else.

Senator Tucker called them "Slots In A Box." I prefer Slot Barns which is what Beacon Hill is really promoting.

Not one for heavy lifting, Howie, maybe you could do some research instead of simply slinging well-deserved mud? Surely the Boston Globe has provided enough fodder without you stressing yourself with too much research.


Fix is in for gaming panel
By Howie Carr

U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz should be impaneling a new grand jury — on spec.

The Gaming Commission — the name itself is probable cause to suspect that a crime has been committed, or soon will be. Especially in Massachusetts, could any name be any ... gamier?

Why didn’t they just call it the Gambling Commission? Who did they think they were fooling? That wasn’t the only phony-baloney name they changed. They’ve stopped calling them “resort casinos” because really, is Milford a resort for anybody except drunken-driving illegal aliens from Brazil?

Now they are “destination casinos,” although after the game guys ’n’ gals on the Gaming Commission have made their picks, the more likely destination for all concerned is a federal pen. From jobs, jobs, jobs to jail, jail, jail.

There will, of course, be a stampede for the commission slots — $150,000 for the chairman, and $112,500 for each of the members. Nice way to round off an extinguished, I mean distinguished, career in the hackerama. Get those three highest years in and you’re looking at a $10G-a-month kiss in the mail for the chairman, and $90G a year for the members.

Commissioners should have a background in mathematics. They must be able to count to five, as in, “I’ll take the Fifth.”

For commissions like this, they always used to appoint a retired FBI agent. That’s no longer an option, obviously. And naturally we’ll need a minority hack — too bad Dick Arrington’s not around anymore, but maybe Skippy Gates is available.

But probably not. The reason the commissioners are going to make such big money is so they won’t need any outside income, above the table outside income, that is. The commissioners are supposed to remain, you’ll pardon the expression, virgins. This outbreak of virginity will make it even more imperative for every commissioner to have a bagman, er, aide.

When the investigations begin — triggered by the losers dropping a dime — the feds won’t even have to break a sweat. Start with Tuesday’s wonderful photo of the bill signing — Exhibit A, they’ll call it. Some day, everyone in it will fervently wish they’d been somewhere else that day. Just ask Mitt Romney about his 2006 Romneycare portrait in Faneuil Hall with Sal DiMasi and Ted Kennedy.

The luckiest hacks in the State House were state Senate President Terry Murray and state Sen. Stanley Rosenberg. They didn’t make it into the frame.

Then there were all those pens Deval used to sign the bill, like it was the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or something. If Deval handed you one of those pens, don’t lose it. If you do, in about three years you could be charged with destroying evidence. Opening question in the grand-jury chambers:

“Sir, on Nov. 22, 2011, did you happen to receive a pen, and if so, from whom, under what circumstances, and was it in return for something of value?”

Is it too early to make a bet? The over-under on politicians going to prison on this scam is five. I’ll take the over

Developer files lawsuit over new casino law

Developer files lawsuit over new casino law
By Noah Bierman, Globe Staff


Within hours of signing a new casino law, the state has been sued in federal court by a developer opposed to a provision that gives the Mashpee Wampanoag a leg up in opening a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts.

The new law gives the tribe nearly a year to reach an agreement with the state before opening the third casino license to private developers. State officials have said they believe the tribe has a federal right to open a casino, and that the law is simply taking that into account.

Those unnamed State Officials are simply wrong!

The suit filed in federal court today by KG Urban Enterprises against Governor Deval Patrick and the state gambling commission that will be created under the new law claims the state is violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution, according to a company spokesman. It also claims the law violates “the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights because it contains numerous explicit, race-based set-asides that give federally recognized Indian tribes a categorical advantage over all other applicants in seeking a commercial gaming license in Southeastern Massachusetts.”

KG Urban Enterprises has proposed redeveloping a former power plan in New Bedford into a full-scale casino.

Asked about a potential for a lawsuit this morning, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo defended the Native American provision, but expressed some concern that a suit could stall the opening of new casinos. “It could in actuality slow down the process,” he said.

DeLeo said the law was reviewed extensively by attorneys.

