Mayor, Wynn reps meet to talk casino rivalry

The planned Everett casino site.

Boston Globe

By Adam Vaccaro

Boston.com Staff | 06.11.15 | 9:03 PM

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

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

RELATED LINK

• Walsh doubles down in Wynn casino fight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boston expands lawsuit against Massachusetts gaming commission

Boston expands lawsuit against Massachusetts gaming commission

BOSTON —An amended lawsuit filed by the city of Boston is asking a judge to bar the current Massachusetts gaming regulators from any future action on the $1.7 billion casino proposed for neighboring Everett.

Mayor Marty Walsh announced Thursday the city amended its complaint that challenges the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's decision to award Wynn Resorts a casino license for the proposed casino.

"The commission's award of the license was the product of a corrupt process to favor Wynn," the lawsuit stated. "Their conduct has irreparably tainted the gaming licensing process, and has demonstrated that they are unwilling and unable to fulfill their legal obligations to serve as independent regulators."

Elaine Driscoll, a spokeswoman for the gambling commission, called the revised lawsuit a "personal assault" on the five-member panel and "wholly unproductive" to resolving complex policy issues.

"The commission made each license award based solely on a thoughtful, objective and exhaustive evaluation of each gaming proposal," she said.

Originally filed in January, the lawsuit seeks a court order to void the Wynn license and levels numerous allegations of wrongdoing by the commission and Wynn Resorts during the licensing competition that ended late last year.

Among them are allegations that commission members changed application rules and regulations to benefit Wynn, and that Wynn representatives knew criminally suspect figures had an ownership stake in the development property before signing a land deal, despite what the company has said.

Three of the property's former owners face federal wire fraud charges for allegedly trying to cover up criminal ties.

A Wynn Resorts spokesman dismissed the allegations as "retread stories" without merit. Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria agreed.

"This is nothing but a rehashing of issues that have been brought up, solved or addressed by the state and the Gaming Commission," he said in a statement.

Walsh said Boston had no choice but to go to court because Wynn has not reached a financial compensation deal with the city and has not applied for the necessary city permits even though the casino's main entry goes through Boston.

"(It) is clear that this is the only way to move forward to protect the rights of Boston's public and restore integrity to the gaming process," he said in a statement.

The cities of Revere and Somerville have also filed separate lawsuits challenging Wynn's license, which is one of three the commission has issued. MGM holds a casino license for a Springfield resort and Penn National Gaming has a license to build a slot parlor in Plainville.

Casino company Mohegan Sun, which lost its bid for the Boston-area license to Wynn, is a party in Revere's lawsuit, as is the labor union representing workers at the Suffolk Downs horse racing track in Revere.



http://www.wcvb.com/news/boston-expands-lawsuit-against-massachusetts-gaming-commission/33145528

This has NEVER been about HORSE RACING!

Suffolk Downs offers to abandon racing for casino

By Mark Arsenault and Andrea Estes

| Globe Staff May 15, 2014

 

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff/File

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


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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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


 

A Whirlwind Week on Mass. Casino Scene

A Whirlwind Week on Mass. Casino Scene

Gaming Commission chairman Stephen Crosby has recused himself from proceedings involving the Eastern Massachusetts casino license.Credit: John Tlumacki, The Boston Globe

By Adam Vaccaro

Boston.com Staff

May 12, 2014 9:51 AM

 

If you had mid-May of this year as the point at which implementation of the state’s gambling legislation would explode into a hornets’ nest of legal threats and perceived conflicts of interest, cash in now.

 

It’s been a busy week on the casino front.

 

On Thursday, Gaming Commission chairman Stephen Crosby, in the face of claims that he has gotten cozy with the brass at the competing Everett and Revere casino sites, stepped away from any decision-making around the licensing of an Eastern Massachusetts casino.

 

Given that he’s supposed to be the head decision maker, Crosby is now facing calls for his outright resignation. The chorus includes five candidates for governor in this fall’s election. The Boston Globe reports:

Democrats Steve Grossman, Martha Coakley, and Juliette Kayyem, Republican Charlie Baker, and Independent Evan Falchuk all said Crosby should resign to allow the awarding of the license to move forward without controversy.

Among the first things Crosby recused himself from was the commission’s Thursday vote to determine whether the City of Boston has claim to “host community” status for either of those sites.

 

Had the commission said yes, East Boston would have had the opportunity to vote on whether or not to allow the Mohegan Sun-Suffolk Downs proposal in Revere, and Charlestown to do so for the Everett site. East Boston, of course, already once voted whether to allow a casino that straddled its border with Revere and soundly rejected it, leading the Suffolk Downs proposal to scoot itself fully within Revere’s borders.

 

Boston Mayor Martin Walsh on Friday said his administration believes it has “multiple options available” to continue the fight for host community status.

