You are cordially invited:
State Representative Candidate Forum "Our Community, Our Future"
Date: Tuesday, September 30
Time: 5:30-7:30 pm
Location: Maverick Landing Community Room
31 Liverpool Street, East Boston
Simultaneous translation English to Spanish available, light refreshments will be served at 5:30 pm. Children friendly environment, all are welcome.
This is a non-partisan candidate forum co-sponsored by Neighbors United for a Better East Boston (NUBE), Mass VOTE, Right to the City Boston, East Boston Ecumencial Council (EBECC) and Maverick Association of Residents (MAR).
For more info, please contact NUBE, 617-981-4010 or info@nubeastboston.org.
Thank you,
Maverick Association of Residents (M.A.R.)
31 Liverpool Street, East Boston, MA 02128
617-569-5100/ fax 617-567-2420
Twitter: @MAREastBoston
Office Hours: 10am-1pm, Tuesday & Thursdays
Showing posts with label Myers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Myers. Show all posts
Monday, September 22, 2014
Monday, August 4, 2014
Basile campaign issues response to Ribeiro Myers debate invite
This just in from the Basile campaign's Kevin Franck
Below is the Basile campaign's response to Celeste Ribeiro Myers' invitation to debate the issues and challenges facing the people of East Boston. Please let me know if you need anything else.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlo Basile
Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Subject: East Boston Public Debates
To: campaign@celesteforeastboston.com
August 4, 2014
Dear Steve Holt:
Thank you for your invitation to debate the issues and challenges facing the people of East Boston. The Basile Campaign would be more than willing to join you and anyone else who would like to participate in this discussion.
In the coming days, let's get together to work out the details and the logistics. We look forward to a healthy and civil discussion of the issues facing the 1st Suffolk district Rep. Basile represents.
All the Best,
Catt Chaput
Campaign Manager
--
Carlo Basile for State Representative
Representing East Boston since 2007
Vote November 4, 2014
Find your Polling Location at www.wheredoivotema.com
Below is the Basile campaign's response to Celeste Ribeiro Myers' invitation to debate the issues and challenges facing the people of East Boston. Please let me know if you need anything else.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Carlo Basile
Date: Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:27 PM
Subject: East Boston Public Debates
To: campaign@celesteforeastboston.com
August 4, 2014
Dear Steve Holt:
Thank you for your invitation to debate the issues and challenges facing the people of East Boston. The Basile Campaign would be more than willing to join you and anyone else who would like to participate in this discussion.
In the coming days, let's get together to work out the details and the logistics. We look forward to a healthy and civil discussion of the issues facing the 1st Suffolk district Rep. Basile represents.
All the Best,
Catt Chaput
Campaign Manager
--
Carlo Basile for State Representative
Representing East Boston since 2007
Vote November 4, 2014
Find your Polling Location at www.wheredoivotema.com
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Politics 2014: State Representative Candidate Celeste Ribeiro Myers Challenges Opponent to Refuse Special Interest Donations
(EAST BOSTON, MA, July 8, 2014)—Celeste Ribeiro Myers, candidate for Suffolk County’s State Representative seat in the First District, today committed to refusing campaign donations from special interest organizations and political action committees and challenged her opponent to do the same. In a letter to Rep. Carlo Basile, Myers also asked the incumbent to join her in refusing donations fron groups and organizations with a special interest in legislation before the House of Representatives.
“By joining together in this ‘people’s pledge,’” she wrote, “we will send a message to voters over the coming months that we are beholden to only them, rather than any outside special interest groups.”
Lobbyists and special interest organizations have given millions to candidates across the Commonwealth in an effort to influence their legislative priorities. Myers notes in her letter to Basile that East Boston has seen numerous groups attempt to impose their will on the neighborhood over the years and specifically cited the almost $3 million spent by Suffolk Downs and Caesars Entertainment leading up to their unsuccessful casino referendum in November. And with a question on the ballot that could repeal the 2011 casino law, millions more are sure to pour into East Boston and throughout the state in the coming months from casino companies and their lobbyists.
“I know you’ll agree that East Boston is a special place, a place where residents are invested in our community and know what is best for ourselves,” she wrote. “As we saw at the polls last November, voters here are savvy and do not fall for the messages from outside groups attempting to impose their will on us. They are disgusted with special interest money, its influence and how it undermines the democratic process because they have seen it in this community, across the state and across the nation.”
