Mass. casino foes continue to fight

Mass. casino foes continue to fight
Group starts trying to overturn law
Posted: Monday, September 30, 2013

They have almost no money, scant political support and no legal way, at the moment, to do the very thing their group exists to accomplish.

But casino opponents trying to overturn the law that legalized three casinos and a slot parlor in Massachusetts fight on, convinced victory is still possible.

"We look to stories of our faith and remember battles when David can beat Goliath," said the Rev. Laura Everett, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

Casino opposition is organized into a group called Repeal the Casino Deal. Last weekend, it started gathering the roughly 69,000 signatures needed to put a question overturning the law on the November 2014 ballot. Even if the group gets the needed signatures within the two-month deadline, the efforts could die in court.

That's because Attorney General Martha Coakley ruled their ballot question unconstitutional. Casino opponents have appealed, but if they lose, it won't matter if they've gathered a million signatures, the fight is over.

Brian Ashmankas, a Millbury selectman who's organizing the signature drive, said the long odds aren't relevant to him.

"We're on the right side of this," he said.

The state's 2011 casino law created up to three casino licenses and a slots parlor license. Proponents promise a host of benefits, including thousands of jobs and new economic activity in places that badly need it.

But opponents say casinos siphon money by the millions from local businesses to support an industry that harms families and increases crime.

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone believes his fellow Democrats, including Gov. Deval Patrick, made an "historic mistake" passing the casino bill, and voters deserve a chance to undo it.

"You do not build communities with casinos," Curtatone said. "Casinos polarize consumers and take money off Main Street with the lure that you'll win big on Easy Street."

The opposition melds diverse ideologies, from liberals such as Curtatone to conservative groups like the Massachusetts Family Institute.

"We've agreed to disagree on the other issues," said Kris Mineau of the institute. "We're Christians, and Jesus said if you can agree with your adversary, do so quickly."

Among the hurdles for casino opponents, Coakley's ruling is the biggest.

In her Sept. 4 decision, Coakley said applicants for a casino license - who pay an initial $400,000 fee - have "implied contracts" with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and those contracts are considered property. So a ban on casinos or a slots parlor would be an unconstitutional taking of property.

Casino opponents say Coakley's opinion defies legal precedent. But their appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court won't be heard until after the Nov. 20 deadline for collecting signatures, so they have to collect them and hope for a favorable ruling.

State Rep. Robert Koczera, a New Bedford Democrat and casino proponent, said casinos are simply capturing business that's leaving the state. He believes that even if the question reaches the ballot, casino opponents are "fighting a lost cause."

Opponents dismiss the substantial economic benefits of casinos only because they're wearing ideological blinders, and most voters don't share their views, he said.

"You're talking about thousands of [LOW WAGE] jobs, so I fail to see where it's not a win-win," Koczera said.

Tim Vercellotti of the Western New England University Polling Institute said it's unlikely public sentiment has changed much since statewide polls taken before the law's passage, which showed about half of respondents favoring casinos and a third opposed.

Those opinions were formed in a debate that preceded the law by years, and nothing dramatic has happened since to change people's minds, Vercellotti said.

In the Attleboro area, opponents are more focused on plans by Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville to obtain the slot machine license than doing away with the state law.

Many Plainville residents see a racino as an opportunity to revitalize the town. They voted Sept. 10 by a 3 to 1 margin to approve slots for the track.

However, there is a local group of opponents of the plans who call themselves No Plainville Racino.

Mary-Ann Greanier, head of that group, has cited concerns with the impact of a slot machine parlor such as problem gambling and other social ills as well as traffic. Greanier also has questioned the validity of the referendum results, questioning the process used for the election.

In neighboring Foxboro, a racino committee is working to address the impact Plainridge would have on that town. Committee members and residents, as the Plainville opposition group has, cite social ills and traffic.

Sun Chronicle reporter Stephen Peterson contributed to this report.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/state/mass-casino-foes-continue-to-fight/article_1f302b56-d3cf-5142-86e6-131d9f724cf3.html

"I think it's that important....."

Nothing smells more like the 1% sucking discretionary income from the local economy more that Predatory Gambling.

