On casinos, SJC holds trump card

By Joan Vennochi

| Globe Columnist April 20, 2014

 

Lane Turner/Globe staff/file 2013

Guy Romano (left) and Nancy Wojick (center) held signs opposing a casino in Milford.


THE SUPREME Judicial Court is the next and last stand in the battle to keep casinos out of Massachusetts.

If you have any doubts, listen to former mayor Thomas M. Menino, talking last week on WBZ-TV’s “Keller at Large.” Asked by host Jon Keller if voters will still support casinos in Massachusetts if the SJC allows a ballot measure on the question to go forward in November, Menino said, “I really believe that if it goes on the ballot, it’ll lose.”

 

“If it goes on the ballot” is entirely up to the SJC, which is scheduled to hear arguments on that question in early May. After a year of controversy and confusion over the license-granting process, recent polls show slippage in support.

If Menino — once the key political force behind a casino in East Boston and always an astute reader of public opinion — now believes the tide has turned enough to trigger repeal, the industry must be nervous. So nervous that it is determined to keep the question off the ballot.

Last August, the group that wants to kill casinos filed a petition with Attorney General Martha Coakley. It proposed a law that would essentially overturn the expanded gambling law passed by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2011. In September, Coakley — the current front-runner in the Democratic race to be governor — blocked the petition. In a ruling that essentially put the AG on the side of gaming, she argued that the millions that casino operators put on the table to take part in the state’ s licensing process amounts to an “implied contract.” Therefore, if the ballot question wins and the law is repealed, the outcome amounts to an unfair and unconstitutional taking of property.

Put aside the irony of trying to protect from risk the investments of an industry that makes its fortune off other people’s risks.

The “No Casino” group, which appealed Coakley’s ruling, contends the weight of the law falls on the side of the people and their right to vote. According to the brief they filed with the SJC, Coakley’s argument of an “implied contract” runs up against a US Supreme Court decision — Stone v. Mississippi. The case, which goes back to 1879, eerily echoes the circumstances at issue in Massachusetts today.

 

In Stone, the Mississippi legislature granted a 25-year charter to a lottery company in exchange for an initial $5,000 fee, an annual $1,000 tax, and a percentage of receipts from the sale of tickets. A year later, voters adopted a new state Constitution which outlawed lotteries. The holder of the lottery charter argued that it had contracted with the state to operate a lottery and that the new Mississippi Constitution violated it and, with it, the contract clause of the US Constitution.

But the Supreme Court ruled that no contract existed. The fundamental principle, which the SJC has adopted, is that the state cannot bargain away, even by express grant, the right to exercise its police powers to protect the public welfare, said Thomas O. Bean, one of the lead lawyers for the “No Casino” plaintiffs.

In Massachusetts, there is more recent precedent. The SJC ruled in a 2008 case that owners of a dog-racing track had “no compensable property” in their racing license after voters approved a ballot question banning dog racing.

The ballot initiative process followed by “No Casino” advocates was added to the state Constitution almost 100 years ago. It allows citizens to adopt laws they want enacted, or repeal those with which they disagree. After gathering nearly 70,000 signatures, casino repeal backers are hoping that Menino’s prediction holds true. But first, they have to get the question before the voters.

But there are huge business interests at stake, and the casino industry is rallying to protect them. MGM Resorts, for example, has asked the state gambling commission to delay the formal award of its license until after the SJC makes a ruling. The license award would trigger some $200 million in obligations to Massachusetts. MGM doesn’t want to pay that sum — and still risk losing the right to build a casino if the ballot measure goes forward and is approved by voters.

This is an industry that understands risk better than any other. To improve its odds of cashing in, it must stop the people from cashing out. How lucky that, on the next legal battlefield — before the SJC — gaming has the state’s AG on its side.



http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2014/04/19/casinos-next-draw-sjc/z1xHeIAlP5NgCJAlGODyAJ/story.html

Questions trail state gambling commissioner

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

By Andrea Estes and Scott Allen

| Globe Staff December 08, 2013

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff

Stephen Crosby, the gambling panel chairman.

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

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

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

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

Related

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

 

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

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

David L. Ryan/Globe Staff/File

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

 

The Sinking Ship That Is CAESARS!

Remember the bluster and outrage about how strict the Massachusetts Gam[bl]ing Commission was?

Remember Steve Wynn [being investigated for Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations and much else] blabbing on about how inexperienced Massachusetts was?

Remembers all the attacks and pretense about CAESARS?

Every body got in bed with Gary Loveman , the genius who revolutionized GAMBLING ADDICTION, ignoring the MASSIVE DEBT. 

At what point do the political hacks protect constituents?

[Suffolk Downs was prepared to 'partner' with the insolvent CAESARS, Mayor Menino signed a HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT with these clowns and the Casino KoolAid consumers embraced without question this insolvency. Do you think you needed to be a financial specialist to recognize that $23 BILLION in DEBT is a disaster waiting to happen?]


Caesars: All Earnings To Interest Payments

Nov 22 2013

 

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. (More...)

 

Caesars' Debt Burden Mitigates Possibility of Equity Returns At Least through 2020 Recommendation: Strong Sell Our research indicates that Caesars (CZR) is a poor equity investment choice that offers low expected return to equity investors with high speculative risk. The basis for our recommendation is that the company has a significant debt burden creating interest expense that is absorbing all operating cash production. The company has approximately $20 billion in outstanding debt principal, with significant balloon payments of $17 billion due through 2020.

 

Caesars' is the 6th largest gambling entertainment company in the world with 6.5% global market share, and its 68,000 employees generate approximately $8 billion in revenues. The company produces an impressive cash flow from operations of nearly $1.8 billion annually, but this is quickly spent on interest averaging around 10%. I will outline the major risks facing the company below. For income statement, balance sheet, and Excel model, please visit the original post.

 

Before we go too far, we should take a look at the current financial statements - we have hidden superfluous rows that are not meaningful for the analysis, these should not have a material impact on our assumptions or report. The balance sheet for Caesars as of Q3 2013 needs to be adjusted for two significant reasons. First, the company refinanced $4 billion in debt that was maturing in 2015 by issuing $2 billion in new debt and purchasing the remainder using cash. This likely wiped all nearly all the company's cash.