Myers, a lifelong East Boston resident, officially kicked off her campaign for State Representative on June 26 at an energetic event with more than 150 supporters on-hand. Former state Secretary of Transportation James Aloisi introduced Myers at the event, lauding her political courage and urging East Boston residents to send her to the State House. Myers is known for leading the ballot question campaign group No Eastie Casino, which successfully defeated a proposal to site a casino at Suffolk Downs in East Boston on Nov. 5, 2013. (her opponent, Basile, opposed an area casino as a candidate in 2007 but vigorously supported casino plans in the run-up to the vote)
Myers’ robust platform includes plans to give residents more say in how Eastie develops; transportation improvements; job creation and economic development; health; and equality and inclusion for all. Check out her entire platform at www.celesteforeastboston.com.
Media Contact: Steve Holt, 978-494-6109
“By joining together in this ‘people’s pledge,’” she wrote, “we will send a message to voters over the coming months that we are beholden to only them, rather than any outside special interest groups.”
Lobbyists and special interest organizations have given millions to candidates across the Commonwealth in an effort to influence their legislative priorities. Myers notes in her letter to Basile that East Boston has seen numerous groups attempt to impose their will on the neighborhood over the years and specifically cited the almost $3 million spent by Suffolk Downs and Caesars Entertainment leading up to their unsuccessful casino referendum in November. And with a question on the ballot that could repeal the 2011 casino law, millions more are sure to pour into East Boston and throughout the state in the coming months from casino companies and their lobbyists.
“I know you’ll agree that East Boston is a special place, a place where residents are invested in our community and know what is best for ourselves,” she wrote. “As we saw at the polls last November, voters here are savvy and do not fall for the messages from outside groups attempting to impose their will on us. They are disgusted with special interest money, its influence and how it undermines the democratic process because they have seen it in this community, across the state and across the nation.”
Myers, a lifelong East Boston resident, officially kicked off her campaign for State Representative on June 26 at an energetic event with more than 150 supporters on-hand. Former state Secretary of Transportation James Aloisi introduced Myers at the event, lauding her political courage and urging East Boston residents to send her to the State House. Myers is known for leading the ballot question campaign group No Eastie Casino, which successfully defeated a proposal to site a casino at Suffolk Downs in East Boston on Nov. 5, 2013. (her opponent, Basile, opposed an area casino as a candidate in 2007 but vigorously supported casino plans in the run-up to the vote)
Myers’ robust platform includes plans to give residents more say in how Eastie develops; transportation improvements; job creation and economic development; health; and equality and inclusion for all. Check out her entire platform at www.celesteforeastboston.com.
Media Contact: Steve Holt, 978-494-6109
Source: Myers Campaign 7/8/2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
Myers to Launch Campaign for State Rep on Thursday 6/26; Pledges to ‘Put Community First’
(EAST BOSTON June 23, 2014) - Committing to work tirelessly at the State House so that every East Boston resident has the opportunity to work, live, raise a family and be successful, Celeste Ribeiro Myers this week officially launches her campaign for State Representative in Suffolk County’s First District. Myers, a lifelong East Boston resident and former co-chair of No Eastie Casino, a group she founded, says she believes the neighborhood’s best days are ahead of it.
“I love this community, and I am running to make sure it remains a place for young families to settle, a gateway for newcomers to this country, and a thriving district for entrepreneurs that is the envy of other Boston neighborhoods,” she says. “Too often, big business – be it an airport, an oil company, a luxury developer or, yes, a casino – have tried to dictate the direction this neighborhood is going. I believe the people know best how East Boston is to grow and prosper.”
Promising to run an energetic campaign in which she shares with voters her ideas for healthy neighborhood development, more efficient transportation, and an economically thriving, environmentally responsible East Boston, Myers will lay out her more comprehensive platform at a campaign kickoff event Thursday, June 26, from 6-8 p.m., at the Zumix Firehouse, 260 Sumner Street in East Boston.
Myers is known for leading the ballot question campaign group No Eastie Casino, which last year successfully defeated a proposal to site a casino at Suffolk Downs in East Boston. (Her opponent, incumbent Carlo Basile, opposed an area casino as a candidate in 2007 but vigorously supported casino plans in the run-up to the vote.) As Suffolk Downs continued to push a so-called “Revere-only” casino in the days and months following the November vote, Myers regularly appeared before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission as a representative of the more than 4,000 residents who voted “no” and continues to push toward repealing the law.
