PRESS RELEASE
(East Boston, MA August 11, 2014) --A coalition of groups opposing Greater Boston casinos -- including No Eastie Casino, Don't Gamble on Revere, Friends of East Boston and Friends of Revere -- announced today they have called an official boycott of the Monday, August 11, Massachusetts Gaming Commission Host Community Meeting in Revere, MA.
"After months of trying to fight through an illegitimate, illegal process that has denied the people of East Boston the rule of law by denying our vote, our core groups are throwing our full weight behind the work to Repeal the Casino Deal across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts," said No Eastie Casino spokesman Matt Cameron. "We are boycotting the corrupt, illegitimate sham of a hearing at the Mass Gaming Commission on August 11."
According to the Massachusetts gaming statute passed by our legislature and signed by Governor Deval Patrick, if a proposed casino is located in two communities, both communities must vote to allow the development of that casino to enable that proposal to move forward. On November 5, 2013, 56 percent of East Boston residents voted no to a proposed casino at Suffolk Downs. That proposed casino was to be built completely in East Boston on Suffolk Downs' property -- two-thirds of which is in East Boston. The people of Revere also voted on this proposal because the land was in both towns, and people recognized that Revere offered amenities which are statutorily considered part of a casino for the purposes of designating host community status.
Legally, the casino proposal at Suffolk Downs should then have died. However, in furtherance of a corrupt process, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission allowed Mohegan Sun to collude with Suffolk Downs to create the illusion that a proposed casino along the Revere-East Boston line does not require an East Boston vote. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission joined and promoted that collusion-even extending their deadline; even now, their decision will be based on incomplete information due to the failure of the Mohegan Sun-Suffolk Downs entity to file all the necessary, updated, accurate paperwork in a timely fashion. Together, this colluding group willfully withheld information for months that the Gaming Commission later agreed would likely have proven East Boston to be a host community; they called this information--a critical clause in a lease -- "a trade secret." When the City of Boston's attorneys pursued this information, the Gaming Commission -- both supposed watch dog and enabler -- communicated with Mohegan Sun, and somehow, the questionable "trade secret" lease clause was removed from the lease. This happened five months after the Gaming Commission had said Revere could have another vote, but East Boston would not have one.
As a result of this and other demonstrated irregularities in this Region A decision process, a complaint and request for investigation of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has been filed with the Commonwealth Inspector General's office.
Multiple East Boston residents have repeatedly attempted to speak in front of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Meanwhile, the Gaming Commission has given first preference in testimony to elected officials. Unfortunately, although 56 percent of East Boston residents voted NO, the great majority of elected officials who have spoken at hearings have been pro-casino officials from other communities. The Gaming Commission has repeatedly willfully ignored the valid legal concerns of Mayor Marty Walsh. Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs have literally fed and bused in supporters to create the false semblance of much greater support for this proposal than exists on the ground. As grassroots organizations, No Eastie Casino and Don't Gamble on Revere do not have the resources to feed or bus in our supporters; furthermore, many of our supporters have jobs and families and are not able to leave work to attend meetings. Many casino supporters, on the other hand, are paid by Suffolk Downs or the City of Revere to show up at hearings as part of their work.
Multiple East Boston residents have repeatedly attempted to speak in front of the Mass Gaming Commission. Meanwhile, the Mass Gaming Commission has given first preference in testimony to elected officials. Unfortunately, although 56% of East Boston residents voted NO, the great majority of elected officials who have spoken at hearings have been pro-casino officials from other communities. The Gaming Commission has repeatedly willfully ignored the valid legal concerns of Mayor Marty Walsh. Mohegan Sun and Suffolk Downs have literally fed and bused in supporters to create the false semblance of much greater support for this proposal than exists on the ground. As a grassroots organization, No Eastie Casino does not have the resources to feed or bus in our supporters; furthermore, many of our supporters have jobs and families and are not able to leave work to attend meetings (many casino supporters are paid by Suffolk Downs or the City of Revere to show up at hearings as part of their work).