 

However, it should be noted at this point the company showed only $1.7 billion in cash - right now debt for Caesars is trading well below book value because it is rated below investment grade.

 

Fortunately, Caesars reported similar debt repurchases YTD, so we can assume this debt was repurchased at a similar 15% - 25% discount, which will be reflected as a positive gain on the next published income statement (which will be their annual filing in December).

 

These actions should all but wipe out the debt balance and reduces long-term debt by about $2 billion. Second, Caesars sold their online gaming business to Caesars Acquisition Company (CACQ) for $1.18 billion. From a balance sheet perspective this will increase cash by that amount, with the impacts flowing through the income statement in coming years. I will discuss this more in a bit, as the online gaming business was CZR's best chance for growth.

 

CZR - An LBO Case Study

 

A quick overview of how an LBO works - a private equity firm raises debt to buyout the equity in the company. The private equity firm now owns the target company with little initial investment, though possibly is subject to recourse if the debt goes belly up. The idea is the private equity firm believes they can sell of parts of the company to repay the debt with a remaining profit above the debt raised and interest paid, or they can increase operational profits so the cash flow produced is above the debt service needed with the remainder going to the PE firm. In either case the PE firm has little initial exposure, so any positive return is massive.

 

In the case of CZR, two PE firms - TPG and Apollo - took the company private by raising approximately $30 billion in debt. Much of this debt was issued at 3 - 4% (such as the $4 billion in CMBS that was due to retire in 2013, extended to 2014, option to extend to 2015, but refinanced with $2 billion retired and $2 billion due in 2020/2021). However, much of the debt was shorter term issues, and as these came up for refinancing, investors demanded rates closer to 10% due to the high leverage of the company and the industry's prospects.

 

As reflected in the income statement above, the company is paying about $1.7 billion on $23 billion of debt. Fortunately for CZR debt holders, the company has a profitable operating business generating nice margins. This provides enough cash to service interest on the debt. However, the forthcoming principal payments are unmanageable. I've consolidated the upcoming principal payments by year under current portion of debt due for that year: (refer to original article on woodfieldcg.com)

 

Now, to step back to 10,000 feet. After adjusting for the debt repurchase and the sale of the online gaming business, the company should be sitting on about $1.2 billion in cash plus restricted cash in escrow for debt repayment of about $500 million, so about $1.7 billion total. The company generates about $1.7 billion in EBITDA but pays about $2 billion in interest. Obviously this will eat away quickly at the company's cash balance unless they can replenish through operating growth, increasing future EBITDA, or selling additional assets, eroding future EBITDA.

 

But the real 800 pound gorilla is the debt principal payments. Holding revenues and margins constant, the company will have to use approximately $300 million of held cash to cover interest expense. Then they will need to use the remaining billion or so for principal, sucking the company dry of operating funds. If somehow they make it through 2015, they need to raise another $1.6 billion for principal + $1.9 billion for interest expenses in 2016 (roughly), or $3.5 billion raised in cash from operations in 2015/2016. Then in 2017 and 2018, $2.6 billion in principal and $6.5 billion in principal + $3.5 billion in interest expense, for $12.5 billion over those two years. From 2015 thru 2018, Caesars must earn or raise $11.5 billion in principal + $8 billion in interest for $19.5 billion total, on EBITDA of present assets of approximately $8 billion. The remaining $11.5 billion must come from growth in earnings, selling assets, or kicking the debt can down the road. But as can be clearly be seen, the company has ample funds to service its debt at 10% (a nice return) in perpetuity, as long as principal never has to be repaid. Below is a chart I have summarizing the debt service due against some EBITDA forecasts:

(click to enlarge)

 

 

The options for Caesars to avoid bankruptcy are: 1) organic growth in revenues and margins more than doubling EBITDA and cash flow; 2) Divesting assets, usually the most profitable and attractive, i.e. such as online gaming; or 3) continually raising debt.

Unfortunately for Caesars, gambling is a mature business with growth near GDP, and with medium volatility. Caesars has underperformed industry peers, particularly in the industry's recent best year, 2008. Below are tables from IBIS World of Caesars' revenue growth since 2008 and past and future estimates for the international gaming industry. Compare the forecasts for international gaming along with Caesars' relative performance to the chart above which is assume in the worst case scenario 2% growth revenue (unlikely attainable for Caesars). The only way equity holders come out ahead with value and positive return is with option 1, but we think this is nearly impossible and highly speculative.

(click to enlarge)
Source: IBIS World, November 20, 2013.

(click to enlarge)
Source: IBIS World, November 20, 2013

To wrap this up, I think it is highly unlikely Caesars will produce the organic growth necessary to service its debt, so the company will need to rely on options 2 or 3, divestiture or raising debt, or both. Buyers of assets know the companies dire position and will not be ponying up premiums. Debt issuers will be demanding the 10% interest they currently charge. In one upside case for debt holders who enjoy the 10% interest at junk ratings, the company can retain current assets and grow EBITDA at ~1% per annum, refinancing principal as it comes along.

In this case, it is purely a company for the debt holders, and the equity holders will be left with nothing over time, at least at today's present value. If the company cannot refinance, there will be forced liquidations of assets, possibly through bankruptcy, and eroding any possible growth in the future. The PE firms, TPG and Apollo, realize this, and have started to divest growth assets, such as the online gaming. As long as opportunistic assets can be divested without breaking debt covenants, expect this to be the game plan forward for extracting value out of CZR into new entities, such as CACQ, that you may or may not have access to (i.e. new PE funds).

 

 

 

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1857761-caesars-all-earnings-to-interest-payments?source=email_rt_article_readmore

 

 

Voters in East Boston, Palmer reject casino plans

BOSTON (AP) -- Casino supporters were dealt twin setbacks on Tuesday as voters in East Boston rejected a proposal by the Suffolk Downs race track and voters in Palmer narrowly defeated a bid by Mohegan Sun to build a resort casino in the western Massachusetts town.

The results promised to dramatically alter the casino landscape in Massachusetts, where a 2011 gambling law allows for up to three regional resort casinos.