State Set Scene for Future Corruption

Hack-O-Rama here we come!


New commission given sweeping oversight of casinos
By Associated Press

BOSTON — When Gov. Deval Patrick signs a new gambling bill into law, control over the three planned casinos and one slots parlor will quickly shift from state lawmakers to an as-yet-unnamed five-member commission, whose members will all make more than $100,000 a year.

Top lawmakers said they deliberately set out to give the commission as much leeway as possible to regulate the new industry.

"You have to have someone to give the authority to, to make those difficult ... decisions," said House Speaker Robert DeLeo, D-Winthrop, a strong supporter of expanded gambling.

"I think it’s best left for an independent commission to take a look at who’s qualified to have one of these facilities, to make sure that the people who are operating them have not only the fiscal management to do so, but they pass all of the necessary qualifications," he added. [And take their queue from the Speaker?]

The law gives the commission sweeping powers to:

— Approve or deny casino licenses.

— Inspect financial reports.

— Hire and fire commission employees.

— Conduct investigations.

— Impound slot machines and other gambling equipment.

— Issue subpoenas.

— Act as trustees for gambling-related trust funds.

The commission will also have the power to levy and collect assessments, fees and fines associated with the casinos and provide assistance to the governor in negotiating a compact with a federally recognized Indian tribe. In return, the full-time commissioners will receive six-figure salaries.

Under the bill, the chairman of the commission will receive a salary equal to that of the state secretary of administration and finance — $150,000 — while the remaining four commissioners will receive $112,500 each, or three-quarters the salary.

Patrick, whose earns about $140,000 as governor, is expected to sign the bill as early as Tuesday.

The commissioners are appointed by three of the state’s top elected officials.

Patrick, Attorney General Martha Coakley and state Treasurer Steven Grossman, all Democrats, will each name one member to the commission. The remaining two members will be appointed by a majority vote of the governor, attorney general and treasurer.

Patrick’s pick will serve as commission chairman.

Members of the commission will serve five-year terms and can be appointed to a second term. No more than three can be from the same political party. The governor can remove a member only for specific reasons including malfeasance, conviction of a felony or neglect of duty.

Casino critics say the bill stacks too much clout in the hands of the commission.

"We and all citizens, including legislators ... should be very concerned about the sweeping powers of this new bureaucracy," Kathleen Conley Norbut, a longtime critics of casino gambling, said in a statement.

"We proposed development of a ’watchdog’ group that would monitor the establishment and growth of the industry, as well as the concentrated powers of the commission. This is something that is still needed," she added, saying lawmakers "intentionally have washed their hands of future responsibility."

The bill places restrictions on the outside activities of commissioners.

The commissioners are expected to work full time for the board and are barred from owning any stock in a business that holds a casino license or from providing any professional services to any regulated firms. Commissioners are also barred from wagering in a casino except as part of the job.

While state lawmakers prohibited one another from working for a casino for at least one year after leaving public office, commissioners are held to a three-year "cooling-off" period after leaving the board.

The lengthy bill goes into great detail about just what authority the commission wields. The most critical is the power to "determine which applicants shall be awarded gaming licenses."

The bill appears to leave little room to appeal that decision once it is made, short of going to court.

"The commission shall have full discretion as to whether to issue a license," the bill states. "Applicants shall have no legal right or privilege to a gaming license and shall not be entitled to any further review if denied by the commission."

Under the bill, one casino will be in each of three broad geographic locations across the state. It will be up to the commission to weigh each proposal and pick the one they think is the best — or to deny all proposals if none meet their criteria.

The commission also has the authority to suspend or revoke a license for specific reasons, including breaching a condition of the license or if a licensee commits a felony.

Picking the winning casino bidders is a choice that could be extremely lucrative — to the state and the casino company.

Each winning casino firm must show it has enough money to pour at least $500 million into a gambling facility while also covering a licensing fee of at least $85 million. For the slots parlor, the winning company will have to show it can spend $125 million developing the facility and also cover a $25 million fee.

Overseeing it all is the commission, empowered to weigh not just a company’s financial stability, but also its "integrity, honesty, good character and reputation."