"The people of East Boston stand firm in the belief that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has allowed this illegal violation of the rule of law because the corrupt casino industry has spent millions of dollars to encourage just this outcome," Cameron said. "We also strongly believe this flagrant violation of our vote would not be happening in a wealthier community. We also strongly believe that this Commonwealth was founded on principals of justice, fairness and sharing of the common wealth. We strongly believe this is not yet an aristocracy, but retains at least some semblance of democracy -- and will continue to do so if we continue to fight for it. We believe our fellow citizens, once duly educated about this corrupt and unfair process, will stand with us in voting to repeal this flawed legislation and restore a greater measure of democracy and fairness to this Commonwealth. This state has been a leader in recognizing the rights of many -- and we know, likewise, this state's good people will recognize the right of the people of East Boston to have a vote, to vote NO, and to have that vote carry the same weight as the vote of any other commonwealth community."
On August 11, 2014, the core group members from Don't Gamble on Revere, Friends of East Boston, Friends of Revere and No Eastie Casino will be working diligently to advance the campaign to repeal this law. Should you have any questions, please contact us at the Repeal the Casino Deal headquarters in East Boston. Our work there will serve as our protest of the Mass Gaming Commission's sham hearing.
Source for this Press Release: Repeal the Casino Deal, 617-981-4177
Showing posts with label Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Massachusetts Gaming Commission. Show all posts
Monday, August 11, 2014
Friday, June 27, 2014
Celeste Myers, Candidate for state Representative, Statement on SJC casino ruling, Revere hearing
The following was submitted by Celeste Myers dated 6/25/2014:
"We, the people, are the winners and beneficiaries of yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that allows voters to decide in November whether or not to repeal the 2011 casino gambling law. Regardless of how you feel about casino gambling, this was an ill-conceived law from the start, a reality born out in a process marked with many missteps, a lack of transparency, and even the occasional end-run around the law.
The events in Eastern Massachusetts since last November's vote in East Boston and Revere should serve as exhibit A for the brokenness of this legislation. After being defeated at the polls in East Boston, the casino proposal for Suffolk Downs was given new life by the Gaming Commission to proceed as a "Revere-only" project. Even our local elected officials, and later our new mayor, wrote letters of objection to the commission's ruling vowing to defend Eastie residents' votes. The Mayor sought host community status for a "revised project" that has every bit as much of an impact on the the people of East Boston as the one we voted down in November. Last night, in Revere, residents and leaders of impacted areas had a final opportunity to speak out about this project before the commission decides between the two Eastern Massachusetts casino proposals.
Not a single local elected official (or any of their aides) representing Boston, let alone heavily impacted East Boston, showed up.
When I am your representative, I pledge to work tirelessly for you. When an opportunity arises to use my position to defend my neighbors or my neighborhood, I will not balk. My number one priority is the community, and I promise to show my dedication not only with words -- but action as well.
We can all celebrate that democracy will shine in November, when we have the opportunity to repeal a law that threatens both the Commonwealth and our neighborhood. While I do not know how residents of the Commonwealth will vote, I fully support their ability to do so. The stakes could not be higher."
Source: Celeste Myers
"We, the people, are the winners and beneficiaries of yesterday's ruling by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts that allows voters to decide in November whether or not to repeal the 2011 casino gambling law. Regardless of how you feel about casino gambling, this was an ill-conceived law from the start, a reality born out in a process marked with many missteps, a lack of transparency, and even the occasional end-run around the law.
The events in Eastern Massachusetts since last November's vote in East Boston and Revere should serve as exhibit A for the brokenness of this legislation. After being defeated at the polls in East Boston, the casino proposal for Suffolk Downs was given new life by the Gaming Commission to proceed as a "Revere-only" project. Even our local elected officials, and later our new mayor, wrote letters of objection to the commission's ruling vowing to defend Eastie residents' votes. The Mayor sought host community status for a "revised project" that has every bit as much of an impact on the the people of East Boston as the one we voted down in November. Last night, in Revere, residents and leaders of impacted areas had a final opportunity to speak out about this project before the commission decides between the two Eastern Massachusetts casino proposals.