Voters in Revere approved the Suffolk Downs casino in a separate referendum Tuesday, but favorable votes were needed in both East Boston and Revere before the track could formally apply to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission for a license.

Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer of Suffolk Downs, which straddles East Boston and Revere, thanked voters who supported the project and said in a statement that the track would now "reassess" its plans.

Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo said he would ask Suffolk Downs to reshape the proposal so that the casino would be located entirely in Revere, but it was unclear if the commission would support such a change. A spokeswoman for commission chairman Stephen Crosby said he was not available for comment Tuesday evening.

Celeste Myers, co-chairwoman of the group No Eastie Casino, said she and the hundreds of volunteers working against the proposal were shocked and elated by their resounding victory.

"I came into the day today bracing myself and talking myself into being content with a modest loss," she said. "I had no reason to expect that we would realize a win, much less a win of this nature. I'm just completely blown away."

Tuttle had said before the vote he was optimistic despite the cloud that was cast when Suffolk Downs recently severed its partnership with Caesar's Entertainment, after the commission raised concerns during its background check of Caesars.

Unofficial returns from East Boston showed casino opponents with 56 percent of the vote, while in Revere, 61 percent of voters said yes.

In Palmer, the town clerk's office said returns showed the casino proposal had been defeated by fewer than 100 votes out of about 5,200 cast Tuesday.

Mitchell Etess, chief executive of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, said the company was disappointed with the outcome of the vote as it currently stood, but would seek a recount.

"Because of technical problems with the voting machine in Precinct 2 that are very troubling, we will be asking the Town of Palmer for a hand recount of the ballots in today's election," Etess said in a statement.

Casino opponents like Bill Hayden, who has lived in Palmer since 1990, said the Mohegan Sun development would shatter the town's rural character. He was ecstatic to learn that the project had been defeated.

"We had a very small budget to fight this with," Hayden said. "I think a lot of people in Palmer were planning to vote no but they were keeping quiet about it. They didn't want to be harassed by the casino people."

Supporters of the Mohegan Sun proposal in Palmer had argued that the $1 billion project, which also included a retail complex and a water park, would be a catalyst for an economic revival in a town that has seen its traditional jobs base vanish in recent decades.

If the vote in Palmer stands, it would leave MGM Resorts International as the only company still in the hunt for the sole western Massachusetts resort casino license allowed under the law. Voters in Springfield in July approved MGM's proposal for a casino in the city's downtown, though the gaming commission has yet to complete a background check on the company.

In the eastern region, Las Vegas casino developer Steve Wynn received overwhelming support from Everett voters in June for his proposed resort casino along the Mystic River. Wynn is also awaiting results of the commission's background check.

Foxwoods, which like Mohegan Sun operates a casino in Connecticut, also hopes to vie for the eastern Massachusetts license if voters in Milford approve a referendum scheduled for Nov. 19.

"Voters today struck a decisive blow to the casino culture, a clear signal that the Commonwealth believes there are better economic options than casinos and slot barns," said John Ribeiro, head of a group that is seeking to repeal the state's casino law.


Read more: http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/politics/massachusetts/10012140313572/voters-in-east-boston-palmer-reject-casino-plans/#ixzz2jtDQBKDq

Suffolk Downs has no clothes

Suffolk Downs has no clothes
By Joan Vennochi / Globe Columnist / October 30, 2013

The Suffolk Downs casino proposal is looking a lot like the emperor who wore no clothes.

The racetrack was once seen as a shoo-in for a casino license. But after background check problems, Caesars Entertainment is gone, leaving a casino proposal without a casino operator. Vornado Realty, one of the biggest investors, put its interest into a blind trust rather than undergo a background check.

 

In their suitability assessment, state regulators also expressed worries about the financial stability of Richard Fields, Suffolk’s largest shareholder.

 

Minus Caesars, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission just pronounced Suffolk Downs suitable for a casino. But the current proposal is a drastically stripped-down version of its original self, leaving its backers as naked as the sovereign in the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale. Unlike the emperor, they already know they are walking around in their birthday suits. They’re just hoping East Boston voters are too uninformed or too desperate for jobs to see that when they vote on Nov. 5.

 

Everything about this proposal was built around Caesars, the corporate culture it represents, and the promises it made to Bostonians in general and to East Bostonians in particular. The ballot question summary describes Caesars as the operator. The host agreement between the city and Sterling Suffolk Racecourse specifically references “Caesars Massachusetts Management” and cites “the Caesars standard” as the basis for the agreement.

 

There’s a clause in the Boston host agreement that authorizes transfers of interest, as long as the city approves. And it’s possible that a new casino operator will build exactly what Caesars promised and sign off on every condition set forth in the host agreement. But do you really want to roll the dice on that, if you’re an East Boston resident contemplating the impact of a casino on traffic, crime, and your property values?

 

Why even trust the judgment of the remaining Suffolk Downs partners? They contend they were “blindsided” by disclosures that Caesars — their partner for two years — faced serious questions from state investigators. The partnership that owns the track “relied on Caesars contractual obligation to keep us informed,” track lawyer Bruce E. Falby told the state gambling commission. “These obligations were not met.” Caesars representatives say they were blindsided, too.

 

That hardly inspires confidence in this crew’s ability to spot trouble up front or hold themselves to the highest standard — or in Mayor Menino’s oversight up to now.

 

The mayor has long championed Suffolk Downs and is still promoting it. Martin J. Walsh and John R. Connolly, the mayoral candidates vying to succeed him, still support a casino if East Boston wants it. During Tuesday night’s debate, Walsh said he would vote “yes” if he lived in Eastie — at least earning points for taking a stand. Connolly wouldn’t say how he would vote as an Eastie resident, although he did answer “probably not” when asked if he would support a casino in his own neighborhood.

 

The mayor and his would-be successors are unwilling to state the truth: Without Caesars, a “yes” vote isn’t a vote for a specific plan. It’s a vote for a mirage. Their starting premise is that East Boston with a casino run by a mystery operator is better than East Boston without a casino.

 

As for the Suffolk Downs team, they want voters to believe the severed partnership with Caesars means nothing more than eliminating the laurel-wreath logo associated with the brand. Their glossy new information package eliminates all references to what they once proudly touted — the Caesars standard.