 

Meanwhile, the Boston Business Journal reports that Somerville’s negotiations for mitigation compensation from Wynn Resorts, the developer behind the Everett casino, have reached the point of bitterness. Each side has objected to the other’s proposed arbiter in determining what Somerville should get in mitigation of the potential effects of having a casino so nearby.

 

Keep in mind, the gaming board hopes to issue the Boston-area license by the end of the summer.

 

All of the above, however, is moot if a voter referendum makes its way on to ballots this November and results in a repeal of the 2011 gaming legislation. In order to make that happen, the group advocating for the question will need to convince the Supreme Judicial Court to allow it. On Sunday, however, the Globe reported that one judge—Justice Robert Cordy—has past ties to both the Suffolk Downs and Everett sites.

It turns out Cordy has more than a passing familiarity with the difficulties casino companies have doing business in Massachusetts. In the 1990s, Cordy was a lawyer and a lobbyist for Suffolk Downs, one of two possible locations for the Eastern Massachusetts casino, and a second gambling company that was seeking to build a casino in the state.

Cordy also served as senior adviser to Governor William Weld, who is now an attorney for Steve Wynn, Suffolk Downs's rival for the Boston-area casino license.

In fairness to Cordy, his work for Suffolk Downs came under previous ownership. But it’s still not a very good look. A court spokesperson told the Globe Cordy has recused himself from some cases in his career, but did not offer any specific cases.

 

So, to recap. The gaming board commissioner won’t play a role in deciding which Eastern Massachusetts casino receives a license. Boston is going to continue its quest for host community status while Somerville’s standoff over the Everett proposal remains terse. And the group that wants to just do away with the casino laws altogether is presenting its case to somebody with ties to the sites desperately vying for said casinos.

 

Let the games begin.

 

 

http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/05/12/whirlwind-week-mass-casino-scene/JBSE5YCr2ET5TYHx6cMo8L/story.html

 

 

Remember when....?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Hub suit could help kill casinos

Photo by:

Chitose Suzuki

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

 

Saturday, May 10, 2014

By Richard Weir

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

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

 

 

Walsh calls for top gambling regulator to recuse himself

Yoon S. Byun/Globe staff/file 2013

Stephen Crosby.

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff April 17, 2014

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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

 

 

 

Decision on Boston area casino license could be delayed

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

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe Staff April 03, 2014

 

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

 

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

 

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

Related

• Coverage: Casino gambling in Mass.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Walsh questions power of gambling panel in dispute

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff March 26, 2014

Globe File

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



 

Meeting Scheduled with Mayor Walsh

Dear friends and neighbors,

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

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

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

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

• Walsh Debates Boston Casino Status

Thanks again and stay tuned for more,

The No Eastie Casino Team

 

 

 

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED!