Not a single local elected official (or any of their aides) representing Boston, let alone heavily impacted East Boston, showed up.
When I am your representative, I pledge to work tirelessly for you. When an opportunity arises to use my position to defend my neighbors or my neighborhood, I will not balk. My number one priority is the community, and I promise to show my dedication not only with words -- but action as well.
We can all celebrate that democracy will shine in November, when we have the opportunity to repeal a law that threatens both the Commonwealth and our neighborhood. While I do not know how residents of the Commonwealth will vote, I fully support their ability to do so. The stakes could not be higher."
Source: Celeste Myers
Monday, January 13, 2014
The Walsh Response to MGC: City will protect Eastie, C-Town residents
City of Boston Files Petitions with Mass. Gaming Commission, Preserves City’s Rights to Both Host and Surrounding Community Status, Compels Information Sharing with Communities
Action Required to Meet Tonight’s Gaming Commission Deadline; Mayor Walsh Reaffirms Commitment to Protect the Interests of the Residents of Charlestown, East Boston and the City of Boston
The City of Boston today petitioned the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in order to preserve the interests of the City, its residents, businesses and visitors, in the development of proposed Mohegan Sun and Wynn resort destination casinos. The petition preserves the City’s right to assert host community status for both proposals, without waiving its rights to surrounding community status. The petition also asks the Gaming Commission to compel both proponents to share information with the communities that would be most impacted by their proposals.
“We believe this unrestricted route is the best path forward to protect the residents of East Boston and Charlestown, and the City of Boston as a whole,” Mayor Walsh said. “These applicants must have a more open dialogue with the people of Boston, particularly those neighborhoods that will be most impacted. At any time, if the facts indicate that Boston is a host city, we preserve its right to withdraw from surrounding community negotiations.”
The City also petitioned the Gaming Commission, in part, to reconsider its previous denial of Boston’s request for an extension. On Thursday, January 9, the City requested an extension of 30 days from the Commission deadline, in order to review 43,000 pages of documents provided to the City with just five business days to review. The vast majority of the documents were provided to the City for the first time and warrant careful review and analysis. The City’s reasonable request for an extension was denied by the Gaming Commission on the afternoon of Friday, January 10. The City had requested the extension in order to review and assess the documents; request and obtain additional information, clarification and supplementation of the filings; and to receive detailed input from the proponents.
While preserving its rights to host status, the City’s Petition also asked the Gaming Commission to have both the Wynn and Mohegan Sun applicants supplement their filings with the Commission, and if they fail to do that, for the Commission to designate Boston a surrounding community.
The petition also asked the Gaming Commission to compel both Mohegan Sun and Wynn to cooperate fully with the City, providing any and all information requested by the City so that it may best evaluate its status as host or surrounding community and properly evaluate the two proposals in relation to the City.
-30-
Source: Mayor's Office
Action Required to Meet Tonight’s Gaming Commission Deadline; Mayor Walsh Reaffirms Commitment to Protect the Interests of the Residents of Charlestown, East Boston and the City of Boston
The City of Boston today petitioned the Massachusetts Gaming Commission in order to preserve the interests of the City, its residents, businesses and visitors, in the development of proposed Mohegan Sun and Wynn resort destination casinos. The petition preserves the City’s right to assert host community status for both proposals, without waiving its rights to surrounding community status. The petition also asks the Gaming Commission to compel both proponents to share information with the communities that would be most impacted by their proposals.
“We believe this unrestricted route is the best path forward to protect the residents of East Boston and Charlestown, and the City of Boston as a whole,” Mayor Walsh said. “These applicants must have a more open dialogue with the people of Boston, particularly those neighborhoods that will be most impacted. At any time, if the facts indicate that Boston is a host city, we preserve its right to withdraw from surrounding community negotiations.”