The Predatory Gambling Industry offers LOW WAGE JOBS, overstated projections and false promises. How can any community trust them?

Mass. anti-casino group fights on amid long odds

By JAY LINDSAY / Associated Press / September 29, 2013

 

BOSTON (AP) — They have almost no money, scant political support and no legal way, at the moment, to do the very thing their group exists to accomplish.

 

But casino opponents trying to overturn the law that legalized three casinos and a slot parlor in Massachusetts fight on, convinced victory is still possible.

 

‘‘We look to stories of our faith and remember battles when David can beat Goliath,’’ said the Rev. Laura Everett, executive director of the Massachusetts Council of Churches.

 

Casino opposition is organized into a group called Repeal the Casino Deal. Last weekend, it started gathering the roughly 69,000 signatures needed to put a question overturning the law on the November 2014 ballot. Even if the group gets the needed signatures within the two-month deadline, the efforts could die in court.

 

That’s because Attorney General Martha Coakley ruled their ballot question unconstitutional. Casino opponents have appealed, but if they lose, it won’t matter if they've gathered a million signatures, the fight is over.

 

Brian Ashmankas, a Millbury selectman who’s organizing the signature drive, said the long odds aren’t relevant to him.

 

‘‘We’re on the right side of this,’’ he said.

 

The state’s 2011 casino law created up to three casino licenses and a slots parlor license. Proponents promise a host of benefits, including thousands of [LOW WAGE] jobs and new economic activity in places that badly need it. [POOR COMMUNITIES that are targeting for GAMBLING ADDICTION.]

 

But opponents say casinos siphon money by the millions from local businesses to support an industry that harms families and increases crime.

 

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone believes his fellow Democrats, including Gov. Deval Patrick, made an ‘‘historic mistake’’ passing the casino bill, and voters deserve a chance to undo it.

 

‘‘You do not build communities with casinos,’’ Curtatone said. ‘‘Casinos polarize consumers and take money off Main Street with the lure that you'll win big on Easy Street.’’

 

The opposition melds diverse ideologies, from liberals such as Curtatone to conservative groups like the Massachusetts Family Institute.

 

‘‘We've agreed to disagree on the other issues,’’ said Kris Mineau of the institute. ‘‘We’re Christians, and Jesus said if you can agree with your adversary, do so quickly.’’

 

Among the hurdles for casino opponents, Coakley’s ruling is the biggest.

 

In her Sept. 4 decision, Coakley said applicants for a casino license — who pay an initial $400,000 fee — have ‘‘implied contracts’’ with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission and those contracts are considered property. So a ban on casinos or a slots parlor would be an unconstitutional taking of property.

 

Casino opponents say Coakley’s opinion defies legal precedent. But their appeal to the Supreme Judicial Court won’t be heard until after the Nov. 20 deadline for collecting signatures, so they have to collect them and hope for a favorable ruling.

 

State Rep. Robert Koczera, a New Bedford Democrat and casino proponent, said casinos are simply capturing business that’s leaving the state. He believes that even if the question reaches the ballot, casino opponents are ‘‘fighting a lost cause.’’

 

Opponents dismiss the substantial economic benefits of casinos only because they’re wearing ideological blinders, and most voters don’t share their views, he said.

 

‘‘You’re talking about thousands of jobs, so I fail to see where it’s not a win-win,’’ Koczera said.

 

Tim Vercellotti of the Western New England University Polling Institute said it’s unlikely public sentiment has changed much since statewide polls taken before the law’s passage, which showed about half of respondents favoring casinos and a third opposed.

 

Those opinions were formed in a debate that preceded the law by years, and nothing dramatic has happened since to change people minds, Vercellotti said.

 

‘‘I haven’t seen the argument yet that gets (casino opponents) the traction they need,’’ he said.

 

Lazarus Morrison, a 31-year-old Web developer from Somerville, has volunteered to collect signatures for the repeal and is convinced support for casinos will drop as voters get educated about them.

 

Repeal the Casino Deal can’t pay professional signature gatherers, and Morrison admits he could use the advice. His plan for now is to hit high-traffic areas, including an upcoming local farmers market and festival. He'll be armed with $30 worth of anti-casino buttons and certainty that fighting this long-shot battle is worth it.

