Suffolk Downs Racetrack is requesting that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission revisit its decision awarding the Boston metro license to Wynn Resorts for a casino in Everett.
They would like the panel to instead award the license to the Mohegan Sun, which has proposed to build a casino in Revere next to the racetrack, preserving the 75-year old track.
In the letter it sent to the commission Suffolk argued, “It is now apparent that the Wynn project is up against obstacles that it cannot resolve in a manner consistent with the Commission’s directives, its governing statute, and other Massachusetts law.”
Suffolk Downs based its request on revelations from two weeks ago that owners of the property Wynn is purchasing allegedly colluded to fraudulent keep secret the fact that one of the owners has mafia connections.
However commissioners listening to the request didn’t appear convinced. Acting Commission Chairman James McHugh commented, “You’ve got a good proposal for the Commonwealth, a good proposal for the region, you’ve got a good proposal by people who weren’t involved in any wrongdoing.” He added, “Why should the Commonwealth and the region and that operator be penalized for something they had no knowledge of and over which they had no control?”
The commission had previously stated that it wants to do what it can to preserve horseracing in the Bay State. It accepted for review several proposals for doing that, including one from the New England Horseman’s Benevolent and Protective Association to revive racing at Suffolk Downs, which held its last race several weeks ago.
At the same time, a union representing workers at the track and the city of Revere has filed suit, claiming the commission violated the law when it chose Wynn Resorts.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 103, filed suit in Boston Oct. 16. The racetrack is situated in both Revere and East Boston, but Mohegan Sun’s $1.3 billion casino project was planned for the Revere side of the property exclusively.
The lawsuit claims the commission afforded Wynn preferential treatment and asks that the decision be voided.
The commission issued a statement that it understands that unsuccessful bidders will be “sorely disappointed.”
“We have seen that intense disappointment express itself in a number of ways, including legal action and even false accusations of bias against the commission,” the release said. “This latest effort is yet another manifestation of disappointment from invested parties after a lengthy evaluation and public deliberation process that was based solely on the merits of competing proposals. We are confident that this complex licensing process has been executed in a manner that is comprehensive, thoughtful and fair, albeit unsatisfactory and disappointing to those who had hoped for a different outcome.”
Repeal the Casino
The campaign over Question 3, which would repeal the state’s 2011 Expanded Gaming Act, is coming to a boil. The law authorizes three casino resorts and one slots parlor. Two of the casino resort licenses have been issued. So has the slots parlor license and Penn National Gaming is halfway through construction.
Current polls show supporters of Question 3 trailing with 40 percent, compared to 53 percent supporting casinos.
Question 3 is being pushed by Repeal the Casino Deal, which gathered over 70,000 signatures to put it on the ballot and spend many thousands of dollars defending it in court.
Opposing Question 3 is the Coalition to Protect Mass Jobs, whose ranks include business, labor unions, politicians, tourist groups and casino developers. The Coalition has so far collected over $3.2 million, with the lion’s share coming from Penn.
This compares to $518,088 collected by Repeal, which is also reported over $440,000 in debt.
The Coalition’s main argument is jobs creation and argues, “With so many people still looking for work, Massachusetts needs the 10,000 new jobs this law creates and the 6,500 construction jobs that go along with it.” It claims that the four casinos will create more than $400 million annually in new revenues. It will also prevent a lot of gaming money from going out of state to locations such as Connecticut and Rhode Island.
In a new TV ad campaign the Coalition features Paul Guzzi, president of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, stating “We’re creating jobs and revenue for Connecticut and Rhode Island, but not for ourselves. We need to create jobs here.”
Many of the state’s religious leaders are not buying this argument. They have formed a coalition with more than 100 leaders signed on so far, Faith for Repeal, that last week launched its own campaign to bring out its varied congregations to vote yes on Question 3.
One of its leaders, Abdul Cader Asmal of the Islamic Council of New England issued this statement: “The so-called benefits of gambling on the economy remain illusory for most, except the gaming magnates. As Muslims, we join with our interfaith partners in alerting our society at large of the false seduction proffered by expanding gambling in our community.”
Repeal argues that the recession that sparked the 2011 law is no longer a major force. “We’ve bounced back from the recession, we’ve seen construction workers return to jobs on major public and private contracts,” it argues. “State job experts predict we will see a net increase of about 15,042 construction jobs by the close of 2015” without casinos.
The Repeal campaign last week added Holyoke Mayor Alex Morse and comedian Jimmy Tingle to its celebrities, along with author and former Congressman Bob Steele, author of “The Curse,” an anti-casino novel. Morse is a longtime and outspoken critic of gaming.
Last week Repeal unveiled a study that it says proves that municipalities will lose more than $100 million a year in lottery revenues that will be drained away by the new casinos.
According to John Ribeiro, chairman of Repeal, “We all know casinos drive up crime, bankruptcies and traffic and gut local businesses — now we know for a fact they strike a massive blow to our cities and towns. Anyone who values local first responders, city services, clear roads and filled potholes can see in black and white just what this mess is going to bring to our commonwealth.”
The study projects that the lottery’s revenues will decline by 21.9 percent. Casino supporters reject those numbers. Coalition spokesman Justine Griffin said last week, “Casino gaming will generate some $400 million a year in new tax revenue for Massachusetts, and the law ensures that a sizable share of gaming tax money is earmarked specifically for the benefit of cities and towns.” This includes $85 million licensing fees for each casino resort and $25 million for the one slots parlor.
The mayors of Everett and Springfield and the town administrator of Plainville challenged the data. They all argued that these figures don’t jibe with the experiences of other states that host casinos, where lottery revenue actually increased.
Repeal also argues that gaming doesn’t create actual growth, but rather cannibalizes existing businesses. They also lead to job losses and create problems for people who don’t have the discipline to control their gambling habits. Casinos cause crime and increased traffic, they say.
The Coalition counters: “Every two jobs in the casino industry are projected to create a third job somewhere else in the Massachusetts economy.”
Local control is another factor in the pro-casino argument: “The voters of Springfield, Plainville and Everett made
their choice — they have voted in favor of hosting a gaming facility and the jobs and opportunity that come with it. They should be able to decide what’s best for their communities,” says the Coalition’s website.
Many voters are confused about Question 3. Some, for instance, don’t understand that a vote FOR it is a vote AGAINST casinos and a vote against it is a vote to keep casinos. The confusion extends to the campaign signs that are springing up all over the state, which use similar backgrounds.
This has caused many voters to call voting officials to get clarification on what Question 3 would actually do.