The City also petitioned the Gaming Commission, in part, to reconsider its previous denial of Boston’s request for an extension. On Thursday, January 9, the City requested an extension of 30 days from the Commission deadline, in order to review 43,000 pages of documents provided to the City with just five business days to review. The vast majority of the documents were provided to the City for the first time and warrant careful review and analysis. The City’s reasonable request for an extension was denied by the Gaming Commission on the afternoon of Friday, January 10. The City had requested the extension in order to review and assess the documents; request and obtain additional information, clarification and supplementation of the filings; and to receive detailed input from the proponents.
While preserving its rights to host status, the City’s Petition also asked the Gaming Commission to have both the Wynn and Mohegan Sun applicants supplement their filings with the Commission, and if they fail to do that, for the Commission to designate Boston a surrounding community.
The petition also asked the Gaming Commission to compel both Mohegan Sun and Wynn to cooperate fully with the City, providing any and all information requested by the City so that it may best evaluate its status as host or surrounding community and properly evaluate the two proposals in relation to the City.
-30-
Source: Mayor's Office
Sunday, January 12, 2014
News: Revere Residents Unite to Oppose Rushed, Harmful Mohegan Casino
This just in from Don't Gamble on Revere, the group organizing opposition to the Revere casino on the upcoming vote in Revere.
Source: Don't Gamble on Revere 1/12/2014
Revere Residents Unite to Oppose Rushed, Harmful Mohegan Casino
Revere, MA – Revere residents who are opposed to the proposed Mohegan Sun casino at Suffolk Downs have joined together to form the group, “Don’t Gamble on Revere,” a volunteer-led official ballot question committee asserting that residents of the historic, family-oriented city should always have a say in what happens to the future of their community. The group exists to convince Revere neighbors that voting NO at the Feb. 25 referendum will protect Revere from the invasion of a major corporation that would dictate a future that best suits its own gains rather than considering Revere’s.
"We’re gaining support daily from Revere residents who are opposed to the casino," says Joseph Catricala, spokesperson for Don’t Gamble on Revere, "Many residents are concerned about how a casino in their backyards could impact their families. I’ve heard a number of residents say they would move out of Revere if a casino comes. We are very concerned a casino will bleed our community dry."
Specifically, Catricala points to impacts such as increased traffic, pollution, crime, and numerous other social problems as reasons to oppose the development. Additionally, the group believes the arrival of a casino will decrease property values and raise taxes.
"The host community agreement does not provide the city with enough money to pay for the impact a casino will have on Revere," Catricala adds. "The proposed casino will kill the local economy by removing jobs and cause local businesses to close. When residents begin to gamble their paychecks away at the proposed casino, how will they have any money left to spend on the local economy?"
Don’t Gamble on Revere points to casinos elsewhere whose intent is to keep customers on-site rather than encouraging them to visit local businesses. Revere’s Broadway businesses cannot compete with the proposed casino’s glitzy restaurants, spas, and shops, the group says.
As the Feb. 25 vote approaches, Revere casino opposition is gaining momentum. Don’t Gamble on Revere leadership say the group will reach out to voters through telephone calls, mailings, door-to-door visits, and informative community events. Numerous families have put up "vote no" signs in yards and windows, and volunteer meetings occur each Tuesday at 6:30 PM until the day of the vote.
"Don’t Gamble on Revere is concerned about the future generation of Revere," says Don’t Gamble on Revere spokesperson Catricala. "We agree with casino backers that Revere needs revitalization, jobs, and additional funding to improve community services, but the difference lies in the solution. A casino is not the answer to improving the city of Revere. The long-term effects far outweigh any short-term benefits that a casino could bring to Revere. It is not worth it. Revere can do better."