But long before the casino issue reared its head, Myers was active in the East Boston community. Her father, a former probation officer in Eastie, used to take her to protests against Logan Airport expansion and to volunteer with children at area family shelters. Celeste’s first pivotal opportunity to impact an issue came at the age of 9 when she wrote and delivered remarks to the Boston Public School Committee during a hearing in an effort to save her grade school, the Curtis Guild, from being closed as a result of budget cuts. More evident than her activist streak is her ardent desire to build community – usually in a hands-on capacity. Celeste played an instrumental role in producing community -galvanizing events including the Sacred Heart Festival, the Columbus Day Parade, Eastie Pride Day, the East Boston Community Thanksgiving Dinner, and has served as a team captain for the annual Relay for Life.
“For me, service is key,” she says. “The casino fight showed me how committed my neighbors are to protecting the neighborhood they love. So many of them tell me they’ve felt underrepresented at the state level; I’m ready and willing to step up and serve them, with the people and future of East Boston ever on my mind.”
Source: Myers campaign
“I love this community, and I am running to make sure it remains a place for young families to settle, a gateway for newcomers to this country, and a thriving district for entrepreneurs that is the envy of other Boston neighborhoods,” she says. “Too often, big business – be it an airport, an oil company, a luxury developer or, yes, a casino – have tried to dictate the direction this neighborhood is going. I believe the people know best how East Boston is to grow and prosper.”
Promising to run an energetic campaign in which she shares with voters her ideas for healthy neighborhood development, more efficient transportation, and an economically thriving, environmentally responsible East Boston, Myers will lay out her more comprehensive platform at a campaign kickoff event Thursday, June 26, from 6-8 p.m., at the Zumix Firehouse, 260 Sumner Street in East Boston.
Myers is known for leading the ballot question campaign group No Eastie Casino, which last year successfully defeated a proposal to site a casino at Suffolk Downs in East Boston. (Her opponent, incumbent Carlo Basile, opposed an area casino as a candidate in 2007 but vigorously supported casino plans in the run-up to the vote.) As Suffolk Downs continued to push a so-called “Revere-only” casino in the days and months following the November vote, Myers regularly appeared before the Massachusetts Gaming Commission as a representative of the more than 4,000 residents who voted “no” and continues to push toward repealing the law.
But long before the casino issue reared its head, Myers was active in the East Boston community. Her father, a former probation officer in Eastie, used to take her to protests against Logan Airport expansion and to volunteer with children at area family shelters. Celeste’s first pivotal opportunity to impact an issue came at the age of 9 when she wrote and delivered remarks to the Boston Public School Committee during a hearing in an effort to save her grade school, the Curtis Guild, from being closed as a result of budget cuts. More evident than her activist streak is her ardent desire to build community – usually in a hands-on capacity. Celeste played an instrumental role in producing community -galvanizing events including the Sacred Heart Festival, the Columbus Day Parade, Eastie Pride Day, the East Boston Community Thanksgiving Dinner, and has served as a team captain for the annual Relay for Life.
“For me, service is key,” she says. “The casino fight showed me how committed my neighbors are to protecting the neighborhood they love. So many of them tell me they’ve felt underrepresented at the state level; I’m ready and willing to step up and serve them, with the people and future of East Boston ever on my mind.”
Source: Myers campaign
Monday, December 9, 2013
Latest: No Eastie Casino Calls on Massachusetts Gaming Commission To Uphold Expanded Gaming Act and Declare Revere-Only Casino Illegal
Download the full PDF version of No Eastie Casino's comments
In advance of the Commission's public meeting
BOSTON, Mass., Dec. 9, 2013 - Today, No Eastie Casino, a registered municipal ballot question committee organized to stop a casino at Suffolk Downs, again registered its disapproval with a plan to push forward with a Mohegan Sun casino on the Revere side of the track's property -- despite a clear "no" from 8,513 residents of Revere and East Boston in referendums on Nov. 5.
No Eastie Casino is joined by all of East Boston's elected officials and the editors of theBoston Globe in declaring the completely new plan for a Revere gaming license advanced by former applicant Suffolk Downs and the city of Revere as an affront to the letter, spirit, and clear intent of the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act. As stated in formal comments submitted to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, No Eastie Casino demands that the City of Revere and the applicants follow the law as written. Full public confidence in the casino licensing process requires nothing less.
