Some Bay state voters say they will cast their ballots for governor based on whether the candidates support Question 3, which would repeal the 2011 law that authorized three casino resorts and a slots parlor in the state.
There are five candidates for governor, including Democrat Martha Coakley, Republican Charlie Baker and three independents, Evan Falchuk, Jeff McCormick and Scott Lively. Polls show Coakley and Baker in a race that is too close to call, with 44 percent for Coakley and 43 percent for Baker in the latest survey by Suffolk University/Boston Herald.
The most recent Boston Globe poll shows Baker leading 40 percent to 38 percent for Coakley and shows 53 percent of voters wanting to retain the casino law, compared to 38 percent wanting to repeal.
Supporters of Question 3 say they want to hold the feet of politicians to the fire to make sure that they don’t try to circumvent the law if it is passed.
Matt Villamaino told the Republican, “If the citizens of Massachusetts vote to repeal the law, I’m concerned some candidates want to circumvent it by going back to the legislature.”
Some candidates, especially those appealing to a Springfield audience, have said that if Question 3 passes that they might support the legislature specifically allowing Springfield to build a casino.
The leading lawmakers who championed the 2011 law apparently feel confident enough in its retention that they have turned down requests by Repeal the Casino Deal to participate in a debate on the issue.
A spokesman for House Speaker Robert DeLeo issued the following statement: “Speaker DeLeo has declined the invitation. He is focused on finishing the business of this session, formulating policy initiatives he will be spearheading next session and working on legislative elections.”
A similar statement were issued by Senate Majority Leader (and soon-to-be Senate president) Stanley Rosenberg, who was the point man for the law in the Senate: “We’ve had our say on the issue. Voters, with Question 3, will now have the opportunity to have their say by either ratifying or repealing the law.”
Repeal Chairman John Ribeiro greeted these statements with scorn. He wrote, “You will be leading a key legislative body next year and were a primary cheerleader for bringing this industry to Massachusetts and swayed members of the Legislature that this was a good idea. The least you can do is personally stand up for your plans, explain the true benefits and costs and answer questions about the changing economic dynamics of this industry (from Atlantic City and Connecticut to Reno and Vegas) before the doors open – not after.”
Repeal has issued similar invitations to casino executives James Murren, chief executive officer and chairman of MGM Resorts International, Penn National President and CEO Timothy Wilmott and Steve Wynn of Wynn Resorts. So far none of them have stated whether they will participate.
The Committee to Protect Mass Jobs, which opposes Question 3, is coordinating a series of debates and forums on the issue. According to spokesman Justine Griffin, “We have received a lot of invitations and plan on participating in as many of them as possible, because we have seen that when people hear about the jobs and economic development that gaming brings, they are enthusiastic in their support. This is a Massachusetts issue that will go before Massachusetts voters, and we will bring Massachusetts voices to discuss why people should vote No on 3.”
MGM Springfield spokesman Carole Brennan added, “We are engaged in a daily, fact-based, educational campaign about the benefits of the Gaming Act, namely thousands of jobs and billions in economic development. We have numerous requests to discuss Question 3, and we refer those requests to the Committee.”
Stephen Eisele of Repeal, told the Republican that her group is talking to several news organizations about the mechanics of setting up a debate. “As we negotiate scheduling, we’re calling on the news stations to ask that the pro-casino groups not send underlings, but the decision makers that seek to profit off of Massachusetts residents,” he wrote in an email.
With about a month left before the election, both sides are ramping up their efforts. The pro-casino group is well funded. The Repeal group is not only underfunded but also reportedly deep in debt due to money it spent to qualify the initiative and then to defend it in court.
Some observers say that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission may have given some ammunition to the Repeal group by approving $1.6 billion Steve Wynn’s casino resort proposal for Everett, which it did on September 16. It chose it over the Suffolk Downs project proposed by the Mohegan tribe, which was not as opposed in Boston. It does not help that the day after the commission announced its decision, the racetrack announced that it would close down within days, although it will continue to offer simulcast wagering until the end of the year.
The commission has said that it is committed to seeking solutions to save thoroughbred racing in the Bay State. It offered to accept applications from the racing industry until October 1.
Commission Chairman Stephen Crosby, asked if racing could be saved, said last week, “It’s been clear for years that there’s been interest in the legislature to do that, so I think there’s a fighting chance.”
He added, “Yes, get us something on October 1, get us an expression of interest, we will be very flexible in letting you come back after the dust settles and you’ve had a chance to put together a plan, we’ll be very flexible in letting you come back and amend that.” Crosby said the commission hopes to meet with horseracing interests and their supporters.
The commission was the subject of scathing criticism by Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer for Suffolk Downs Racetrack when it awarded the Boston metro gaming license to Wynn instead of the Suffolk Down proposal pushed by the Mohegans. Tuttle said that the commission would be responsible for 1,000 jobs being lost.
Crosby responded, “I’m totally sympathetic to where Chip and the whole industry is coming from. The Suffolk Downs folks, they’ve been at this for a long time. It’s a totally difficult, challenging, depressing circumstance. I understand that. Hopefully we are able to demonstrate there are things we can do and we’re going to try to do them.”
Plainridge racetrack, the only other functioning racetrack in the state, is voluntarily going out of the business when its operations are replaced by Penn National’s slots parlor.
However, Crosby left the door open to a number of potential solutions, including creating a brand new racetrack. He said he doesn’t believe that racetracks and casinos compete for the same customers. Although its name doesn’t suggest it, the commission also regulates horseracing. According to commission spokesman Elaine Driscoll, “Jobs is an important factor and also the notion that horse racing is a longstanding tradition here in the Commonwealth.”
According to gaming analyst Harry Curtis of Nomura Securities, the decision created many committed and passionate anti-gaming activists in the Boston area, where the decision is very unpopular. However, Curtis concedes that even this is unlikely to prevent Question 3 from going down in defeat. “We suspect that the threat of higher taxes, if the gaming bill is repealed, and support for new jobs will be popular with voters,” he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.
So far the commission has approved three licenses. Besides the Wynn license, it has also approved of an $800 million casino resort for Springfield, to be built by MGM Resorts International, and a $225 million slots license for Plainville. Penn National Gaming has already begun constructing the latter.
Wynn Resorts says it can open its casino with 3,000 slots, 150 gaming tables and 27-story tower by 2017. However this doesn’t take into account Boston’s continued opposition, which could complicate permit acquisition and regulatory approval. Also, the 30-acre site that was once occupied by a Monsanto chemical plant request hazardous waste decontamination.
Wynn has promised to make up with Boston Mayor Martin J. Walsh. He announced recently, “A great deal of the resistance and energy that we experienced in some surrounding communities, and especially with Boston, was directly related to the fact that this was a competition. There is, after all, the potential for enormous benefits made available by this legislation.”