The commission’s power doesn’t stop there.

The board will also have its own law enforcement agency — an "investigations and enforcement bureau" that will be the primary enforcement agent for regulatory matters.

The commission even has power to regulate casino "junkets" designed to lure those willing to bet at a higher level in exchange for the casino picking up the cost of transportation, food and lodging.

To cover the costs of the commission, the bill establishes the Massachusetts Gaming Control Fund. The commission is named the trustee of the fund and is empowered to use the money to pay for the operational expenses of the commission.

The money for the fund comes in part from certain fees levied on the industry — including an annual license fee of $600 for each slot machine and a nonrefundable application fee of $400,000 for each casino proposal.

Suffolk Downs Leader on Degenerate Gamblers, Eminent Domain

Massachusetts taxpayers are going to subsidize the Dead Horse Racing Industry and pay for Infrastructure Improvements costing + $500 million to do so.





From a legislative hearing on 10/29/2009- a leader of the politically connected Suffolk Downs racetrack in Boston tells the truth about how the track views of their customers and reveals the possibility of Eminent Domain land takings if Suffolk Downs expands its operation to include slot machine and perhaps more.

Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

FOUR YEARS ago, when Governor Patrick resurrected the idea of legalizing casinos in Massachusetts, it seemed conceivable that doing so could work out to the state’s advantage. For most Bay State residents who visit Connecticut from time to time to play roulette and see a favorite comedian, gambling is harmless entertainment and nothing more. For that reason, authorizing Foxwoods-style destination casinos looked like an easy way to recapture hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues and satisfy public needs from transportation to local aid - and generate thousands of new jobs to boot.

The key question, though, was whether the governor and state lawmakers could expand gambling in a manner that maximizes the economic benefits for the state and minimizes the potential for political intrigue. While a Beacon Hill conference committee is still reconciling the measures that passed the House and Senate this fall, it’s become quite clear that the political system in Massachusetts isn’t well-equipped to withstand the intense pressure that legalized gambling will place upon it.

The public interest is highly vulnerable on some of the nitty-gritty issues now before House and Senate negotiators. For instance, under which circumstances will voters in the state’s largest cities get a vote on a proposed gambling facility in their communities? For how long should lawmakers be prohibited from working for gambling companies after they leave office? On both issues, the Senate bill is better than the House bill - which would deny most Bostonians a vote on a casino in the city and provides no cooling-off period before a lawmaker could take a job with a gambling operator. But neither bill’s provisions are adequate.

Still more telling are key issues that are no longer on the table. While Patrick’s original vision was for three destination casinos, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has long shown a special interest in Suffolk Downs, wanted to let the state’s ailing racetracks have slot machines. Last year’s negotiations stalled on the issue. This year, Patrick, DeLeo, and Senate President Therese Murray agreed on a plan to license three casinos and a slots parlor - and to set aside some of the proceeds to prop up the racing industry. At this point, writing this kind of favoritism into law isn’t even up for debate, and there are ample grounds for public cynicism. Is there much doubt that Suffolk Downs will come away with either a casino or a slots license, no matter what?

Sadly, there’s little evidence that Beacon Hill has taken recent scandals to heart. When former state senator Dianne Wilkerson pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme over a liquor license, it foreshadowed the danger of corruption on casino licensing decisions, where exponentially more money is at stake. When former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was convicted of taking kickbacks to fix a multimillion-dollar insurance contract, it highlighted how even a seasoned lawmaker could view self-dealing as part of how things are done on Beacon Hill.

Yet at the point in the legislative process when the public most needs reassurance, the signs are particularly grim. Recently the lead House negotiator, Representative Joseph Wagner, maintained that denying politicians the ability to be hired right out of the Legislature and into casino jobs would “preclude the best and brightest’’ from working in the industry. Meanwhile, the Globe recently reported that a key Patrick aide on the gambling issue, economic-development chief Greg Bialecki, owned $17,000 in stocks in companies that hope to build casinos in the state. Most people on Beacon Hill barely shrugged.

