Repeal the Casino Deal won a major victory last week when the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that its initiative that would repeal the Massachusetts 2011 gaming expansion law be placed on the November ballot.
Recent polling indicates that the pro-repeal forces have a good shot, although most respondents still favor the law. A just-released Boston Globe poll shows that 52 percent would vote to retain the casino law, with 41 percent favoring repeal. This despite 52 percent saying they don’t have confidence in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, compared to 45 percent who do.
Another poll, commissioned by the Mohegan Sun, showed support for the repeal at 35 percent, with 58 percent opposing it.
The law authorizes three casino resorts in three separate regions of the state, and one slots parlor.
Repeal Chairman John Ribeiro declared that his group intends to make a statewide effort after pursuing a town-by-town strategy. “A lot of people had us written off for dead. But now they see that common sense has prevailed – that people should have a vote on this. People will take a second look.”
He added, “While this ruling marks a huge hurdle now cleared, it’s also the firing of the starting gun in this incredibly important campaign. We know Massachusetts can do better than this casino mess.”
Ribeiro started as an activist to defeat the casino that had been proposed for Boston. His group won that electoral victory in November.
The Repeal group recently turned in 26,000 to the Secretary of State’s office, more than twice what it needed to qualify for the ballot. Those signatures were added to the 90,000 the group had previously gathered.
Ribeiro predicted that now that people see that it is possible to repeal the law that they will open their pocketbooks.
He added, “The odds were always against us. What we know is that we need to go to every corner of this state. We just need to get our message out. That’s what’s been effective.”
But the developers of the proposed $800 million casino resort in Springfield, and of the already begun slots parlor at the Plainridge racetrack in Plainville indicated that they plan a robust campaign to preserve the law. Penn National Gaming, which is building the Plainville slots parlor, announced that it plans to go “full speed ahead” on the construction efforts.
The effort, while obviously not able to command the huge donations that the casino developers will be able to spend, does have its financial backers. One of them, Jerry Belair, an attorney, has given $46,000 to the campaign, and may give more. “We’re in it to win it,” he declared.
A poll taken in May by WBUR showed that casinos were favored by a 49 percent – 39 percent margin, although the same poll indicated a majority supported letting the voters decide the issue.
Meanwhile, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who was a strong proponent of the 2011 casino law, said that Bay State legislators and officials responsible for the budget face “tough decisions” if the voters repeal it.
During a press briefing last week the speaker said that the new fiscal year assumes $54 million from casino licensing fees.
Senator Marc Pacheco, a member of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, and one of the principal authors of the 2011 law added, “The whole idea of being able to fund the budget into the future was one of the motivating factors of the legislature adopting an expanded gaming bill in the commonwealth.”
He predicted that a lot of money would be spent in the election, especially by communities such as Springfield, where a lot is already invested in the outcome. That city’s mayor, Domenic Sarno, issued a statement that the proposed casino would be a necessary “massive jobs generation project.”
MGM Springfield, the MGM subsidiary that proposes to build a casino resort in Springfield, indicated that it is ready to enter the fray. MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis said in a statement, “MGM Resorts has spent three years collaborating and talking with the people of Western Massachusetts on the value of a casino resort as a unique economic development catalyst.”
He added, “We are confident that our urban revitalization project in Springfield, one of the commonwealth’s most prominent Gateway Cities, is something to which all Massachusetts voters can relate. It is a comeback story in progress with hard-working people eager to grow jobs and get back to work. We are fully prepared to extend this message to a larger audience through a statewide campaign to educate the voters on the enormous economic benefits that would be lost to the taxpayers of the commonwealth in a repeal.”
MGM has already paid the city of Springfield $15 million and agreed to pay $25 million once the casino opens. The gaming commission ruled recently that the developer does not need to pay the $85 million licensing fee before the issue is decided in November.
Mitchell Etess, chief executive officer of the Mohegan Sun, one of two contenders for the Boston Metro license, told reporters, “We’re in this for the long haul. We’re a part of a campaign that will be fighting to vote down that referendum to make sure that gaming in Massachusetts and all of the jobs and development that are associated with it take place.”
George Carney, owner of Raynham Park, a now-defunct greyhound park where greyhound simulcasting is only allowed because of the gaming expansion law, said he would wait and see how the referendum pans out before deciding what to do about his business.
“Not to duck an answer,” he told the Enterprise. “I really don’t know how it will play out. I would imagine some of the people who have been awarded a license would be more concerned. I don’t have a dog in the race. I’m not going to worry about it. If it passes; it passes. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. If it passes, it would put a lot of people out of work who would need jobs.”