"We believe that public confidence stands in imminent jeopardy of irreparable harm for as long as this Commission continues to consider the gaming establishment presently proposed for development in Revere in the absence of a new host community agreement and referendum, both of which are required by law," writes Matt Cameron, No Eastie Casino's general counsel, in the group's comments to the Commission.
The comments go on to lay out a thorough case for why the Commission must deny Mohegan Sun's request to move forward with casino plans on the Suffolk Downs property in Revere without a new host community agreement and vote. Countering the narrative put forth by officials from Revere, Suffolk Downs and Mohegan Sun -- essentially that the affirmative vote on Nov. 5 was a blank check for casino anywhere in the city -- No Eastie Casino asserts that the revised casino proposal bears no resemblance to the deal Revere officials negotiated and that voters approved. Suffolk Downs is no longer an applicant for the casino
license on its property, nor is horse racing directly tied to casino operations -- two assumptions voters heard repeatedly throughout Suffolk Downs' campaign leading up to the Nov. 5 referendum.
"No one has voted on the plan that Mohegan Sun is presenting. The players, the project and the details have changed," said Celeste Myers, co-chair of No Eastie Casino. "We cannot assign votes to an entirely different project that the public has not considered."
Proof the Mohegan Sun Casino Proposal is Not What Revere Voters Approved on Nov. 5
As a supplement to its written comments, No Eastie Casino also submitted to the Commission a collection of video clips showing Revere and Suffolk Downs officials contradicting the narrative they've been telling of the casino proposal since the referendum. In one clip, dated Oct. 19, Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo is seen telling constituents that Suffolk Downs' plans called for "not one ounce" of construction within Revere city limits. Several video clips show Suffolk Downs Chief Operating Officer Chip Tuttle telling audiences prior to Nov. 5 that Suffolk Downs was the entity seeking a casino license, and "has been all along." And in another clip, Suffolk Downs co-owner Joseph O'Donnell, speaking the day the track signed its host community agreement with the City of Boston, appears to say the track would respect the decision East Boston voters make at the polls on Nov. 5.
"The community, East Boston, will make that decision," O'Donnell, the a co-owner at the track for more than 27 years, said at the City Hall press conference. "That's why they'll have an election, and that's a decision that's up to them. Far be it from me to tell them what they can do. We'll live with whatever that answer is."
Within minutes of word that East Boston had resoundingly voted down the Suffolk Downs casino plan, however, track officials were already talking to the press about plans to develop the casino on the Revere side of its property. But the law required that the proposal earn an affirmative vote in both communities to advance, and Myers said the democratic process may be at stake if the Commission chooses not to respect her neighborhood's vote.
In addition to its legal analysis of a revised Mohegan Sun casino, No Eastie Casino in its written comments to the Commission also called on Chairman Stephen Crosby to recuse himself from any further deliberations or decisions pertaining to a casino in Eastern Massachusetts. Last week, the Boston Globe reported that Crosby had waited more than 10 months to disclose a decades-long personal and business connection to the co-owner of the Everett parcel where Steve Wynn has proposed a casino. Crosby also has admitted to being a longtime acquaintance of Suffolk Downs' O'Donnell, with whom he played football at Harvard.
In calling for Crosby to recuse himself from Region A casino deliberations, the group refers to a statute in the Massachusetts General Law that prohibits even the appearance of impropriety or bias with regard to public officials.
"We believe it is imperative that Mr. Crosby comply with the terms of the conflicts law and make public a letter outlining in detail why no reasonable person can conclude that his participation meets the test of the law," No Eastie Casino's comment states. "That letter should be approved by his appointing authority, prior to his taking any further action on this matter."
The Gaming Commission will take up the issue of a Mohegan Sun casino in Revere at its meeting Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 1 p.m., in room 151 of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. Casino opponents from Revere and East Boston will be present at the meeting, as will spokespeople from No Eastie Casino.
In advance of the Commission's public meeting
BOSTON, Mass., Dec. 9, 2013 - Today, No Eastie Casino, a registered municipal ballot question committee organized to stop a casino at Suffolk Downs, again registered its disapproval with a plan to push forward with a Mohegan Sun casino on the Revere side of the track's property -- despite a clear "no" from 8,513 residents of Revere and East Boston in referendums on Nov. 5.
