PDA

View Full Version : MA Casino Developments


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 05:34 AM
Massachusetts House approves casino gambling
By Mark Arsenault and Noah Bierman, Globe Staff


The Massachusetts House last night overwhelmingly approved casino gambling, bolstering confidence among lawmakers that slot machines and Las Vegas-style table games will be coming to the Commonwealth.

The bill, which passed 123-32 just after 9 p.m., would authorize three “resort” casinos and one slots-only gambling parlor in Massachusetts. The Senate expects to take up the measure later this month and Governor Deval Patrick has signaled initial support.

The first slot parlor could open within a year, with casinos to follow two or more years after that, House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo said.

“We’re taking a major step in the creation of jobs ,” said DeLeo, a Winthrop Democrat who has made expanded gambling his priority for two years. “We are right now in Massachusetts -- or have been -- in a blue collar depression...this is a workforce that we really have to address.”

Lawmakers have proposed casinos sporadically for decades, but the state’s Puritan heritage, as well as a belief that casinos would take more from the state than they would give back, thwarted previous attempts.

Support grew more substantial over the past two years, due to stubbornly high unemployment and a new consensus of a governor and two legislative chiefs who favor casinos. Last year, a similar bill passed the House and the Senate before a disagreement with Patrick over the size and type of the facilities derailed it.

Lawmakers say the state is desperate for jobs and a new stream of tax money.

“Personally, expanded gambling, I suppose I could take or leave,” said Representative Joseph F. Wagner, a Chicopee Democrat and the lead sponsor of the bill, who confessed his gambling experience is limited to the “occasional game of Keno.” But “I can’t ignore the thousands of jobs and I won’t ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.”

Patrick offered critical support for the bill last month, and has indicated he is inclined to sign it.

“The debate today I think is a long time coming,” Patrick told reporters earlier Wednesday. “There’s a lot I like about the bill and I’ll be interested to see what shape it takes when it reaches my desk.”

Casino developers have spent millions lobbying on Beacon Hill, in hopes of cashing in on the multi-billion dollar industry. Organized labor, desperate for construction and service jobs, also pushed hard.

Though adamant that expanding gambling will do more harm than good, opponents seemed resigned to the outcome after DeLeo, Senate President Therese Murray, and Patrick, all Democrats, united behind a single proposal last month.

“The bill overpromises and it will underperform,” Representative Denise Provost, a vocal opponent, said as she left the House chamber after the vote.

She argued during the debate that as soon as cash-flushed casinos are entrenched in the state’s economy, their owners would deploy armies of lawyers and lobbyists to strong-arm the state into rewriting the casino law to the detriment of taxpayers.

“Once we have married the casino industry they are ours and we are theirs,” said Provost, a Somerville Democrat.

Provost demanded a cost-benefit study, echoing longstanding claims from opponents that previous studies were wired by the casino industry.

Representative Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Revere Democrat, responded by slapping a thick stack of binders on the podium. “These are the studies we’ve done,” she said, holding up one that dated to Governor Jane Swift’s administration a decade ago.

She defended the value of casino jobs, pointing out that she worked her way through college at Wonderland, the former dog racing facility.

“When I keep hearing these aren’t real jobs, I can’t tell you how crazy that makes me,” she said. Casino jobs “put real food on real tables and put real children in real colleges.”

Under the terms of the bill, each casino license would cost at least $85 million and require developers to invest at least $500 million in their resorts. The state would collect one quarter of the casinos’ profits as a tax. The slot parlor would pay a $25 million fee, at minimum, and be required to invest at least $125 million. It would pay a 40 percent tax, plus an additional 9 percent toward increasing purses for the flagging horse racing industry.

The bill gives an Indian tribe, most likely the Mashpee Wampanoag, a year to reach a deal with the governor to open a casino in Southeastern Massachusetts, presuming it can clear several hurdles in federal law. If the tribe can’t reach a deal, the license would be bid on the commercial market.

Lawmakers spent hours tweaking the bill throughout the day, meeting into the night, approving several large amendments written only minutes before they were passed.

Proponents of the casino plan pounded several main points throughout the debate, citing new jobs and revenue and the fact that Massachusetts residents are already gambling, either through the lottery at the corner store, or at out-of-state casinos.