 

As voters confront this Suffolk Downs fairy tale, the one about the emperor reverberates.

 

Swindlers told the emperor they could make him a suit out of the most beautiful cloth, which only stupid people could not see. And so, the emperor walked through town in these garments, with everyone exclaiming how beautiful they were because they did not want anyone to call them dumb.

 

Then a child called out, “But he has nothing on” — just like the Suffolk Downs casino proposal.

http://www.boston.com/opinion/editorials/2013/10/30/suffolk-downs-has-clothes/GwlSmOMz7iQikiTNL2HDVJ/story.html

Caesars and Organized Crime?

Caesars dumped from Suffolk Downs casino plan

By Mark Arsenault

| Globe staff October 19, 2013

Caesars Entertainment, one of the biggest names in the gambling industry, has been dropped from a casino venture at Suffolk Downs because of grave doubts that the international gambling giant would pass its mandatory state background check.

The racetrack’s ownership team intends to replace Caesars with another casino manager in its effort to win the sole Greater Boston resort casino license.

The stunning shake-up at Suffolk Downs comes less than three weeks before voters in East Boston and Revere decide the fate of the casino proposal in referendums and could provide casino opponents new ammunition to attack the project.

State casino investigators, charged with keeping people of questionable character out of the Massachusetts gambling industry, raised several concerns about the company, including a business relationship with a person alleged to have family members involved in organized crime outside the United States, said people familiar with the content of the investigators’ report.

 

The report, provided to Suffolk Downs late Friday, is not yet public. Redacted versions of the background reports generally become public the day the state gambling commission addresses the findings of each investigation at a public hearing. A hearing for Suffolk Downs is expected within two weeks.

After receiving a briefing from the commission’s staff Friday, Suffolk Downs said it is confident the track will be deemed suitable to bid for a license, just not with Caesars.

“As a result of the briefing we have asked our management partner, Caesars Entertainment, to withdraw as a qualifier from our license application,” Suffolk Downs Chief Operating Officer Chip Tuttle said in a statement Friday.

Caesars agreed Friday night to exit the project.

“Caesars Entertainment, which is licensed in more jurisdictions than any other gaming company, has decided to withdraw its application to develop a casino in Massachusetts,” a company spokesman said in an interview. “We believe that the Gaming Commission is attempting to set suitability requirements that are arbitrary, unreasonable, and inconsistent with those that exist in every other jurisdiction.”

Mayor Thomas M. Menino, who has long supported a Suffolk Downs casino, signed a host agreement with Suffolk Downs that would provide the city at least $32 million annually from a casino at the site. Menino has also maintained that preserving the integrity of the development process is paramount, said his spokeswoman, Dot Joyce.  [Those figures were based on irrational projections.]

“The mayor is very happy that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has been diligent in their efforts,” she said. “While the mayor is pleased that Suffolk Downs is moving forward in seeking a new operator for their gaming operations, his first priority is protecting the interests of the city and especially the residents of East Boston.

“Our host community agreement includes, in small part, Caesars Entertainment, and the city will seek clarity in how [Friday’s] events could impact the overall agreement with Suffolk Downs.”

Suffolk Downs intends to maintain its current vision and design for the project, which it has presented at numerous neighborhood meetings.

Celeste Myers, head of the anti-casino group No Eastie Casino, questioned how a vote could go forward on Nov. 5 without the residents knowing who would operate the casino.

“This project has been about as transparent as pea soup,” she said.

Caesars loses a chance to win a piece of one of the most attractive emerging gambling markets in the United States. The move comes four months after South Korea rejected a casino bid in which Caesars was a major partner, due to concerns over the company’s high debt, according to the Reuters news agency.

For the state gambling commission, a new board just 18 months old, establishing standards that would force out such a major industry player could cement the state’s reputation as the toughest US jurisdiction in which to qualify for a gambling license.

In the commission’s background investigations to date, the five-member panel has already disqualified one bidder, Ourway Realty, the initial applicant at Plainridge Racecourse, after state investigators discovered that a key member of the company had taken more than $1 million from the struggling track’s money room.

Five applicants have passed background checks: Penn National Gaming, Cordish Cos., Raynham Park and partner Greenwood Racing, Mohegan Sun, and Rush Street Gaming. Rush Street abandoned its slot parlor bid in Millbury and currently is not an active applicant.

Even among those approved for a license, the commission has grilled casino executives over hiring practices, as well as business and personal relationships. By coming down hard on companies for old or relatively small concerns, the commission has seemed to leave itself little leeway to go easy on an applicant with a significant problem.

Caesars is a massive company, which owns or runs 54 casinos in 13 states and six countries, according to the company. It operates 39 casinos in the United States, including its Las Vegas flagship, Caesars Palace.

Caesars — led by chief executive Gary Loveman, who lives outside Boston — joined Suffolk Downs as a partner in 2011, bringing a household name in the gambling business to the Depression-era racetrack on the East Boston-Revere city line. Caesars acquired a small stake in the venture, about 4.2 percent, but had planned to earn lucrative fees running the resort.

The Suffolk Downs partnership includes Richard Fields, a casino developer and former Donald Trump associate; Joseph O’Donnell, founder of Boston Culinary Group; and others with small shares.

A New York property investment firm with about 20 percent of the project, Vornado Realty Trust, declined last spring to participate in the background checks. In March, the gambling commission let the company transfer its shares to a blind trust, with the understanding Vornado would divest from the project.

Suffolk Downs is competing with a Wynn Resorts proposal in Everett and a Foxwoods project in Milford. The gambling commission expects to choose a winner in early 2014.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/10/18/caesars-entertainment-dumped-from-suffolk-downs-venture/VvsDWIIzHvhnij61Akm6TJ/story.html

 

Desperate Suffolk Downs Races For New Partner Among the Leftovers

Suffolk Downs races to rein in new partner

LOTS OF UPS AND DOWNS: Signs for and against the proposed Suffolk Downs casino abound in East Boston neighborhoods. Suffolk Downs officials are racing to secure a new casino company partner before the Nov. 5 referendum on the proposal.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013



Suffolk Downs, under pressure to lock down a new gaming partner before a do-or-die Nov. 5 vote on the
$1 billion project, is in talks with at least four casino companies potentially interested in joining forces as shockwaves from last week’s bombshell Caesars disqualification continue to reverberate throughout the industry.