 

‘‘I think it’s that important,’’ Morrison said.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/09/29/mass-anti-casino-group-fights-amid-long-odds/NOO9qzq0ie5lthKsS1NL6I/story.html

 

 

S.E. Mass. Rep Koczera calls on legislators to block the Tribe's compact

S.E. Mass. Rep calls on legislators to block the Tribe's compact just approved by committee

Compact's approval drawing howls of protests - Rep question's "land in trust" OK by BIA - Cromwell says "agreement on track"

Article | News | September 12, 2013 - 7:28am | By Andy Metzger, State House News Service

 

 

Rep. Robert Koczera urges colleagues to vote against new Mashpee compact.

 

Casino developer, State Rep hope House blocks Tribe's gaming compact

With a committee vote clearing the path for legislative debate on a second gaming compact between the state and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, some in the southeastern region of Massachusetts are calling for lawmakers to reject the accord needed for the tribe’s Taunton casino bid.

 

After a hearing in Springfield Tuesday, the Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies approved a gaming compact between the Mashpee tribe and Gov. Deval Patrick. The vote frees the bill to move to the House for a vote although House leaders haven’t said when that will occur.

 

Approval drawing protests

 

Stalled in committee since April, the compact’s advancement is drawing some howls of protest.

“The Governor has placed the interests of one group ahead of the interests of the rest of southeast Massachusetts’ men and women,” KG Urban Enterprises Managing Director Andrew Stern, who is competing for the state’s lone casino license in the region, said in a statement. “That’s just wrong. We hope sincerely that the legislature is wiser than the Governor on this issue and does not approve the compact.”

 

The Legislature last year approved a compact between the state and the tribe, but it was rejected by the U.S. Department of the Interior, which said the state offered concessions outside the compact’s purview.

 

State to get 21 percent or nothing

The new compact includes a sliding scale to determine how much the Mashpee tribe pays the state, granting 21 percent if no other casinos open in Massachusetts, 17 percent if a casino opens in one of the other regions, an additional 2 percent reduction if a slots parlor opens in the southeast, and zero if another casino opens in the region, a possibility since gaming regulators have opened the region to applicants.

Last July a casino compact resolve, which did not include a scenario where the tribe would pay nothing, passed 120-32.

On Tuesday, the town of Plainville, which is located in the eastern Massachusetts region, approved a ballot referendum to bring a slots parlor operated by Penn National Gaming to the Plainridge Racetrack.

Rep. Robert Koczera, a New Bedford Democrat, said advancing the tribe’s gaming compact will further delay the establishment of a casino in the southeast, and said unless Congress changes the law, the Mashpee will not succeed in federal approval for land-in-trust, another necessary step before the tribe can build the First Light casino in a Taunton office park.

 

Rep question's "land in trust" OK by BIA

 

“The compact is inoperable if the land is not taken into trust, and the likelihood of the land being taken into trust is remote at best,” Koczera told the News Service. He said, “I’m going to stand on the floor of the House against the compact as not being something that we have to do at this time.”

KG Urban is hoping to develop an old power plant alongside the fishing piers of New Bedford Harbor into a resort casino, and has sued the state, arguing the 2011 gaming law’s carve-out for a tribal casino is unconstitutional.

The Mashpee met the law’s roughly half-year deadline for holding a non-binding ballot referendum, which Taunton voters approved, and obtaining a gaming compact with the state.

After the federal government rejected the first gaming compact, Patrick and the tribe negotiated a second iteration, filing it with the Legislature for ratification on March 28. The Gaming Commission opened up the region to commercial casino developers April 18.

 

Cromwell says "agreement on track"

 

“We believe this agreement will keep our world-class destination resort casino on track,” said Mashpee Chairman Cedric Cromwell in a statement.

 

“Although it took longer than anticipated, it’s good to see this agreement be reported out of committee with overwhelming support, which also is a hopeful sign for the future of gaming in Southeastern Massachusetts,” Sen. Marc Pacheco, a Taunton Democrat, said in a statement. He said, “I am cautiously optimistic that the House and Senate, which will now review the agreement, will recognize its importance to the region, and allow the compact to move through the legislative process at the state level to allow its final analysis and approval at the federal level.”