“You can’t legislate everything in life,” said Rep. Paul K. Frost, an Auburn Republican. “People [from Massachusetts] are gaming in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Las Vegas and Atlantic City.”

Opponents pointed to other states that have casinos as also having high rates of suicide and addiction.

“This is the model?” said Representative Ruth B. Balser, a Newton Democrat. “This is the race to the bottom.”

Several opponents conceded the main point of casino supporters—that the state needs more revenue and jobs, but argued that casinos are the wrong solution.

Representative Thomas P. Conroy, a Wayland Democrat and a candidate for his party’s nomination for US Senate, said casinos are out of character with the Bay State’s existing tourism attractions: beaches, natural beauty and Colonial history. “It’s not clear that destination resort casinos are consistent with the overall brand Massachusetts offers...the idea of closed buildings with pumped in air and no windows,” he said.

Representative James Lyons, a Republican from Andover, said past legislatures have resisted the temptations of casinos, and that passing the bill would define the current legislature in history.

“This bill before us proposes a fundamental change in the character of this state,” he said. “If we approve this bill we are turning our backs on history.”
http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2011/09/massachusetts-house-approves-casino-gambling/EQED0KTbu561BBfTkOt6VJ/index.html?comments=all&csort=desc

statler
09-15-2011, 08:30 AM
Every time you abuse the caps lock key a puppy dies.

Please, think of the puppies.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 08:41 AM
Any thoughts on the CASINOS coming to Mass?

LIKE or Don't Like

statler
09-15-2011, 08:56 AM
XCASINAiols r liek, wicked cool Or NOT! IDK! LOL!

If you type like an adult, people will speak with about the issues you care about like you are an adult. Otherwise they will presume you are a 14 year old girl talking about Justin Beiber and dismiss what you may have to say.

Shepard
09-15-2011, 09:19 AM
I'll take the bait.

I don't think that casinos will cause the world to end. But they definitely have negatives and costs associated with them, which the studies they have performed may or may not be taking into account.

The benefit is obviously revenues, but here is where I pause. Too many legislators are acting like this is the only chance the commonwealth has to raise revenues. Well, what about, ahem, the gas tax? Or collecting sales tax on online purchases? Tolling the roads that the Big Dig actually buried? You may not like these options but they are far more palatable in my mind than casinos which 1) prey off the bottom of society for these "revenues" rather than equitably distributing the burden and 2) entrench a grubby casino interest in MA that we will never be rid of.

HenryAlan
09-15-2011, 09:32 AM
I agree, I find them distasteful as revenue generators, and low on my list of priorities when it comes to that. I'm less concerned about societal harm, though. If we consider the alternative, which is the same people we hope wouldn't gamble in Massachusetts instead getting on buses to RI, NH, and CT to gamble there, I'd say we're better off keeping those folks in state.

Any thoughts on location?


Do we go with the Atlantic City route, which is to say, place them in economically distressed locations with the hopes that the entire district improves? That would imply, perhaps New Bedford as a strong candidate.
What about the European model, wherein casinos are high end luxury resorts, only for the wealthy? maybe Lennox?
Then of course, there's the Las Vegas model, build them where the most people will be, which means right here in Boston. Yuck.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 09:43 AM
I'll take the bait.

I don't think that casinos will cause the world to end. But they definitely have negatives and costs associated with them, which the studies they have performed may or may not be taking into account.

The benefit is obviously revenues, but here is where I pause. Too many legislators are acting like this is the only chance the commonwealth has to raise revenues. Well, what about, ahem, the gas tax? Or collecting sales tax on online purchases? Tolling the roads that the Big Dig actually buried? You may not like these options but they are far more palatable in my mind than casinos which 1) prey off the bottom of society for these "revenues" rather than equitably distributing the burden and 2) entrench a grubby casino interest in MA that we will never be rid of.

I think this will force Foxwoods, MGM and Mohegan in a possible default scenario. I was reading that Mass residents are 33% of the casinos revenue a couple of years ago.
They will have a tough time maintaining themselves unless they are somewhat involved with the other casinos.

Suffolk Downs and Wonderland are located in Revere really has nothing to offer at this point so why not put them their. The problem I see is after a decade of cleaning up Revere it might go right back down the sewer with the rises of the Casino's

My personal opinion, I think I'm against it at this point. Keep them out.
They are not bettering MA Residents it's more like demoralizing them by gambling their hard earned money away.

