The Massachusetts Gaming Commission last week turned aside Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh’s request to postpone acting on the Boston metro license until after the voters have spoken on the measure that would repeal the state’s gaming expansion act in November.
After the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that a repeal of the gaming law could go onto the November ballot, Walsh called on the panel to delay the vote on the license for greater Boston area. He said doing so would save the state money in needless expenses, “millions of dollars for nothing” as he phrased it.
The commission is in the middle of the licensing process, holding hearings in both Revere and Everett, before choosing between the Wynn and Mohegan proposals.
Walsh previously lost in his insistence that Boston be considered a “host community” rather than a “surrounding community” for the two proposals. The commission voted down that claim with alacrity.
The commission wasted no time in dealing with the mayor’s latest request, voting unanimously to deny it. Commissioner James McHugh declared, “I think that it is not appropriate at this stage to grant a stay, but instead it is appropriate to move forward and proceed with our licensing process.”
Commissioner Gayle Cameron agreed, adding, “Moving forward with the licensing process is the prudent way to proceed for all of the reasons already stated.”
The commission spent a minimum amount of time on discussion, with Commissioner Enrique Zuniga concluding, “The voters will make their judgment and the voters will decide what the outcome will be.”
Not only did the commission turn down Walsh’s request, it also added pressure for Walsh and the two casino developers to select arbitrators and get on with the negotiation process. The commission reminded Walsh that he only had a few days remaining to reach an agreement. However, Walsh let the deadline go by without acting on it.
Before the vote Walsh told reporters that he wasn’t focusing on the arbitration process: “I’m focused on what the SJC did and asking to put the process off until November … I know what we’re doing here. I know that we’re going to continue to move in the way that’s right for the people of Boston.”
The Mohegan Sun reacted to Walsh’s declaration that he had stopped negotiations with them, “We are shocked and extremely disappointed with the announcement by the City of Boston. We have been fully cooperative with Mayor Walsh’s administration and are negotiating in good faith with the city to agree on a surrounding community agreement that would fully mitigate any issues relative to our project and create thousands of jobs, spur economic development in the region, and inject much needed revenue into local and state budgets.”
Last week Walsh said, “We are facing an unprecedented situation in Massachusetts right now, particularly given the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision earlier this week. From day one, I have constantly advocated to have the voices of the people of East Boston and Charlestown be heard. The residents in those communities deserve the right to vote, and the Supreme Judicial Court granted them that right.”
Walsh’s plea was supported by candidate for governor Charlie Baker, who said, “While I will be voting against repeal, I don’t think the awarding of any additional licenses during this time of uncertainty makes sense.’’ He added, “I continue to believe that the best way forward for gaming in Massachusetts is to start with a single casino and go from there.”
Suffolk Downs and Wynn Resorts quickly slammed Walsh’s plea. Both opposed changing the approval schedule, saying it would add significantly to their costs.
Meanwhile, Boston area residents say they prefer the Suffolk Downs proposal in Revere to Steve Wynn’s proposed casino along the Mystic River in Everett, according to a poll conducted by the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, which found that 48 percent of those questioned preferred the Mohegan Sun’s Suffolk Downs proposal, compared to 27 percent for Wynn’s $1.6 billion proposal.
According to Clyde Barrow, director of the center, interviewed by WBUR-FM, the result probably results from more familiarity with the Mohegan Sun casino resort in Connecticut.
Public opinion is unlikely to play a large role in the commission’s decision which city to award the license, however.
In an effort to improve the region’s view of his proposal, Steve Wynn has said he will give Suffolk Downs racetrack workers a hiring preference if his casino is chosen over their $1.3 billion Mohegan Sun plan. His proposal would be built on a 30-acre site once occupied by a now-closed Monsanto chemical plant.
The Repeal Fight
Now that the Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that Repeal the Casino Deal’s initiative can go on the November ballot, the pro and con forces are girding up their loins to do battle.
Among the strongest proponents of repealing gaming are the Bay State’s churches and church leaders. They played a big part in gathering sufficient signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.
According to Kris Mineau, president emeritus of the Massachusetts Family Institute, which has 500 churches as members, quoted by the Boston Herald, “It’s an historic moment. The next four months will be very dynamic. Massachusetts will be a key battleground on the future of casinos.”
Some religious leaders point out that casino elections have not established a reliable trend. Some communities rejected them, while others enthusiastically embraced them. Even the same communities have not been consistent. Local residents supported a Suffolk Downs casino in one vote, and rejected one in another.
But church groups statewide united to qualify the initiative, despite the opposition of Attorney General Martha Coakley, who ruled that it was unconstitutional. Her reasoning was rejected by the state’s high court.
According to the Rev. Tim Bogertman of the First Congregational Church in Revere, where the Mohegan Sun wants to build a casino resort,
“We may disagree about some faith issues, but we all agree casinos would hurt this state. And we have quite a coalition we’ve been building, having had multiple casino fights across the state.” In June the New England Synod Assembly of Evangelical Lutheran Churches overwhelmingly adopted a resolution urging its member churches to support the repeal.