 

Koczera said he is not partial to KG Urban’s plans in his city, and said that applicants who are unsuccessful in casino or slots applications elsewhere in the state might try for the commercial license available in the southeast, mentioning land in Bridgewater, as well as Plainridge and the former dog track in Raynham, both of which are vying for the state’s lone slots license.

According to a Gaming Commission official, applicants in the eastern and western regions can propose a project in the southeast without reapplying for the phase one application, which mainly judges applicants on their background and finances.

The logistics of switching to the southeast could depend on when the Gaming Commission selects licensees in the other two regions and how that matches up with the deadline for phase two applications, when a developer will need to have secured a host community agreement and local voters’ approval.

 

New Bedford wants a casino

 

“Some of them will bid in Region C to have a second bite of the apple so to speak,” Koczera said.

Before stepping in at Plainridge, Penn National had sought to build a casino in Springfield, though City Hall elected to negotiate with MGM Resorts, and tried for a slots parlor in Tewksbury, an idea squelched by Town Meeting in that community.

New Bedford Mayor Jonathan Mitchell, who has backed a marine infrastructure project not far from the proposed casino site, has not embraced KG Urban, Koczera said.

 

“They have a location in the city. The mayor has put cold water on it. He’s been critical of it, I think, to his detriment,” said Koczera, who said any casino in the region would provide valuable jobs for cities where the unemployment rate is in the double digits and roughly twice the state’s overall rate.

The Mashpee have presented the compact as a document that protects the state’s interests as much as the tribe’s, saying when and if the federal government grants the tribe land in trust, federal law allows the sovereign tribe to build a casino even without a license from the Gaming Commission.

Under the compact, if the Gaming Commission grants a license to a commercial developer and the tribe later builds its own casino, the state-licensed casino would pay 25 percent of its revenue to the state while the Mashpee would pay nothing.

 

“A commercial casino licensed by the Gaming Commission by late 2014 will pay 25% of its gross revenue to the Commonwealth immediately, create 3000 jobs for the building trades and, within 24 months of licensure create up to 7000 direct and indirect jobs across the southeast region, a region in which the two largest cities struggle with double-digit unemployment,” Stern said in his statement.

 

He said, “This compact, however, that Governor Patrick has pushed the legislature to endorse, would offer the Mashpee a no-tax casino should a commercial applicant receive its license from the Commission and make the decision to invest more than $500mm in the southeast.”

 

A person representing KG Urban said the developer would submit an application by the Sept. 30 deadline for the region

 

Related Content:

Committee OKs Wampanoag Casino Compact

Patrick, Tribe, agree on new gambling compact

Two casino deals OKed, Wampanoags still wait

New-found historic documents question Wampanoag claim to presence in Taunton

 

http://www.capecodtoday.com/article/2013/09/12/21606-se-mass-rep-calls-legislators-block-tribes-compact-just-approved-committee

 

 

Tribe's casino compact advances

Tribe's casino compact advances

By George Brennan

gbrennan@capecodonline.com

September 11, 2013

 

SPRINGFIELD — A legislative committee on Tuesday approved a casino compact between the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe and Gov. Deval Patrick, setting the stage for the state's full House and Senate to consider the deal.

 

After a hearing on a dozen unrelated bills at Western New England University's School of Law, the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies voted 8-1 in favor of moving the compact forward.

 

Tuesday's vote marks the first time in four months that there's been movement in the tribe's plans to build a $500 million casino in Taunton.

 

"We thank the committee members for supporting this revised compact, which brings us another step closer to breaking ground on Project First Light," tribal council Chairman Cedric Cromwell said.

 

Only state Rep. Robert Koczera, D-New Bedford, voted against it.

 

"If we approve this, it's unnecessary because it's inoperable," Koczera said during the brief discussion of the compact legislation.

 

Koczera cited a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, known as the Carcieri decision, that calls into question the federal Department of the Interior's ability to take land into trust for tribes recognized after 1934.