“We are in active conversations and encouraged by the high level of interest from top-class gaming operators,” Suffolk Downs Chief Operating Officer Chip Tuttle told the Herald last night.

“The most important thing is that we find someone that is suitable for the gaming commission and is accepted by Boston and Revere.”

Sources close to the situation said four companies are at the top of Suffolk Downs’ wish list, including three that have already been deemed suitable by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission: Penn National Gaming, which is seeking a slots license for Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville; Rush Street Gaming, a Chicago-based company that had been pursuing a slots parlor in the Worcester area; and Cordish, a Baltimore firm that wants to build a slots palace in Leominster.

[What a card! A SLOT BARN is ow a SLOTS PALACE! He's not biased...No!]


The fourth, Hard Rock, had been pursuing a casino in West Springfield, but the project was rejected by voters.

The company, which runs the Seminole Hard Rock Casinos in Tampa and Hollywood, Fla., has not been vetted by the state gaming panel.

Hard Rock and Cordish already have strong ties to Suffolk Downs owner Richard Fields, who worked with Cordish to co-develop the Florida Hard Rock casinos.

Rush Street Gaming honcho Neil Bluhm, meanwhile, has strong Boston ties as one of the developers of Copley Place and Faneuil Hall. He also runs successful urban casinos in Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

A Penn National spokesman said he would not comment on “rumor,” while a Rush Street spokeswoman declined to comment. Officials from Hard Rock and Cordish did not respond to requests for comment.

“Suffolk Downs has to get a partner to put this behind them,” said City Council President Stephen J. Murphy. “That’s going to be the most important thing. I think they’ll have one by the end of the week.”

“I’d like to see the casino part decided by the vote. I would say as quickly as possible,” said Mayor Thomas M. Menino.

Suffolk Downs launched a new TV ad today touting the project and assuring supporters that the Caesars split is not a deal killer.

“There are thousands of elements to this proposal and the gaming operator was only one,” Tuttle said.Suffolk Downs abruptly parted ways Friday with Las Vegas gaming giant Caesars over issues raised in a 900-page gaming commission background report, including reputed Russian mob ties to a Caesars business partner. Officials at Caesars — the largest casino company in the world — have blasted the findings and say it sets an impossible standard for international companies.

- See more at: http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/10/suffolk_downs_races_to_rein_in_new_partner#sthash.9KGiBF1Y.dpuf

Oct 20, 2013, 3:35pm EDT

Political connections fail to protect Caesars-Suffolk Downs casino partnership

Enlarge

Image courtesy of Suffolk Downs.

Caesars Entertainment is pulling out of a project (illustrated here) to build a casino at Suffolk Downs.

Jon Chesto

Managing Editor, Print- Boston Business Journal

So much for those political connections.

Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, the owner of the Suffolk Downs horse track in East Boston, has long been viewed as the odds-on favorite in the race for a Boston-area casino license. Two of the most powerful politicians in the state – House Speaker Bob DeLeo and Boston Mayor Tom Menino – are big supporters. And the ownership has essentially been working toward a casino license ever since Richard Fields bought a significant stake in 2007, four years before the Legislature even passed the law allowing three resort casinos and a slots parlor in the state.

The fix was in, or so everyone thought. That was at least the popular thinking for why no other big-time casino operator seemed to be showing up to bet on the casino resort license for the Boston area, by far the most lucrative of the four licenses up for bid.

Eventually, though, someone did show up. Steve Wynn, spurned in Foxboro, came to Everett, promising casino riches to this modest community with plans for a majestic casino project in a run-down, industrial area along the Mystic River. A third bidder for the Boston-area license, with ties to the Foxwoods casino, is seeking to build a casino in Milford. But Wynn and Suffolk are seen as the two front-runners.

Or at least, they were ‑ until Suffolk’s’ casino partnership with Caesars Entertainment imploded.
Caesars, a Las Vegas powerhouse led by Massachusetts resident Gary Loveman, announced on Friday that it was withdrawing from the Suffolk project. The abrupt withdrawal was certainly unexpected – one of Caesars’ top executives was just elected to the board of the Greater Boston Convention & Visitors Bureau, after all. And it comes at an inopportune time, with a Nov. 5 vote in East Boston scheduled on whether to accept the Suffolk casino plan.

The reason for Caesars’ abrupt departure? The Massachusetts Gaming Commission – or its staff, at least – was apparently taking a surprisingly stringent approach to a review of Caesars’ suitability to run a casino here. (Caesars would have a small equity stake in the project, and would operate the casino.) Caesars issued a statement to the media after 11 p.m. on Friday, calling the commission’s approach “arbitrary, unreasonable and inconsistent with those that exist in every other gaming jurisdiction.”

Caesars’ debt issues are well known. But Loveman is saying the debt was only one part of the problem. Caesars was given an opportunity to review a draft report from the gaming commission on its suitability (the document isn’t public yet, but will be soon), and Loveman was surprised that a seemingly tangential connection would be enough to remove Caesars from consideration. Loveman told a Bloomberg News reporter that state investigators zeroed in on a hotel project in Las Vegas in which Caesars was licensing the Gansevoort Hotel Group brand. Apparently, a red flag went up because the New York Post discovered German court documents that showed that an investor in Gansevoort was accused of having ties with the Russian mob. Never mind that Gansevoort and Caesars were willing to drop the licensing agreement to make the Suffolk project happen. Loveman said the gaming commission report still recommended that the commission deny Caesars a suitability review.

The commission has already done this once before, but it was a case that was much more cut and dried. Commissioners rejected the owners of the Plainridge racetrack after discovering that the guy who ran the track until recently had been accused of taking money out of the track’s funds for his own personal uses and not repaying it. At least in that case, the commission allowed Penn National to reach a deal to buy the track and move ahead with the track’s bid for a slots license.

Don’t count Suffolk out yet. Fields and his team still have time – although not much time — to consider another operator. My money is on Hard Rock International, because of Fields’ previous relationships with Hard Rock and that company’s recently failed bid to bring a casino to fruition in West Springfield.