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, who has been battling the Massachusetts Gaming Commission over his assertion that the city is a “host community” rather than merely a “surrounding community” for the Everett and Revere proposals, hailed the court’s decision. He added that it wouldn’t impact the city’s ongoing negotiations with Wynn and the Mohegan Sun. The commission recently gave the three parties extra time to reach a mitigation agreement.
Walsh said in a statement, “I’m very pleased that the Supreme Judicial Court has given the people of East Boston and Charlestown the right to vote, which the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has failed to do. The most important piece of this process is ensuring that our residents have their voices heard. Now it is up to the voters of Massachusetts to decide whether or not we allow gaming in the commonwealth.”
He added, “The decision today, while valuable, does not impact our current negotiations, and our deadlines remain in place. We continue to negotiate in good faith under the timeline imposed by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.”
Various candidates for governor are lining up either for or against the initiative, although the great majority support the public’s right to vote on it.
The most obvious candidate affected by the court decision is Attorney General Martha Coakley, who had initially ruled that the initiative was unconstitutional, and who was rebuked by the high court’s unanimous decision.
The court ruled, “Implicit in the Attorney General’s argument is that, because gambling falls within the core police power, there is no contractual right to a gaming license, but the application for a gaming license is separate and distinct from the operation of a gaming establishment and therefore falls outside the scope of the police power.” The justices added, “We reject this distinction and this departure from common sense.”
Coakley didn’t criticize the ruling, simply called it “thoughtful,” and defended her own ruling. “Our determination on this question was never going to be the final word,” she told reporters. “It was always going to be before the court.” She said she didn’t take the ruling personally.
Coakley is in a primary contest for the Democratic nomination with Treasurer Steve Grossman, who also supports keeping the 2011 law on the books, and Don Berwick, who supports the repeal. Polls show her leading handily, with the possibility of winning a majority, rather than merely a plurality of the vote.
The leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Charlie Baker, also supports keeping the law, although he would like only one casino. Anticipating the contest between he and Coakley in the fall, Baker called Coakley’s position in the law, “poorly reasoned,” and added, “It is hard to not to wonder if the Attorney General’s position was shaped more by political considerations than legal merit.”
The Bay State’s three independent candidates for governor were split on the issue.
Evan Falchuk said he favored the court’s ruling, but would vote to retain the law. “Part of what is very practically wrong with politics in America today is that we pass things and then we spend the next couple of years repealing them and fighting over them on very ideological grounds,” he said. ”We need to move forward.”
Another independent, Jeff McCormick, a venture capitalist favors repeal and added, “I don’t think casinos are a good economic development tool.”
Scott Lively, a minister, said, “I’m 100 percent opposed to casino gambling and frankly all the forms of gambling, not for the economic issues as much as the moral issue.”
Secretary of State William Galvin, who said he expects the proponents of the ballot measure to turn enough sufficient signatures to qualify it, added that he expects the issue will probably bring more voters to the polls in November. “I’m guessing there’s going to be a very intensive turnout,” he said.
One candidate for reelection to state representative, Carlo Basile, called on the gaming commission to put a moratorium on awarding any more casino licenses until after the election.
Bay State voters aren’t the only ones who will be interested in the outcome of the November election.
The American Gaming Association, an advocacy group based in Washington D.C., vowed to make sure voters know the facts about gaming. “While it’s up to Massachusetts to decide whether or not to welcome the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenues gaming will bring to the commonwealth, the AGA will ensure that voters have the facts about our industry instead of tired stereotypes,” the association said in a statement. The four casinos will create thousands of jobs, said the statement.
Although he is tasked with enforcing the 2011 law, Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby said he doesn’t intend to take a position on the measure and that the commission is not involved in the initiative. He issued a statement saying that the commission “respects” the court’s decision. “As the Commission has demonstrated in the past, we have the flexibility to achieve progress in the licensing and regulatory process even in an atmosphere of uncertainty and we will continue to do so,” he said.
He added, “We are committed to implementing the law as it currently exists in a manner that is participatory, transparent and fair.”
He said that the commission would continue with its license hearings. Although the Plainville slots parlor is the only casino where construction has begun with a 2015 opening anticipated, a license has been granted for Springfield. The commission has begun “host community” hearings on the Boston Metro license that Steve Wynn and the Mohegan Sun are competing for in the towns of Revere and Everett. Wynn wants to build a $1.6 billion casino resort in Everett, in a former Monsanto chemical plant site while the Mohegans want to build a $1.3 billion resort casino in Revere on land adjacent to and owned by Suffolk Downs racetrack. A decision is expected in September. The law also authorizes a casino in the southeastern casino zone.