Source: Don't Gamble on Revere 1/12/2014
Revere Residents Unite to Oppose Rushed, Harmful Mohegan Casino
Revere, MA – Revere residents who are opposed to the proposed Mohegan Sun casino at Suffolk Downs have joined together to form the group, “Don’t Gamble on Revere,” a volunteer-led official ballot question committee asserting that residents of the historic, family-oriented city should always have a say in what happens to the future of their community. The group exists to convince Revere neighbors that voting NO at the Feb. 25 referendum will protect Revere from the invasion of a major corporation that would dictate a future that best suits its own gains rather than considering Revere’s.
"We’re gaining support daily from Revere residents who are opposed to the casino," says Joseph Catricala, spokesperson for Don’t Gamble on Revere, "Many residents are concerned about how a casino in their backyards could impact their families. I’ve heard a number of residents say they would move out of Revere if a casino comes. We are very concerned a casino will bleed our community dry."
Specifically, Catricala points to impacts such as increased traffic, pollution, crime, and numerous other social problems as reasons to oppose the development. Additionally, the group believes the arrival of a casino will decrease property values and raise taxes.
"The host community agreement does not provide the city with enough money to pay for the impact a casino will have on Revere," Catricala adds. "The proposed casino will kill the local economy by removing jobs and cause local businesses to close. When residents begin to gamble their paychecks away at the proposed casino, how will they have any money left to spend on the local economy?"
Don’t Gamble on Revere points to casinos elsewhere whose intent is to keep customers on-site rather than encouraging them to visit local businesses. Revere’s Broadway businesses cannot compete with the proposed casino’s glitzy restaurants, spas, and shops, the group says.
As the Feb. 25 vote approaches, Revere casino opposition is gaining momentum. Don’t Gamble on Revere leadership say the group will reach out to voters through telephone calls, mailings, door-to-door visits, and informative community events. Numerous families have put up "vote no" signs in yards and windows, and volunteer meetings occur each Tuesday at 6:30 PM until the day of the vote.
"Don’t Gamble on Revere is concerned about the future generation of Revere," says Don’t Gamble on Revere spokesperson Catricala. "We agree with casino backers that Revere needs revitalization, jobs, and additional funding to improve community services, but the difference lies in the solution. A casino is not the answer to improving the city of Revere. The long-term effects far outweigh any short-term benefits that a casino could bring to Revere. It is not worth it. Revere can do better."
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Sen. Petruccelli's letter to gaming commission on the "Revere" plan
Just in to eastboston.com.
The two-page letter from state Senator Anthony Petruccelli to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Suffolk Downs' Revere-only proposal. Related story can be found here.
November 20, 2013
Stephen Crosby, Chairman
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
84 State Street, Suite 720
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Chairman Crosby and Commissioners:
On behalf of my constituents of the First Suffolk and Middlesex District, I write today to express my increasing concern over recent efforts by Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, LLC (“Sterling Suffolk”) to proceed with the resort casino development originally proposed for the 161-acre land parcel at Suffolk Downs in East Boston (the “Project”). In a letter to the Commission, dated November 13, 2013, Sterling Suffolk expressed their intentions to move forward with the Project despite the unsuccessful ballot question in East Boston. Indeed, Sterling Suffolk has proposed to modify the Project’s development plan so that it fits entirely within the 52-acre Revere parcel at Suffolk Downs. To do so, in my opinion, undermines the spirit and intent of the Commonwealth’s Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 (the “Gaming Act”).
