The Massachusetts Gaming Commission last week removed the status of “surrounding community” for the proposed Wynn casino resort in Everett, citing the city’s refusal to participate in negotiations with Wynn.
The panel took the action after consultation with its legal counsel, Todd Grossman. He advised the commissioners that Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh forfeited the city’s status as a “surrounding community,” by refusing to participate in arbitration negotiations with Wynn.
James McHugh, who acts as chairman on deliberations having to do with the Boston metro license, commented, “We sent them a letter last week reminding them of the consequences of electing not to participate in the surrounding community process we set up, we got no response to the letter.” McHugh said this does not prevent the city from participating in any and all hearings having to do with the casino license. “It’s our obligation to go forward and do the best we can in the absences of their responses and we intend fully to do that.”
At first the commission seemed inclined to appoint someone to represent the city’s interests to help decide how much in mitigation Wynn should pay. However, the city’s continued insistence on not participating apparently cemented the panel’s resolve.
McHugh said that the city can decide to cooperate with arbitration negotiations and that its status could be restored. He encouraged them to start talking again.
The commission is scheduled to award a casino license next month to either Wynn in Everett or the Mohegan Sun in Revere.
The commission’s decision would seem to mean that Boston will only receive mitigation moneys if the license is awarded to the Mohegan Sun’s Revere project; although it reserved the option of mandating mitigation payments to the city. The city had satisfactory negotiations with the tribe, which was willing to pay far more than Wynn offered.
Mayor Walsh, who has had a rocky relationship with the commission since he took office earlier this year, attacked the commission for its decision. He said the move “shows how slanted they are towards this industry and not towards the residents of the city of Boston and the actual taxpayers that pay their salary.”
He claimed he was ready to resume talks with Wynn any time. “I would take a call from the Wynn folks today, I would never put that off the table. In negotiations nothing is ever final,” the mayor told reporters.
Without taking sides in that contest between Wynn and the Mohegans, the Massachusetts chapter of the American Institute of Architects has slammed Wynn’s design for his Everett casino resort. The institute in June sent a letter to the commission announcing that its panel of architects had unanimously ruled that the Mohegans’ design by Kohn Pedersen Fox was “markedly superior in every design aspect.” The AIA declined to take a position on the proposals other than to comment on the design features. It did suggest that if the commission awarded the license to Wynn that it require a complete redesign. An in-house design team designed Wynn’s casino.
The AIA praised the Revere casino’s pedestrian-friendly design and singled out for mention its “green” features such as solar panels and greenhouses. However, the AIA’s letter was not so much praising the tribe’s design as criticizing Wynn’s. It said that his design seemed not to take into account its surroundings, including the waterfront, and to rely on a single tower that would overwhelm the site. It also criticized Wynn’s choice of building materials, calling them low quality compared to its rival’s plans.
Wherever Wynn has built, his casinos have been typified by a strongly vertical element, and the Revere site is no exception. The tribe’s more horizontal approach is in contrast to this. The AIA clearly appreciated that approach more.
Wynn is standing by his team’s design, pointing to the success of other similar designs, including the Mirage, Bellagio and Wynn Macau.
Although Wynn’s plan for the Everett calls for $30 million for cleaning up toxic wastes, including lead and arsenic, left behind by the Monsanto chemical plant, a bond issue on the ballot hedges the state’s bets by authorizing $50 million in state funds to clean up the site. The money would only be released if no clean up has proceeded by 2017, i.e. if the casino project is not approved.
Slots Parlor
Despite the looming November elections, when the fate of gaming in the Bay State will be decided, Penn National Gaming is moving full speed ahead with its $225 million slots parlor in Plainville. It expects to spend $100 million by the time the election happens.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission awarded Penn the state’s one slots parlor license in February. The developer broke ground at Plainridge Racecourse the next month and currently about 200 construction workers are at work on the 100-acre property.
The company plans to begin taking job applications the next few weeks.
The slots parlor with 1,250 slot machines will share the 100 acres with the existing clubhouse and simulcast betting facility. The scheduled opening for Plainridge Park Casino is June of 2015.