When Patrick offered a casino plan four years ago, he did so cautiously, and the bill as it now stands is still farther from his ideals. Yes, the conference committee can and should strengthen ethics protections and local-control provisions in the bill. Yet unless the basic outlines are changed to conform to Patrick’s initial vision, it simply shouldn’t pass, and Patrick should veto it if it does. If Massachusetts marries the casino industry on these terms, it will be stuck with the consequences forever.

Massachusetts Failures

Beacon Hill, the peak of Massachusetts government, has allowed itself to become obsessed with a flawed Gambling Bill that overshadows all of the People's Business.

Maybe they might not be faulted if the legislation was truly thorough, but it's not. Claims of 'we'll get it right' fall short.

Eagerly promoting phony job creation figures and false revenue claims, glad handing Gambling Industry lobbyists while scandals, indictments, cronyism and Ethics issues abound, the citizens have been shortchanged on major issues.

Below is merely one more example:


Murder victim's Quincy dad fears casino bill overshadowing offender bill
By Steve Adams
The Patriot Ledger


A murder victim’s father who’s been fighting for more than a decade to keep violent offenders behind bars said he’s worried anti-crime legislation is being overshadowed by the Legislature’s focus on casinos.

“As long as we can get revenue and more fees, that’s more important than if a woman gets raped or a person gets murdered,” Leslie Gosule of Quincy said. “The casino bill is trumping the habitual offender bill, which is wrong.”

Gosule’s daughter Melissa Gosule, a schoolteacher, was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 1999 after she accepted a ride from a passer-by after her car broke down in Sagamore. Her killer, Michael Gentile of Halifax, had a record of 22 arrests.

Since Gosule’s death, her family has been lobbying for legislation that would make it more difficult to parole violent offenders. Melissa’s Bill would eliminate the possibility of parole for offenders with at least three felony convictions. Currently, offenders are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences.

The Legislature’s joint public safety committee is considering several bills that would impose stricter penalties on repeat violent offenders.

After the Dec. 26 shooting death of Woburn police officer John Maguire, 11 legislators filed a bill that would eliminate the chance of parole for offenders serving more than one life sentence.

Maguire’s killer, Dominic Cinelli, had been paroled despite being convictions that led to three life sentences.

Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed a law that would require an offender convicted of three felonies to serve at least two-thirds of the third sentence before being eligible for parole. Another bill filed this session would eliminate parole for anyone serving more than one life sentence.

Many backers of sentencing reform who testified this past Wednesday at the State House said they would support Melissa’s Bill or legislation that combined elements of all of the bills.

“It could be a mix of the bills,” said state Sen. John Keenan, D-Quincy. “Some things in the governor’s bill will have to be looked at, as well as some things in Melissa’s Bill.”

Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, R-Gloucester, said some version should emerge from the committee this week.

“I think they will be pleased with the core elements of the bill,” Tarr said. “It should be ready for a floor vote next week. My philosophy about this is we can’t do it soon enough and it’s long overdue.”

Laura Schroeder, a spokeswoman for Senate President Therese Murray, said some version is expected to be released from the committee this week. It will likely contain various elements of the competing bills, she said.

Currently in Massachusetts, convicted felons are eligible for parole after serving half of their sentences, except for first-degree murderers, who are not eligible for parole. Those convicted of second-degree murder must serve 15 years of a life sentence before they are eligible for parole.

Opponents of mandatory sentencing have argued that the language in both Melissa’s Bill and the governor’s bill is too broad, and that the sentencing guidelines do not apply only to violent felons.

Representatives from groups including the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Massachusetts Families Against Mandatory Minimums have testified against Melissa’s Bill.

Leslie Gosule said the influence of defense attorneys in the Legislature has thwarted tougher crime legislation over the years.

“A criminal defense attorney gets paid every time a guy commits a crime,” he said. “It’s a great system. Money is more important than public safety.”

Massachusetts: Senate keeps slots in casino bill

Senate keeps slots in casino bill
By Kyle Cheney
State House News Service


BOSTON — The Senate on Thursday rejected an effort to strip a slot machine facility out of an expanded gambling bill, but the proposal garnered enough support to raise the prospect that the branch could sustain a potential veto of the slot machine provision.