When the State Legislature crafted and passed the Gaming Act, my colleagues and I carefully drafted provisions pertaining to host community agreements and the conduct of an election. M.G.L. c.23K, §15 specifically requires an applicant, as a prerequisite to filing an RFA-2 application (“Phase 2”), to receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community. (See also 205 CMR 124.00.) Also, where a proposed gaming establishment is situated in more than one community, as is the case with the Project:
The applicant shall execute an agreement with each host community, or a joint agreement with both communities, and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
Taken together, the intent of these provisions is clear. Only favorable referendum results in both host communities allow the applicant to proceed to Phase 2. That did not happen with Sterling Suffolk’s Project. Because one host community voted in the negative, the Project proposed for Suffolk Downs is dead. If Sterling Suffolk wishes to proceed with an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel, then under the terms of the Gaming Act:
[They] shall not submit a new request to the governing body within 180 days of the last election; and provided further, that a new request shall be accompanied by an agreement between the applicant and host community signed after the previous election. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
However, in their November 13th letter to the Commission, Sterling Suffolk asserted that, regardless of the November 5th election results, Revere’s host community agreement remains in effect and need only be modified to reflect a shift to Suffolk Down’s Revere parcel. Sterling Suffolk does not interpret the referendums to have been votes about the Project (and host community agreements) itself; rather they view the referendums as votes on whether Suffolk Down could be developed for a casino at all.
While it is true that Revere and East Boston voted on land use, it is also unquestionable that the host community agreements were essential to the voting process. All ballots required, and did in fact contain, “a fair, concise summary of the host community agreement.” 205 CMR 124.05. My colleagues and I in the Legislature recognized that it was imperative to ensure that Massachusetts residents in an impacted community have adequate notice of, and be well-informed about, any casino proposal prior to voting. Accordingly, the Gaming Act specifically requires a host community agreement to be made public, and that host and surrounding communities have ample opportunity to weigh the potential impacts on local businesses, traffic, jobs, as well as public safety.
Furthermore, it is false to argue that an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel is anything but a new proposal, which would require a new host community agreement and referendum under the provisions of M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13). Any proposed project development on the Revere parcel would undoubtedly look very different from that which voters reviewed prior to November 5th. Buildings and parking lots would need to be relocated, not to mention the racetrack and stables. Such changes materially alter the Project as it was initially proposed. In effect, this undermine the Gaming Act’s requirements for transparency and notice that ensure members of the impacted communities, including myself, have adequate time to weigh the merits of a proposal.
I understand why Sterling Suffolk wishes to pursue an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel. As an organization, they’ve invested a great deal of time, effort, and money to see the Suffolk Downs Project to fruition. I, too, was disappointed that the Project failed to receive the two affirmative referendum results needed to proceed to Phase 2. I believed, and still believe, that a casino has great potential to rejuvenate communities within my District. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot allow a gaming applicant to circumvent the process required by the Gaming Act merely because the results were disappointing.
I appreciate the opportunity to state my position to the Commission, and request the Commission’s clarification on the status of Sterling Suffolk’s application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY PETRUCCELLI
State Senator
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
The two-page letter from state Senator Anthony Petruccelli to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission on Suffolk Downs' Revere-only proposal. Related story can be found here.
November 20, 2013
Stephen Crosby, Chairman
Massachusetts Gaming Commission
84 State Street, Suite 720
Boston, MA 02109
Dear Chairman Crosby and Commissioners:
On behalf of my constituents of the First Suffolk and Middlesex District, I write today to express my increasing concern over recent efforts by Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, LLC (“Sterling Suffolk”) to proceed with the resort casino development originally proposed for the 161-acre land parcel at Suffolk Downs in East Boston (the “Project”). In a letter to the Commission, dated November 13, 2013, Sterling Suffolk expressed their intentions to move forward with the Project despite the unsuccessful ballot question in East Boston. Indeed, Sterling Suffolk has proposed to modify the Project’s development plan so that it fits entirely within the 52-acre Revere parcel at Suffolk Downs. To do so, in my opinion, undermines the spirit and intent of the Commonwealth’s Expanded Gaming Act of 2011 (the “Gaming Act”).