But it couldn’t be clearer now that political clout doesn’t mean much over at the gaming commission’s offices on State Street.

DeLeo helped fashion the casino law to help Suffolk - although he reluctantly gave up on insisting that all tracks be allowed to host slot machines - back in 2011. But this issue is now largely out of the Legislature’s hands. And the once-indefatigable Menino announced his retirement earlier this year.

His replacement is scheduled to be picked at the same Nov. 5 election that would decide the Suffolk project’s fate. (Menino is apparently looking at whether it made sense to postpone the casino vote until Suffolk’s new partner is lined up.)

Steve Crosby, the gaming commission’s chairman, is as familiar a face as they come on Beacon Hill, particularly from his role as a top aide in the Cellucci and Swift administrations.

But Crosby has made it clear from the start that the gaming commission would be an island, one not subject to influence from the tight-knit web of business and political insiders that drives much of the decision making around here.

Crosby hasn’t even voted on Caesars’ suitability yet. But the staff’s approach to this case reaffirms a message Crosby has been sending as frequently as he can: It doesn’t matter who you know in this town, all of these applications are going to be given a tough look by the gaming commission.

Loveman certainly heard the spiel before. But he certainly didn’t expect it would actually come back haunt his company like this.

 

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2013/10/connections-cant-save-caesars-project.html

 

 

Suffolk Downs: Irrational Exuberance!

There is no way to accept the overstated projections seriously!

Suffolk casino would have to win big to meet estimates
By Mark Arsenault / Globe Staff / September 18, 2013

Suffolk Downs would have to generate more gambling revenue than any other casino in the country — the Western Hemisphere even — to reach the $1 billion per year mark Boston leaders are counting on under profit-sharing agreements, according to industry experts and a Boston Globe analysis.

The proposed 4,000 to 5,000 slots at a Caesars casino at Suffolk Downs would each have to average $400 to $500 in gambling revenue every day to generate the amount the city is expecting, under an industry formula for measuring slot performance. That would be an astronomical rate of profit, surpassing the US slot king, Resorts World in New York City.

Also known as Aqueduct, Resorts World made $696 million on slots in the fiscal year ended in March, according to the New York State Gaming Commission. During that 12-month period, Resorts World averaged about $382 per day on about 5,000 slot machines, powered by an urban metro area more than four times as big as Boston.

In the more comparable metro region of Greater Baltimore and Washington D.C., the 4,300 slot machines at the highly profitable Maryland Live! casino have averaged $292 in daily revenue this year, according to figures compiled by the University of Nevada Las Vegas Center for Gaming Research. The daily slot average for Connecticut and Rhode Island casinos is about $275.

Related

• Graphic: Slot revenue at other casinos
• Casino gambling in Mass.

 

Three-quarters of Suffolk Downs’ revenue is expected to come from slot machines.
 

“I’m having trouble getting to one billion,” said David G. Schwartz, the UNLV center’s director. He said his own calculations suggest annual gambling revenue in Boston would be $600 million to $700 million, which would still be impressive for a single property.

Potential gambling profits at Suffolk Downs are important because the fortunes of the resort’s two host communities, Boston and Revere, are intricately tied to the casino’s annual gross gambling revenue, which is essentially the money customers lose in a year. If the casino did not earn $1 billion, then the two host communities would not fully realize the payouts they had hoped to collect under agreements signed with the developer.

Veteran casino executive and consultant Saverio R. Scheri, president & chief executive at WhiteSand Gaming, broke out in a chuckle at the $1 billion projection for Suffolk Downs.



“Really? Really?” he said. “Caesars thinks they can do a billion dollars a year? Well. Hmm.” He paused. “If you look at some of the revenues from 2005, ‘06, ‘07, you can find a few individual properties generating those kinds of revenues. Today? Not happening.”

For comparison, at Foxwoods Resort Casino — a $3 billion complex three times bigger than what is proposed in East Boston — total gambling revenue last fiscal year was an estimated $800 million.

For Mohegan Sun, which claims to be the largest casino in the hemisphere based on gross gambling revenue, the estimate was a little north of $900 million.

A consultant hired by the city of Boston and Ernst & Young, wrote that gambling revenue for Suffolk Downs “will likely fall below the Connecticut tribal casinos due to the smaller scale of the subject property.”

Despite that, the city of Boston, Casears, and Suffolk Downs stand by the $1 billion estimate. “Our projections are consistent with experts that the Legislature has relied on as well as other studies,” said Chip Tuttle,Suffolk Downs’ chief operating officer. “It’s a market that can produce $1 billion” in gross gaming revenue.

And there are some analysts who agree.

“The concentration of population in and around the area is pretty incredible,” said Jeremy Aguero, a principal analyst with Applied Analysis who studies the industry. “A property of the size and magnitude that has been discussed could approach $1 billion per year.”

Fitch Ratings senior director Michael Paladino, who studies the casino industry, said $1 billion is “not out of the realm of possibility” for Boston.

“The fact that it’s one casino in an urban area, where the other cities like New York and Philadelphia have multiple casinos, it’s possible,” he said. “But it has to be considered in the context of other options opening up not that far away,” including as many as three other gambling facilities within the state and potential casino expansion in New Hampshire.

Under Boston’s deal with the developer, Suffolk Downs promises to pay the city $32 million a year, plus an escalating share of gambling profits that kick in when the casino reaches $810 million in gross gambling revenue.

The city has touted the agreement as a $52 million annual benefit, which is the amount Boston would receive if the resort reached $1 billion in gambling revenue.

Revere’s deal with Suffolk Downs would ultimately guarantee a minimum annual payment of $9 million a year and would be worth $15 million a year if the casino hit $1 billion. The deal specifically says both sides agree that gross gambling revenue “is anticipated to be approximately $1 billion.”
Suffolk Downs is in a fierce competition for the sole Greater Boston resort casino license with Wynn Resorts, which is planning a casino on the Mystic River waterfront in Everett, and with a Foxwoods project in suburban Milford. Everett voters in June endorsed Wynn’s plan at a referendum. East Boston and Revere are expected to vote Nov. 5 on Suffolk Downs. Milford votes Nov. 19.