No Eastie Casino is joined by all of East Boston's elected officials and the editors of theBoston Globe in declaring the completely new plan for a Revere gaming license advanced by former applicant Suffolk Downs and the city of Revere as an affront to the letter, spirit, and clear intent of the 2011 Expanded Gaming Act. As stated in formal comments submitted to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, No Eastie Casino demands that the City of Revere and the applicants follow the law as written. Full public confidence in the casino licensing process requires nothing less.
"We believe that public confidence stands in imminent jeopardy of irreparable harm for as long as this Commission continues to consider the gaming establishment presently proposed for development in Revere in the absence of a new host community agreement and referendum, both of which are required by law," writes Matt Cameron, No Eastie Casino's general counsel, in the group's comments to the Commission.
The comments go on to lay out a thorough case for why the Commission must deny Mohegan Sun's request to move forward with casino plans on the Suffolk Downs property in Revere without a new host community agreement and vote. Countering the narrative put forth by officials from Revere, Suffolk Downs and Mohegan Sun -- essentially that the affirmative vote on Nov. 5 was a blank check for casino anywhere in the city -- No Eastie Casino asserts that the revised casino proposal bears no resemblance to the deal Revere officials negotiated and that voters approved. Suffolk Downs is no longer an applicant for the casino
license on its property, nor is horse racing directly tied to casino operations -- two assumptions voters heard repeatedly throughout Suffolk Downs' campaign leading up to the Nov. 5 referendum.
"No one has voted on the plan that Mohegan Sun is presenting. The players, the project and the details have changed," said Celeste Myers, co-chair of No Eastie Casino. "We cannot assign votes to an entirely different project that the public has not considered."
Proof the Mohegan Sun Casino Proposal is Not What Revere Voters Approved on Nov. 5
As a supplement to its written comments, No Eastie Casino also submitted to the Commission a collection of video clips showing Revere and Suffolk Downs officials contradicting the narrative they've been telling of the casino proposal since the referendum. In one clip, dated Oct. 19, Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo is seen telling constituents that Suffolk Downs' plans called for "not one ounce" of construction within Revere city limits. Several video clips show Suffolk Downs Chief Operating Officer Chip Tuttle telling audiences prior to Nov. 5 that Suffolk Downs was the entity seeking a casino license, and "has been all along." And in another clip, Suffolk Downs co-owner Joseph O'Donnell, speaking the day the track signed its host community agreement with the City of Boston, appears to say the track would respect the decision East Boston voters make at the polls on Nov. 5.
"The community, East Boston, will make that decision," O'Donnell, the a co-owner at the track for more than 27 years, said at the City Hall press conference. "That's why they'll have an election, and that's a decision that's up to them. Far be it from me to tell them what they can do. We'll live with whatever that answer is."
Within minutes of word that East Boston had resoundingly voted down the Suffolk Downs casino plan, however, track officials were already talking to the press about plans to develop the casino on the Revere side of its property. But the law required that the proposal earn an affirmative vote in both communities to advance, and Myers said the democratic process may be at stake if the Commission chooses not to respect her neighborhood's vote.
In addition to its legal analysis of a revised Mohegan Sun casino, No Eastie Casino in its written comments to the Commission also called on Chairman Stephen Crosby to recuse himself from any further deliberations or decisions pertaining to a casino in Eastern Massachusetts. Last week, the Boston Globe reported that Crosby had waited more than 10 months to disclose a decades-long personal and business connection to the co-owner of the Everett parcel where Steve Wynn has proposed a casino. Crosby also has admitted to being a longtime acquaintance of Suffolk Downs' O'Donnell, with whom he played football at Harvard.
In calling for Crosby to recuse himself from Region A casino deliberations, the group refers to a statute in the Massachusetts General Law that prohibits even the appearance of impropriety or bias with regard to public officials.
"We believe it is imperative that Mr. Crosby comply with the terms of the conflicts law and make public a letter outlining in detail why no reasonable person can conclude that his participation meets the test of the law," No Eastie Casino's comment states. "That letter should be approved by his appointing authority, prior to his taking any further action on this matter."
The Gaming Commission will take up the issue of a Mohegan Sun casino in Revere at its meeting Tuesday, Dec. 10, at 1 p.m., in room 151 of the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center. Casino opponents from Revere and East Boston will be present at the meeting, as will spokespeople from No Eastie Casino.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)