When the State Legislature crafted and passed the Gaming Act, my colleagues and I carefully drafted provisions pertaining to host community agreements and the conduct of an election. M.G.L. c.23K, §15 specifically requires an applicant, as a prerequisite to filing an RFA-2 application (“Phase 2”), to receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community. (See also 205 CMR 124.00.) Also, where a proposed gaming establishment is situated in more than one community, as is the case with the Project:
The applicant shall execute an agreement with each host community, or a joint agreement with both communities, and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
Taken together, the intent of these provisions is clear. Only favorable referendum results in both host communities allow the applicant to proceed to Phase 2. That did not happen with Sterling Suffolk’s Project. Because one host community voted in the negative, the Project proposed for Suffolk Downs is dead. If Sterling Suffolk wishes to proceed with an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel, then under the terms of the Gaming Act:
[They] shall not submit a new request to the governing body within 180 days of the last election; and provided further, that a new request shall be accompanied by an agreement between the applicant and host community signed after the previous election. M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13).
However, in their November 13th letter to the Commission, Sterling Suffolk asserted that, regardless of the November 5th election results, Revere’s host community agreement remains in effect and need only be modified to reflect a shift to Suffolk Down’s Revere parcel. Sterling Suffolk does not interpret the referendums to have been votes about the Project (and host community agreements) itself; rather they view the referendums as votes on whether Suffolk Down could be developed for a casino at all.
While it is true that Revere and East Boston voted on land use, it is also unquestionable that the host community agreements were essential to the voting process. All ballots required, and did in fact contain, “a fair, concise summary of the host community agreement.” 205 CMR 124.05. My colleagues and I in the Legislature recognized that it was imperative to ensure that Massachusetts residents in an impacted community have adequate notice of, and be well-informed about, any casino proposal prior to voting. Accordingly, the Gaming Act specifically requires a host community agreement to be made public, and that host and surrounding communities have ample opportunity to weigh the potential impacts on local businesses, traffic, jobs, as well as public safety.
Furthermore, it is false to argue that an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel is anything but a new proposal, which would require a new host community agreement and referendum under the provisions of M.G.L. c.23K, § 15(13). Any proposed project development on the Revere parcel would undoubtedly look very different from that which voters reviewed prior to November 5th. Buildings and parking lots would need to be relocated, not to mention the racetrack and stables. Such changes materially alter the Project as it was initially proposed. In effect, this undermine the Gaming Act’s requirements for transparency and notice that ensure members of the impacted communities, including myself, have adequate time to weigh the merits of a proposal.
I understand why Sterling Suffolk wishes to pursue an alternative development plan on the Revere parcel. As an organization, they’ve invested a great deal of time, effort, and money to see the Suffolk Downs Project to fruition. I, too, was disappointed that the Project failed to receive the two affirmative referendum results needed to proceed to Phase 2. I believed, and still believe, that a casino has great potential to rejuvenate communities within my District. Nevertheless, the Commission cannot allow a gaming applicant to circumvent the process required by the Gaming Act merely because the results were disappointing.
I appreciate the opportunity to state my position to the Commission, and request the Commission’s clarification on the status of Sterling Suffolk’s application. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
ANTHONY PETRUCCELLI
State Senator
First Suffolk and Middlesex District
Friday, November 8, 2013
No Eastie Casino: "An Open Letter To Our Elected Officials and The Massachusetts Gaming Commission"
From No Eastie Casino 11/8/2013:
An Open Letter To Our Elected Officials and The Massachusetts Gaming Commission:
We are writing on behalf of the 4,281 East Boston voters who soundly defeated the ill-conceived proposal for a casino at Suffolk Downs on November 5.
Suffolk Downs’ casino proposal failed. The developer was unable to choose or properly vet a casino operator. Unambiguously located in both East Boston and Revere, the developer failed to win the East Boston vote. Massachusetts law clearly states that if a proposed casino is located in more than one city or town, it must win a referendum vote in both communities, M.G.L. c. 23K, § 15(13). East Boston said NO; Suffolk Downs’ casino application is dead.
Suffolk Downs is now trying to circumvent the law by suggesting it can simply "move the goalposts" to the Revere side, but a Revere-only casino is not what residents of East Boston or Revere were called to vote for. East Boston voters said "no" to the impacts that a Suffolk Downs casino would bring, and a Revere-only casino will create the same impacts. Enough is enough - Suffolk Downs is no longer a legitimate contender. Any attempt to move forward with a Revere-only casino proposal is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise East Boston voters and circumvent the clear intent of the law. No Eastie Casino is outraged this idea could even be entertained.