The state gambling commission is expected to choose the winning proposal early next year, and could potentially weigh as part of its calculations how much the host communities would benefit from the project.

In negotiating its deal with Suffolk Downs, Boston used a market study from Ernst & Young, which forecast that Suffolk Downs could make $917 million in gross gambling revenue, with 75 percent coming from slots and 25 percent from table games. Suffolk Downs is planning 4,000 to 5,000 slot machines, up to 200 tables and a World Series of Poker room. Patrons would lose an average of $114 per visit, according to the study.

Under the percentages projected by the consultant, a Suffolk casino with 4,000 slot machines would have to average more than $500 profit on each machine every day to stay on pace to make $1 billion. A casino with 5,000 machines would have to average about $410.

Daily slot averages at nearby casinos show how difficult it is for any facility to reach $1 billion in gross gambling revenue.

Foxwoods averaged $242 per day on 6,123 machines in fiscal year 2013, according to the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, for a total slot revenue of $542 million. Mohegan Sun, the New England slots leader, averaged $304 per day on 5,656 machines, for a total of $628 million. Twin River in Lincoln, R.I., averaged $276 on about 4,748 machines in calendar year 2012, according to Twin River and the Center for Policy Analysis at University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.

Casino consultant Frank Fantini said the very successful Maryland Live! casino, which opened in 2012 in Hanover Md., 15 miles outside Baltimore, is a good comparison for Boston, with similar affluence and little direct competition.

Slots provide about 70 percent of gambling revenue at Maryland Live! Based on recent monthly performance, Fantini projects the facility will earn $640 million in gambling revenue this year, a figure that should grow as the new casino matures.

A Boston gambling floor of roughly similar size would have the advantage of a hotel, he said, which would boost gambling revenue.

“Bottom line, a back-of-the-envelope estimate is that a Boston casino can do $600 million to $800 million in gaming revenue,” said Fantini. Such a performance, while short of the developers’ estimates, would still make a Suffolk Downs casino “one of the most lucrative licenses in the country.”



http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/09/18/suffolk-casino-would-have-win-big-meet-estimates/OcabCEUnsLD8ITr20i6FhM/story.html

Casino Menino

Bravo! From BMG.....

Casino Menino

heartlanddem | Wed, Aug 28, 2013

Flashback to Speaker DiMasi – Marriage equality, progressive leaning budgets – not necessarily in structure (taxation, etc) but in funding priorities and a big fat NO to “Casino Culture” for the Commonwealth. His reticence to acquiesce to the sharks circling the Commonwealth as the last virgin slot market got him a whacked and Bobby “Slots” DeLeo steps in. Governor Patrick was given the tip that to be elected Governor he needed to bring this to the fore after he got elected. His inaugural hosts were in the back-rooms dreaming of counting the “take” even while the parties shimmered! Remember the inaugural balls? Seems like a different lifetime. I digress.

Media and journalism are half-the-man they used to be…..literally and figuratively. One Boston Globe journalist told me in 2009 that they used to have about five reporters covering the casino/predatory gambling story but now (then….and it hasn’t gotten any better in the Biz) they had 1-2 reporters on it. MSM laid-down on the slots/casinos matter as they drank the “inevitability kool-aid.”

Casino Menino – arguably Boston’s most powerful mayor in recent times has served the city he loves like a work horse at Suffolk Downs. Always there, always plugging. As the sun is setting on his storied time as the CEO of the fairest and most distinguished of United States cities (must see Jimmy Tingle – we got it all here!), we see the mayor’s legacy eroding into that of being the guy who bull-dogged casinos into the heart of America’s history.

We ALL know that there would be no slots coming to the Commonwealth if Casino Menino, Bobby “slots” DeLeo, Therese and Deval hadn’t silenced almost all the opposition with the sheer power of their offices. Lots and lots of people are hired and paid by the Commonwealth. Lots and lots of businesses provide services for the Commonwealth. Lots and lots of citizens and officials want to please elected leaders….who have concentrated and significant powers. Too concentrated and too powerful for this kid who still believes democracy – even representative democracy – is a sacred form of government formed and sustained by self-rule.

The legislature under the direction of the bosses fell lock-step into line with casinos to the extent that they even crafted a devious way to manipulate referendum by allowing ward based voting for the largest cities in the Commonwealth (wink Boston.) Worcester wasn’t really on the map…..this whole exercise in shifting wealth has been for the boys at Suffolk Downs. With a handshake to the Springfield sharks and a token nod to Cedric (Cromwell) for a Native American tribe. And just to keep folks quiet, slots for tracks and a sliver of funding for a dozen other groups that needed hush money.

Notice, I said they silenced almost all the opposition? Not all.

The wonderful and amazing thing about this experiment we refer to as democracy is that there have always been and always will be people who stand up and speak their truth.

God bless MLK, Jr.

One man is standing up in Boston speaking “truth to power” and he has many supporters. That is Bill Walczak who gleaned some really positive words from Adrian Walker in today’s Globe which followed his scathing if not overdue criticism of the Casino Menino process. It’s true!

Walczak has drafted a Change.org petition to hold Boston leaders accountable for a community wide/city wide referendum on casinos.

A casino executive from Spectrum Gaming stated in testimony, “casinos change everything.” All voters should have a right to their ballot for issues that impact them.

Go to the petition and check it out here. And seriously, check out Walczak’s positions – this guy is bright.

Then, sign up to help get signatures to place the slots/casino matter to a vote on the 2014 ballot at Repeal The Casino Deal.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/2013/08/casino-menino/

Dispute between Everett and Boston over proposed Mystic River casino still lingers

By Andy Metzger, State House News Service

Posted by Your Town August 22, 2013

A dispute between Everett and Boston over a proposed Mystic River casino appears to have no end-date even as deadlines loom for casino licensure, Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby said Thursday.

“It is pretty near time if it isn’t time, for us to intercede and say this has got to get resolved by a day certain or we will resolve it ourselves,” Crosby said at the commission meeting.

The southeastern region is also facing an uncertain path in the licensing process, as one developer in New Bedford is suing the state and the tribe seeking to build a casino in Taunton is awaiting the outcome of state and federal hurdles.