Penn CEO Jay Snowden admits that moving forward is a calculated risk, but recently told local labor leaders, politicians and Penn employees in Massachusetts, “We’re confident we’ll prevail in November.”
Darek Barcikowski, campaign manager for “Repeal the Casino Deal,” thinks Snowden’s confidence is misplaced. He points out that MGM Resorts International has chosen to wait until the results of the election are in before proceeding with its Springfield casino. However, Penn’s actions can also be perceived as a campaign strategy: to demonstrate to voters the tangible reality of jobs that will be lost if the anti-gaming measure passes.
Massachusetts Senate Minority Whip Richard Ross told the Republican last week, “As we head toward November, people will be able to see a symbolic representation of exactly what this particular industry can bring to Massachusetts. People should get excited. The economic development here is real.”
The unions are also expected to contribute hundreds of members to the “ground game,” of the pro-casino campaign. In Plainville itself, a town of 8,000 residents, the slots parlor represents a major boost for employment.
Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said he was happy that Penn is going forward with its plans. If the casino does open, it will pay the city as much as $3 million annually. This will pay for capital improvements, new civic buildings and infrastructure.
Repeal the Casino
Penn National Gaming, MGM and the Mohegan Sun have joined forces to fund a new organization to defeat the measure: Committee to Preserve Jobs Associated with Casino Gaming Law.
The Repeal election campaign is spilling over into the general election; with candidates for state office taking stands for or against the measure.
Steve Grossman, who is trying to secure the Democratic nomination against the heavily favored Martha Coakley, told a newspaper interviewer last week that the planned casino resorts would not hurt the existing state lottery. History shows us the lottery takes a small hit initially and then bounces back. I expect that to be the case here in Massachusetts,” he told the Republican’s editorial board.
This year the Massachusetts State Lottery beat projected estimates by $34 million and brought in $971 million. That’s a good sign, Grossman indicated. “We know, already, that Mass. people spend a little less than $900 million a year in Connecticut and Rhode Island. If you take that and divide it by four, that’s a lot of money staying in the commonwealth,” he said. The small loss to the lottery needs to be balanced by the economic activity the casinos will create, he said.
Grossman agrees with Coakley that the election shouldn’t have happened. He said it should have been settled since the communities involved had already voted on it. “This was approved by the communities which want casinos and not approved by the others,” the candidate said, “That is democracy.”
The Democratic candidates for attorney general exchanged hot words about the Expanded Gaming Law at a recent debate sponsored in Newton. Maura Healey declared that she opposed gaming in the state and declared that her opponent, Warren Tolman was beholden to gaming interests because was once director of business development for a start-up business known as Fast Strike Games.
“Your name is still on three patents that enable gaming technology for young people,” she said.
Tolman responded, “There are no patents, Maura. There are zero. Not three, not two, not one. Zero.” Tolman’s campaign later clarified that he has divested himself of any interest in the company and that no patents had been approved for the company.
Tolman is the favorite to win the nomination, and as underdog Healey is relying on generating interest with a grassroots campaign and by claiming the election’s anti-gaming turf with statements such as this: “My opponent supports casinos, he supports gaming, he’s worked and been involved in the industry and that is important when it comes to what I think is the most important consumer protection in this state going forward.”
Tolman is counting on the state’s political establishment to bring him across the finish line: “It’s about vision, it’s about leadership and it’s about someone who knows how to get things done,” he said recently.
In a state senate race the candidates battling for the Democratic nomination to represent the Holyoke area, Patrick T. Leahy and Christopher Hopewell, agreed that they want to see the law repealed.
“I am not for the casino,” said Leahy, answering a questionnaire sent out by the Republican. “I don’t think they’re the panacea that will fix all the social ills or the economic ills of the region.”
“Casino corporations as a whole, I believe, prey on the most vulnerable….I don’t believe they’re in the best interest of this district and I don’t believe they’re in the best interest of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said Hopewell.