To our friends and neighbors:   Thank you for your persistence in fighting back as the Mass Gaming Commission seeks to silence our voices and move ahead with an illegitimate process. As you may know, Mayor Marty Walsh asked the gaming commission for one month to allow his legal team to review the lengthy host community agreement to determine if Boston is a host community (as, in the case of the proposed Revere casino, we believe research will prove it is) or a surrounding community (as Mohegan Sun argues).   The Gaming Commission -- which granted the extension to Suffolk Downs to allow them to rework this proposal and have a new vote -- denied Mayor Walsh's request. They gave him until Monday to agree to begin negotiations as a surrounding community. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!   Mayor Walsh and his legal team have taken the right approach to date. The decision and statement they make today, Monday, is a critical one. We must ask them to speak out against the unfair ruling of the Mass Gaming Commission--and to put the Commission on notice that the city of Boston will not tolerate this. Mayor Walsh is our new mayor; he promised in his inaugural address to listen to the people of Boston and to have open and transparent government. We applaud this commitment. He must listen to the people of East Boston and do everything in his power to ensure the vote we took is respected.   --Your No Eastie Casino team @noeastiecasino Message to share immediately: Targeted Tweet: @marty_walsh; #EastBostonIsHostCommunity. Boston must #SayItPublicly now! #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: @marty_walsh; #EastBostonIsHostCommunity. Thank you for your support to date. #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: @marty_walsh;Thank you for commitment to listening and transparency. Eastie has voted: #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: @marty_walsh; Please meet with @noeastiecasino this week! Here from Eastie people. #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: @SalLaMattina; #EastBostonIsHostCommunity. Boston must #SayItPublicly now! #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Important, but lower priority Targeted Tweet: @CouncilorMurphy #EastBostonIsHostCommunity. Boston must #SayItPublicly now! #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: @RepBasile #EastBostonIsHostCommunity. Boston must #SayItPublicly now! #RevereCasinoIsIllegal Targeted Tweet: Thank you @antspetro34 for saying "proposed resort casino is dead". #EastBostonIsHostCommunity #RevereCasinoIsIllegal # SayItPublicly Generic Tweet: [Insert Elected Handle] Stand with Eastie, uphold the law, respect democracy #RevereCasinoIsIlleg al #SayItPublicly Whenever they fit, use #macasinos or #bospoli as tags in your tweets to officials so they are seen by more people! We need emails and phone calls too. Top priority Mayor Marty Walsh 617-635-4500 mayor@cityofboston.gov Lower priority State Senator Anthony Petruccelli 617-722-1634 Anthony.Petruccelli@masenate.gov State Representative Carlo Basile 617-722-2877 carlo.basile@masenate.gov City Councillor Sal LaMattina 617-635-3200 Salvatore.LaMattina@cityofboston.gov (scroll down for a suggested phone call/email script) Contact info for other Boston Elected Officials: Mayor-Elect Marty Walsh Twitter: @marty_walsh Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/marty.walsh 1st Suffolk & Middlesex District State Senator Anthony Petruccelli Twitter: @antspetro34 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/anthony.petruccelli 1st Suffolk District State Representative Carlo Basile Twitter: @RepBasile Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/repbasile City Council At Large Michelle Wu Twitter: @wutrain Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/wutrain 617.635.3115 Ayanna Pressley Twitter: @AyannaPressley Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/ayanna.pressley 617.635.4217 Michael Flaherty Twitter: @mfflaherty Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/flahertyfanpage 617.635.4205 Steven Murphy Twitter: @CouncilorMurphy Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/stephenjmurphy. boston 617.635.4376 District Councilors D1 Sal LaMattina Twitter: @SalLaMattina Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sallamattina D2 Bill Linehan Twitter: @LinehanBill Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/bill.linehan D3 Frank Baker Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/frankbaker D4 Charles Yancey Twitter: @CharlesCYancey D5 Tim McCarthy Twitter: @McCarthy4Boston D6 Matt O'Malley Twitter: @MattOMalley Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/heymattomalley D7 Tito Jackson Twitter: @titojackson Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/titohjackson D8 Josh Zakim Twitter: @joshzakim Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/jzakim D9 Mark Ciommo Twitter: @markciommo Facebook: https://www. facebook.com/pages/Mark- Ciommo   If you are calling or emailing, please use or adapt this open letter:   Subject line: Revere Casino is Illegal; East Boston is a Host Community   Dear Mayor Walsh:   I am contacting you on behalf of the people of East Boston--and Boston more broadly. We stand with you in opposition to the Mass Gaming Commission's arbitrary deadline of today for Boston to begin negotiating surrounding community agreements. The Gaming Commission has repeatedly bent and broken rules for casino applicants--most notably with allowing this last minute Mohegan Sun application to move forward despite there not having been an affirmative vote for it before the deadline. Certainly, the Gaming Commission should also recognize the rights of the people in affected communities to make informed decisions--and should recognize that more time is needed for a new administration to make an informed decision after a last minute applicant files a messy application with many pieces not publicly available.   For example, Mohegan Sun's application acknowledges that 80% of casino traffic will come from 1A, but tries to argue that the current main entrance in East Boston will only be used by "existing users" and that access from East Boston will "not be signed or encouraged for use to access the site." If the application is to be believed, Furlong Drive (the current entrance to a major shopping center in Revere) will be expanded to accommodate incoming 1A traffic. Given the 12,000+ new vehicles that the casino is expected to attract every day, it is beyond belief that visitors would not continue to rely upon the main entrance in East Boston.   Regardless, it is reasonable to believe that Boston will remain a host community so long as any casino-related traffic enters the casino property via East Boston.   The Expanded Gaming Act required affirmative votes in both host communities (East Boston and Revere) for any casino development at Suffolk Downs. Given the significant known impacts that this development will continue to impose upon the city of Boston, there is truly no such thing as a "Revere-only" plan for any construction at Suffolk Downs. The current situation--in which one community strongly favors construction on a shared parcel of land while the other opposes it--is exactly the result that this legal provision was designed to avoid.   Please continue to stand up and continue the city of Boston's fight for full recognition as a host community. Do not stop there. If we are recognized as a host community, we ask you to please recognize the vote of the people of East Boston and refuse to negotiate. That would stop this proposal in its tracks. If Boston is not recognized as a host community, we ask you to hire outside counsel to support the great work of the city's internal counsel and fight against this illegal Mohegan Sun proposal--on the many grounds by which it is illegal--and to stop the proposal in its tracks.   We voted for a safer community, a better community for families and small businesses, a community with better jobs. We applaud your inaugural pledge to fight to reduce violence in Boston and your public statements about personally fighting against addiction and winning. Given that there is a direct research-proven link between casinos and gun violence, and that problem gaming doubles within 15 miles of a casino, we know that your goals will best be advanced by your standing with the people of East Boston and pledging to keep Boston casino-free.   We commend your pledge to listen and to have a transparent city government. The people of East Boston have spoken. Please meet with No Eastie Casino this week and hear more about our arguments. Please stand with us and fight against the illegal, unethical approach Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs are taking and announce publicly today how you will continue to fight on our behalf. Thank you for your support!   Sincerely, INSERT NAME

Forward this email