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has asserted that the capital city owns the road leading into the site in Everett site, a polluted area along the river that used to house a Monsanto Chemical facility. There is a small industrial section of Boston across the Mystic from the rest of city and surrounded by Everett.

Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria has accused Menino of trying to “bully” Everett and gaming officials.

“Where you have two parties that are spatting in public, it makes everything look disorganized and suspect and political. There are allegations of bullying and brow-beating and so forth,” Crosby said. “The public doesn’t know if we’re being bullied or not. And we aren’t, and I don’t want anyone to think that we are.”

If Boston qualifies as a host community for the Everett site, Menino could stall out the process by refusing to negotiate a host community agreement. Menino, who is not seeking re-election this year, has been more welcoming to a proposal that spans East Boston and Revere at the Suffolk Downs race track. Meanwhile, casino license applicants have until Dec. 31 to submit their phase two applications, which must include a host community agreement and a successful referendum vote.

“We’re running out of time. If Boston is a host community that’s going to be an incredibly elaborate process to negotiate a host-community agreement. If it’s a surrounding community, it’s also going to be a very elaborate process,” said Crosby.

Crosby wanted to set a date in the next two weeks for an adjudicatory hearing, where the commission could settle the matter, but Commissioner James McHugh raised concerns that although the dispute has bubbled into the public, neither side has brought the matter to the commission for a judgment.

“What are our range of options? It’s easier if they petition us,” Crosby told reporters before the subject came up at the meeting. The commission settled on inviting both parties to speak with them at the next meeting.

In Taunton, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is awaiting a vote in the Legislature on a gaming compact between the tribe and the state, which would then need federal approval. The tribe is also seeking federal approval for its land-in-trust application, which would allow the Mashpee to build its casino on a reservation.

The federal Department of the Interior rejected an earlier compact, and the Gaming Commission has opened up a second licensing track for commercial licensees in the southeast region.

In New Bedford, KG Urban Enterprises, was recently allowed to continue with its lawsuit against the state and tribes, which contends the 2011 gaming law gave discriminatory preference to Native American tribes. On Thursday, the commission met in a closed-door executive session to discuss ongoing litigation with KG.

“The tribe is doing its own thing, on its own track, managed mostly by federal law, and we have opened up southeastern Mass. to the same exact process that the other two regions are going through, just a few months behind,” Crosby told reporters.

Commercial bidders in the southeastern region, one of three regions in the state where a casino license may be granted, have until Sept. 30 to submit the $400,000 application fee.

Asked whether KG would be the only commercial applicant in the southeastern part of the state, Crosby said, “There are other people talking about it, but we don’t know yet.”

Though the last day of the year is the due date for applications municipalities and developers that want to be considered for a license will need to set processes in motion well ahead of that.

A host-community agreement between a city or town and a developer must be signed 60 days ahead of a voter referendum. A gaming official said to avoid votes during the holidays, October is likely the deadline for establishing a host community agreement.

Cities and towns determine who in local government negotiates the host community agreement. In Boston, Menino is in charge of negotiating the agreement, and the vote will take place in the East Boston neighborhood where the proposal is located “unless the City Council says they want it to be a citywide referendum,” Crosby said.


http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/everett/2013/08/dispute_between_everett_and_boston_over_proposed_mystic_rive.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

No Eastie Casino! on Joe Heisler

Celeste Myers of No Eastie Casino discussing the Suffolk Downs proposal:
http://youtu.be/qRoWmArzkHA?t=27m40s




Published on Aug 15, 2013

Education has long been considered a major force for creating better voters, righting the wrongs of our society and encouraging people to vote.

Guest David Paleologos - Joe Heisler, again, with his fingers on the pulse of the Boston neighborhoods interviews a political analysis as to what is happening in the Boston political arena with people running for the elected office of Mayor. What should we look for to effectively cast our vote for the right person; what is that one thread in community, Boston and leadership, that makes the right candidate stand above the rest!!

Guest Celeste Myers - Then Joe looks to 'Eastie' and the battle to stop a casino from being built in East Boston, look in as only Joe can examine the issues...

Getting in bed with Wynn.....

DeMaria asks Menino, Curtatone to back off Everett casino plan

Posted by Marcia Dick August 9, 2013

 

 

By Kathy McCabe, Globe Staff

EVERETT - Mayor Carlo DeMaria Jr. on Friday accused Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino of trying "to bully" his city and state gaming officials to boost Suffolk Downs's bid to win a casino license.

"It is no secret that Mayor Menino, a man I hold a deep respect for, holds a great deal of power and influence," DeMaria said, reading from prepared remarks at a morning news conference. "But for him to attempt to bully the City of Everett, the gaming officials, and state officials into submission to gain a political advantage for Suffolk Downs is something that I could not stand idly by and allowed to go unchecked."

DeMaria spoke where Las Vegas developer Steve Wynn proposes to build a $1 billion resort casino on a former Monsanto chemical factory site on the Mystic River.

Menino, responding during a separate event in Boston, said: "I'm not bullying, I'm just trying to protect the residents of our city, especially Charlestown. If that's bullying, then too bad.”

Menino has said recently that a portion of the property lies in Boston, which could allow the city to be considered a host community under the state's gambling law.

But DeMaria dismissed that notion, as he spoke surrounded by Everett casino supporters.

"Let me be clear: Everett is the sole host community for this development," he said.

He also took aim at Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone, a fierce opponent of casino gambling, who this week launched an effort to repeal the state gambling law through a ballot initiative in 2014.

"I am disappointed that Mayor Curtatone seeks to derail a project that could revolutionize my community while refusing to acknowledge that his own development on his city's side of the [Mystic] river will have an impact on Everett."

DeMaria was referring to Assembly Row, a massive retail, residential, and entertainment development now under construction in Somerville.

DeMaria called on both Menino and Curtatone to reconsider their positions.

"Hypocrisy and politics will not help move our region forward, and I call on both men, my friends and colleagues, to collaborate constructively with us, not blindly obstruct."

Spokesmen for Menino and Curtatone could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news/everett/2013/08/demaria_says_everett_casino.html?camp=misc%3Aon%3Afb-page%3AHLeastboston&dlvrit=187023