So far, state casino bill doing so-so
Posted: Tuesday, November 26, 2013
BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
The gambling facilities would spur construction, attract tourists and provided badly needed jobs in three regions of the state encompassing Boston, Southeastern Massachusetts and Western Massachusetts.
The competition would force the firms to promise more in the form of benefits and revenue to the state and host communities.
But, little has gone according to plan since then.
Four communities across the state have used local referendums called for in the bill to kill casinos. Other towns, such as Foxboro, have driven developers away before the issue could come to a vote.
And the state Gaming Commission has uncovered information that has torpedoed the plans of two applicants.
As a result, there are no firms competing for a gambling license within the City of Boston, the state's largest city and its capital of tourism.
There is only one gambling outfit still looking to build in Western Massachusetts.
It has also been noted that wealthier communities, such as Foxboro, which has 5 percent unemployment, are turning down gambling, while less affluent towns, such as Plainville with its 8.8 percent unemployment, are willing to accept it.
Massachusetts is finding out that although a recent poll showed 61 percent of voters favor legalized gambling, far fewer are willing to host it in their town.
"People say, 'It's a great idea, but not if it's in my backyard,'" said state Rep. Steven Howitt, R-Seekonk.
Far from blaming the law the Legislature passed, Howitt said the casino bill is working exactly the way it was designed.
Gambling would be allowed in the state, but only in areas where residents approved of it, he said.
Rather than have state government dictate where casinos would be located, it was left up to the communities to decide, he said.
"Towns that don't want that opportunity, don't have to have it," he said.
Gov. Deval Patrick expressed a similiar view about it last week.
"I think it is working exactly as it was supposed to, which was to authorize up to three destination resort licenses and one slots parlor, and to let people make their own decisions about whether they want the facilities in their own communities," the governor said.
Patrick, who supported the bill and signed it into law, surprised some last week when he said he would not want a casino in his hometown.
State Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, also said he does not regret his support for the casino bill.
The problem, as he sees it, is Massachusetts waited too long to approve gambling, letting other states get a leg up. As a result, he said, the market is diluted.
Casino developers have also made the mistake of trying to locate in residential suburbs such as Foxboro, where they are not wanted.
"Foxboro wasn't the right place for it," he said.
A better place for a casino would have been in South Boston's seaport district, near the convention center, because that is a natural location for tourism, he said.
[State Senator James Timilty apparently wasn't paying attention when there was a proposal to locate a casino in South Boston.]
A proposal by Wynn Resorts for a casino across from Gillette Stadium was withdrawn after the town elected anti-casino candidates to the board of selectmen in May 2012.
Since then, Palmer, East Boston, West Springfield and Milford have rejected gambling proposals while another in Millbury was withdrawn because of opposition.
Tewksbury killed a slots parlor proposal by voting down a rezoning request.
Springfield, Everett and Revere have approved casino proposals, but the Revere plans have run into another type of trouble.
Caesar's Entertainment has pulled out of the Revere project at Suffolk Downs because of questions raised by a background check. Revere was also supposed to share the Suffolk Downs development with neighboring East Boston, but East Boston rejected the plan.
Now Suffolk Downs officials are trying to figure out if the entire project can be moved into the Revere portion of the racetrack and they are looking for a new partner to run the operation.
All that means the Gaming Commission will have little to choose from when it votes on who will get licenses.
Commission Chairman Steve Crosby has said several times one of his goals was to promote competition for licenses so taxpayers would get the best deal and the strongest plan would get approved.
Howitt said if the commission does not have solid bids for all three casino licenses, it would not bother him if it only grants one or two licenses.
The one area that has boosted strong competition is for the lone slots parlor license.
Penn National Gaming wants to add 1,250 slot machines to Plainridge Racecourse on Route 1 in Plainville. George Carney has proposed slots for his former dog track in Raynham and Cordish Companies is touting its own proposal for Leominister.
The slots license will be first up for a decision by the commission. It originally planned to vote on the matter next month, but more recently Crosby has been saying it may have to wait until January.
What happens after that is anyone's guess.
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/so-far-state-casino-bill-doing-so-so/article_5a1ff6c0-25a5-5663-ada3-86b50d3091df.html
Posts