While Gov. Deval Patrick has said he’d support a competitively bid slot parlor to achieve a long-thwarted deal to bring casino gambling to Massachusetts, he has long asserted that a slots-only gambling facility amounts to “convenience gambling” and previously argued that such facilities feature “more downside than upside, more human cost and impact than there is benefit on the jobs and revenue side.”

Twelve members of the Senate voted to strip the slot parlor, and although the effort was easily defeated, the absence of Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz, a gambling opponent, and the imminent departure of Sen. Steven Tolman (D-Boston), an expanded gambling proponent, raises the prospect that members against the slot parlor could muster the 13 votes necessary to uphold a veto, even though one appears unlikely right now.

Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), who sponsored the amendment to kill the slot parlor, reminded colleagues that only a year ago they had endorsed a gambling bill that included no slots-only facilities. She argued that those facilities devastate the poor and thrive on addiction, comparing them to tobacco companies.

“These people need our help, and instead we’re throwing them to the wolves,” she said. “What we are doing today is shifting money. We’re actually taking money from those that can least afford it and putting it in the hands of the wealthy. We’ve talked on this floor before about what’s happening in this country, about how the middle class isn’t going to be a middle class and how there may just be two classes and how we are continually taking from the poor to give to the rich. This is not economic development to have a slot parlor.”

Backers of a slot parlor argue that it can be up and running more rapidly than casinos, creating an instant infusion of jobs and revenue for the state.

“We’re going to see revenue that is now spent in Connecticut and Rhode Island and all the other states in and around our region where people make their own choice to go and play slots,” said Sen. Marc Pacheco (D-Taunton). “They will finally be able to come back here to Massachusetts and participate if they choose to do so with their recreational dollar. We’re going to create over 15,000 jobs with this bill. That’s positive economic development.”
[Where is that guarantee, Senator? That's an overzealous figure that's been repeatedly disproven by comparison with other states.]

Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland), who co-chairs the committee that released the first version of expanded gambling legislation that included a slot machine parlor, voted to strike slots from the bill.

Asked why she hadn’t expressed her opposition to the slot parlor when the bill emerged from committee, Spilka said, “This is the time for me to be voting and taking a stand on certain issues. I figure that’s just the beginning of a process. There was consensus.”

Spilka did not rule out supporting a final bill that includes a slot facility, stating, “I need to look at the bill in its entirety to see.”

Sens. Creem, Spilka Kenneth Donnelly, Ben Downing, James Eldridge, Susan Fargo, Barry Finegold, Robert Hedlund, Patricia Jehlen, John Keenan, Mark Montigny and Daniel Wolf voted to eliminate the slots facilities.

During debate on the gambling bill, senators defeated an effort by Republicans to use gambling revenue to return the state sales tax to 5 percent, its level before an increase in 2009 to 6.25 percent.

Senate Ways and Means Committee Chairman Stephen Brewer ripped the proposal as a detriment to the state’s fiscal health, and he said it might cause Massachusetts to “catch up with Greece” in its bond rating. The amendment failed 9-27, with some Democrats, including Sens. Steven Baddour, Eileen Donoghue, Michael Moore and James Timilty, joining their GOP counterparts in support.

Another Republican amendment to require that the first five years worth of gambling revenue be placed in the state’s rainy day account was defeated 4-32, a strictly party-line vote.

Brewer argued that the state wanted to use the revenue to support priorities like transportation, education, local aid and economic development. Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr countered that the proposal would allow the state to continue to enjoy “natural growth” in the economy while shoring up savings for any future economic turmoil.

Senators also defeated an amendment to reduce the number of casinos in the bill from three to two, an effort that Keenan said would bring greater economic gain and less negative impact from the gambling industry. No one spoke against the amendment.

The session ended when Baddour moved to print the amendments in the Senate calendar, a procedural move that exhausted gaming opponents’ remaining delay options.

The Senate is due to resume its debate Tuesday. Senate President Therese Murray told reporters that it may still be a long slog to complete the bill.

“We still have a long way to go,” she said, estimating that debate would continue through next Thursday.