SJC: Cost has nothing to do with LEGAL ISSUES!

The Gambling Industry GAMBLED, knowing the risks!

Voters has a right to VOTE!

SJC questions whether casino repeal would cost Mass.

Ted Fitzgerald/Boston Herald/pool

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

 

By Mark Arsenault and John R. Ellement

| Globe staff May 05, 2014

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

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

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

Related

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Yes,’’ Bean replied.

At another point, Cordy pressed Bean again.

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

“That is correct,’’ Bean said.

“Wow!” Cordy replied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

The Casino Predators don't want you to vote!

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

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

REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!  The only sensible solution.

Casino repeal goes to Mass. SJC



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


With videographer Christopher D. Garvin and video editor Mike Bellwin



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