East Boston residents expect and demand our elected officials to uphold and enforce the law, stand for the will of the people, and reject Suffolk Downs' last ditch effort to install a casino in our community.
No Eastie Casino calls on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to adhere to the proper licensing procedures, M.G.L. c. 23K, 205 CMR, and application deadlines previously set forth. The law is clear and the voters have spoken. We insist that Suffolk Downs be immediately removed from consideration for a gaming license.
We will not tolerate any breach of the law or the public process. We will continue to fight to keep East Boston safe for families and small businesses. We will not stop until this threat to our community has been removed once and for all.
No Eastie Casino
An Open Letter To Our Elected Officials and The Massachusetts Gaming Commission:
We are writing on behalf of the 4,281 East Boston voters who soundly defeated the ill-conceived proposal for a casino at Suffolk Downs on November 5.
Suffolk Downs’ casino proposal failed. The developer was unable to choose or properly vet a casino operator. Unambiguously located in both East Boston and Revere, the developer failed to win the East Boston vote. Massachusetts law clearly states that if a proposed casino is located in more than one city or town, it must win a referendum vote in both communities, M.G.L. c. 23K, § 15(13). East Boston said NO; Suffolk Downs’ casino application is dead.
Suffolk Downs is now trying to circumvent the law by suggesting it can simply "move the goalposts" to the Revere side, but a Revere-only casino is not what residents of East Boston or Revere were called to vote for. East Boston voters said "no" to the impacts that a Suffolk Downs casino would bring, and a Revere-only casino will create the same impacts. Enough is enough - Suffolk Downs is no longer a legitimate contender. Any attempt to move forward with a Revere-only casino proposal is a deliberate effort to disenfranchise East Boston voters and circumvent the clear intent of the law. No Eastie Casino is outraged this idea could even be entertained.
East Boston residents expect and demand our elected officials to uphold and enforce the law, stand for the will of the people, and reject Suffolk Downs' last ditch effort to install a casino in our community.
No Eastie Casino calls on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to adhere to the proper licensing procedures, M.G.L. c. 23K, 205 CMR, and application deadlines previously set forth. The law is clear and the voters have spoken. We insist that Suffolk Downs be immediately removed from consideration for a gaming license.
We will not tolerate any breach of the law or the public process. We will continue to fight to keep East Boston safe for families and small businesses. We will not stop until this threat to our community has been removed once and for all.
No Eastie Casino
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Ray Flynn speaks out against casino in East Boston
Former Mayor Ray Flynn says casinos exploit the poor! He's right! Casino discussion with NECN's Jim Braude comes in around 5:40.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
East Boston resident calls upon Suffolk Downs to withdraw casino application
East Boston resident and casino opponent Ernani DeAraujo criticizes City of Boston for embracing SD casino proposal without "due diligence."
"According to the Boston Globe, Caesars was disqualified because of alleged mob ties overseas. I think the ownership of Suffolk Downs owes the City of Boston and especially the residents of East Boston an apology for not doing their due diligence in selecting their "world class" partner and for trying to yoke us to a casino operator that is engaging in allegedly unethical and criminal behavior. This is a complete embarrassment for our City that embraced Caesars on Suffolk's recommendation and Suffolk Downs should say sorry and withdraw their application to end this fiasco."
"According to the Boston Globe, Caesars was disqualified because of alleged mob ties overseas. I think the ownership of Suffolk Downs owes the City of Boston and especially the residents of East Boston an apology for not doing their due diligence in selecting their "world class" partner and for trying to yoke us to a casino operator that is engaging in allegedly unethical and criminal behavior. This is a complete embarrassment for our City that embraced Caesars on Suffolk's recommendation and Suffolk Downs should say sorry and withdraw their application to end this fiasco."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)