 

The Mashpee tribe gained federal recognition in 2007.

 

"The Supreme Court decision effectively puts up a roadblock," he said.

 

The tribe has filed paperwork with the federal government showing why it believes the high court ruling does not apply. The tribe argued that it was under federal jurisdiction in 1934.

 

That position has been challenged by casino critics, and the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs has yet to rule on that key question, despite issuing a letter to the tribe earlier this year saying a decision would be coming by "early 2013."

 

After the hearing, Koczera said he's fearful that the committee's vote will be seen as a positive movement by the Legislature and potentially hurt prospects for commercial casino companies to consider applying for a license in Southeastern Massachusetts, known as Region C in the casino legislation.

 

"I think it tends to dampen investors wanting to go into the area somewhat, but we'll see how that plays out," he said.

 

As he has said previously, Koczera said he is worried about his city losing out on jobs and revenue a casino could bring.

 

"I don't see how tribal gaming by any measure of reasonableness can expect to be up and running in the same time as a commercial casino, and they were given a head start," he said.

 

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission opened up the region to commercial bids and set a deadline of Sept. 30 for the initial phase of applications, plus a $400,000 nonrefundable check.

 

To date, only KG Urban Enterprises, a company that wants to build a casino on the New Bedford waterfront, has announced its intentions to apply.

 

Andrew Stern, managing director of KG Urban, which sued the state over the tribe's head start in Region C, also noted that if a commercial casino is licensed and the tribe clears its hurdles, the Mashpee Wampanoag won't have to pay the state anything under the terms of the compact.

 

"The governor has placed the interests of one group ahead of the interests of the rest of southeast Massachusetts men and women," he said. "That's just wrong. We hope sincerely that the Legislature is wiser than the governor on this issue and does not approve the compact."

 

The Patrick administration declined comment on the committee vote through spokeswoman Emily Fitzmaurice.

 

State Rep. Antonio Cabral, D-New Bedford, who was in the audience Tuesday, said after the vote that he's hopeful the Gaming Commission will press forward with the commercial process.

 

"I believe a commercial license will be issued in Region C before the tribe can get going," Cabral said. "I'm not opposed to a tribal casino, but it should not be exclusive to a commercial casino. One of the dangers is we are left without the ability to compete on a level playing field with the other two regions."

 

In its press release, the Mashpee Wampanoag predicted the compact will provide $2.1 billion in revenue to the state over 20 years. The compact will also provide $300 million to Southeastern Massachusetts for transportation, education, tourism and funding for surrounding communities, according to the tribe.

 

"We live here, we work here, we want to grow here, and we will reinvest here," Cromwell said. "We are the hometown team."

 

The committee held off on voting on the compact for months. The bill was filed in April by Patrick and the committee held its public hearing in mid-May, but delayed the vote.

 

"Although it took longer than anticipated, it's good to see this agreement be reported out of committee with overwhelming support, which is also a hopeful sign for the future of gaming in Southeastern Massachusetts," state Sen. Marc Pacheco, D-Taunton, said.

 

In April, the Gaming Commission moved ahead with plans to seek commercial bids in the region, in part, because it could not predict how long the tribal process would take.

 

The compact, which was renegotiated after an initial compact was rejected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs last October, will now go to the full House where it faces an up or down vote. The Legislature is not allowed to amend the terms of the deal between the tribe and Patrick.

 

Seth Gitell, a spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo, could not immediately say when the House will schedule a compact vote.

 

After the House considers it, the compact will move on to the Senate.

 

Under the proposal, the tribe would pay the state anywhere from zero to 21 percent of gross gambling revenue based on the level of competition. If the state has two other casinos and a slot parlor outside the region, the tribe would pay 17 percent.

 

That could make it a tough sell in the House and Senate, because the first deal they approved would have paid the state 21.5 percent of gross gambling revenue, no matter the level of competition in Region C.

 

That deal was rejected as being too lucrative to the state with not enough concessions for the tribe.

Even if the Legislature approves the compact, the bureau will have 45 days to consider if the new deal protects the tribe's financial interests.

 

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130911/NEWS/309110332/-1/NEWSLETTER100