Question 1, a statewide ballot measure in Massachusetts, will give voters another bite at the apple, that of a casino in Revere, where voters have previously said quite emphatically that they didn’t want one.
Just about every official in Revere has come out against Question 1, which would allow the state’s second slots parlor to be built—but only in Revere, specifically near Suffolk Downs racetrack (whose management is unconnected with this effort.)
Last week Revere Mayor Brian Arrigo told the Lowell Sun, “It seems as though this is one small group of people who are pushing this initiative, and using a lot of money to do it, but pushing an initiative that only benefits themselves and using city and state resources to make it happen.”
The process bothers him because, unlike other casinos in the state, this one would remove the ability for the community to discuss the issue.
Eugene McCain, the proponent of Question 1, is a recent immigrant to the state. Several months ago he told the Revere city council: “We thought there might be some openness among the citizens of Massachusetts to reinstate that second license to help the horse-racing industry.” He added, ”And we thought as an applicant in Revere that we might have a good shot at getting that license awarded to a project here in Revere.”
That was one of the few times that McCain has spoken publicly about his proposal. He generally declines requests for interviews with reporters.
Arrigo says he doesn’t know enough about McCain to support his efforts.
“I have no confidence that Eugene McCain or the proponents of Question 1 can create a job or can pull off a successful business,” he said last week.
Although Question 1 would authorize a second slots parlor in the state, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission would not be obligated to issue a license for one. Originally the Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 authorized three casino resorts and one slots parlor, which has been operating for a year now as the Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville.
Massachusetts Lottery
Bay State Treasurer Deborah B. Goldberg wants to take the state’s very successful lottery to a new level: online. She also wants to enter the market of daily fantasy sports. The goal is to sweep up the millennials and others under the age of 45, who might not normally play the lottery, but “are extremely excited by sports-related fantasies,” she said last week.
Goldberg plans to file an online lottery bill with the legislature by November 2. She commented, “We must join the 21st century if this business is going to continue to thrive and meet its mission,” Goldberg said, announcing her plans to file an online lottery bill by Nov. 2. “The internet has proved to be a lucrative and beneficial business platform. Just look at the daily fantasy sports boom.”
This would be the second time that Goldberg has tried to interest the legislature in online lottery. Such a bill failed to get traction last year.
Her dream of a state-sponsored DFS that would compete against DraftKings or FanDuel is viewed skeptically by gaming industry experts. Narus Advisors gaming analyst Chris Grove told the Boston Globe that DFS and the lottery are very different systems. “Does this product make sense for the lottery?” he said. “It’s difficult to get a resounding ‘yes’ to that question.”
Others, such as Daniel Wallach, sports and gaming legal expert with Becker and Poliakoff, says the lottery might he better served by finding a path towards offering state-sponsored sports betting, which currently violates federal law in most states.