The volunteers include a network of friends, relatives, even divinity students, such as Sunha Kim, who told the Herald, “I think it’s clear the casino industry has a very predatory strategy, and as a theology student, I saw it as an opportunity to right a social wrong.” Kim is part of a roving band of volunteers who garnered signatures all over the state and will continue to campaign for the measure.
Churches are expected to play a key role in organizing the Repeal the Casino Deal forces.
Gaming opponents know they face an uphill battle, especially when it comes to raising money.
David Guarino, a spokesman, told the Eagle Tribune, “We know we can’t compete with Steve Wynn and other people who can write million-dollar checks. But money isn’t an absolute in these campaigns. In some of these local referendums, casino opponents were outspent 100 to 1 and still won.”
In the Bay State there are no campaign money restrictions for ballot measures, unlike limits to individual candidates.
Almost 100 committees pro and con have been formed in the state in the last two years to compete in local and now statewide battles. Some raised only a few thousand dollars, while others, such as Friends of Mohegan Sun, have raised millions.
Not all of the money that will be spent by November will be raised locally, if the experiences of other states are predictive; in fact a great majority of the campaign funds will probably come from out-of-state.
In 2012, for example, MGM Resorts spent $41 million out of a total of $90 million spent in Maryland to expand gaming. MGM can be expected to contend just as strenuously in the Massachusetts election to preserve its license to build an $800 million casino resort in Springfield’s South End. Penn National Gaming, which was awarded the only slots parlor license for the state, is expected to join forces with MGM to fight repeal.
MGM spokesman Carole Brennan told the Eagle Tribune, “We will take our message to every corner of the state to ensure that Springfield and its people get their shot at a comeback, and the commonwealth realizes the enormous economic benefits at risk. We are confident that we will win the day in November.”
The same University of Massachusetts study cited above found that Boston’s voters would vote to retain the law by a margin of 46 percent, compared to 41 percent who would like to repeal it.
Statewide, voters interviewed by WBUR showed support for retaining the gaming law by a margin of 56 percent in favor and 38 percent against, with 6 percent undecided. That’s a higher margin for casinos than previous WBUR surveys have shown.
According to Steve Koczela of MassINC Polling Group, which conducted the survey for WBUR, “Polls are noisy, and we’ll know as more polls come out whether or not the Supreme Judicial Court decision was the high water mark, or is this the beginning of a new trend?”
Despite supporting casinos, 51 percent of those surveyed said they did not have confidence in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which is awarding licenses.
The legislature is dealing with the uncertainty over whether to include monies that it had planned to realize from casino licenses in the budget. It includes $73 million in casino licensing fees and revenues from the Plainville slot parlor that may not exist after the November election. Leaders of both chambers said they were prepared to revisit the budget in November if that occurs.
Governor Deval Patrick said last week that the uncertainty is not so large that it can’t be dealt with. “There are always surprises, things you count on that don’t show up and things you didn’t count on that do and some of those things are to the good and some of them aren’t, but a $73 million uncertainty, if that’s the right word to use, is not so big that it can’t be coped with,” he said.
Leaders of Repeal the Casino Deal criticized lawmakers for keeping the casino money in the budget, arguing that the funds would vanish if the initiative passes.
Patrick, who will be leaving office next year, said last week that he intends to vote against the measure. He told reporters last week, “I’m going to vote to keep a system, the one we have, which enables individuals in their communities to decide whether it’s right in their communities and doesn’t prevent people in individual communities to say what ought to happen in someone else’s community.”
He said the people would ultimately decide the law’s fate: “I know how I’m going to vote and what I’m going to say about it.”
The casino repeal does not appear to have significantly affected the race to elect Patrick’s successor. Martha Coakley, who opposed the measure in court, still leads her other rivals for the Democratic nomination by a handy margin. She also beats any of the Republicans likely to be nominated.
Donald M. Berwick, one of Coakley’s rivals for the nomination, would like to make gaming a major issue in the campaign. Last week he challenged the other Democrats in the race to a debate about casinos.
“We haven’t had a chance to debate, at length, our relative positions on that,” Berwick said during an interview. He said he hoped to have a 90 minutes debate on the issue.
In a separate but related development, Caesars Entertainment has announced that it will appeal the dismissal of its lawsuit against Massachusetts Gaming Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby.
U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gordon dismissed the lawsuit two weeks ago, calling the assertions that Crosby violated the company’s due process and showed favoritism towards rival Wynn Resorts’ casino proposal in Everett, “shaky,” and resting on “naked assertions” and “sensational accusations.” The company argued that because Crosby once had a business relation with a principal in the Wynn project that he was biased against the Caesars competing project at Suffolk Downs.
Because of facts that came up in the background check of Caesars, the commission’s investigators gave the gaming giant an iffy grade. This prompted Suffolk Downs to ask Caesars to withdraw from the proposal shortly before the host community election in Boston that Suffolk Downs subsequently lost. Suffolk Downs then partnered with the Mohegan Sun for the current proposal in Revere.