If they want to reinvent something or rebuild how about trying a new Horse or Dog track with Slots. I like that concept better.

Atlantic City looks like a ghetto these days.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 09:52 AM
XCASINAiols r liek, wicked cool Or NOT! IDK! LOL!

If you type like an adult, people will speak with about the issues you care about like you are an adult. Otherwise they will presume you are a 14 year old girl talking about Justin Beiber and dismiss what you may have to say.


Statler<

Do I have to put you on my knee and give you a spanking?

Thank you for cleaning up the Thread title.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 09:54 AM
I agree, I find them distasteful as revenue generators, and low on my list of priorities when it comes to that. I'm less concerned about societal harm, though. If we consider the alternative, which is the same people we hope wouldn't gamble in Massachusetts instead getting on buses to RI, NH, and CT to gamble there, I'd say we're better off keeping those folks in state.

Any thoughts on location?


Do we go with the Atlantic City route, which is to say, place them in economically distressed locations with the hopes that the entire district improves? That would imply, perhaps New Bedford as a strong candidate.
What about the European model, wherein casinos are high end luxury resorts, only for the wealthy? maybe Lennox?
Then of course, there's the Las Vegas model, build them where the most people will be, which means right here in Boston. Yuck.


The European Model......How about the casinos in Rio de Janeiro Brazil. I have never been there but I heard it's very expensive and the area marketed to the super wealthy.


Also doesn't Mass already have the Casino boat going out of Lynn Ma. I wonder how that is doing these days.

Any thoughts on Massachusetts Gambling commission. Who will be elected to this power board

Ron Newman
09-15-2011, 10:21 AM
I can't imagine Lenox wanting to go anywhere near this. Casinos are totally against everything that the Berkshires stand for as a tourist destination that emphasizes art and culture.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 10:25 AM
House bets big, passes casino bill

By Chris Cassidy
Thursday, September 15, 2011 - Updated 8 minutes ago




A bill that would legalize three casinos and a racetrack slot parlor in the Bay State overwhelmingly passed the House last night and is headed to the state Senate.
“With people in our commonwealth hurting, this expanded gaming legislation will bring immediate jobs, local aid and economic growth,” said House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo (D-Winthrop). “I am extraordinarily proud of the House’s unwavering commitment to jobs and growth. While not a panacea, this bill will stimulate our economy and provide local aid for the cities and towns across Massachusetts.”
DeLeo estimated that if ratified, the bill would create 15,000 jobs, and provide millions of dollars in local aid to cities and town. The bill divides the state into three gaming regions, and appoints an independent gaming commission that would authorize one casino in each region. It also allows for slot parlors at one racetrack.

But opponents warned of social ills and overpromised economic benefits.
“This is a race to the bottom,” said state Rep. Ruth Balser (D-Newton), arguing casinos aren’t economic development but a “predatory business.”
State Rep. James Lyons said: “This bill turns our cultural history on its head. ... Do we want to be part of a Legislature that will be known for one thing — the casino-gambling Legislature? That will be our legacy. That will be engraved on our monuments.”
Under the bill, resort casinos are taxed at 25 percent, with some revenue going to local aid. The slot parlor would be taxed at 49 percent, with 40 percent going to local aid, and 9 percent set aside for a horse-development fund.
Casino supporters — defeated again and again over the years and nearly written off after a crushing breakdown in leadership talks only a year ago — are now on the cusp of victory.
“I think it’s very close,” state Rep. Martin J. Walsh (D-Dorchester) said of the bill’s chances. “I’m pretty optimistic that we’re going to see a casino bill (made law) here in Massachusetts by early fall.”
Backers praised the bill for two major reasons — jobs and more money for local communities.
“It’s revenue that’s needed for the commonwealth,” Walsh said. “Obviously, cities and towns are struggling. If we can prevent further cuts, I think that’s an accomplishment.”
“It’s a good bill, something my constituents back in my district overwhelmingly supported,” said Rep. Brad Hill (R-Ipswich).




http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_0915casino_bill_benefits_ills_debated/srvc=home&position=2

BosDevelop
09-15-2011, 10:37 AM
Sure the jobs are nice but the key for me is that Massachusetts residents already gamble in droves (by the bus load really) in New England so why not keep the money in state? I understand the societal impacts and that needs to be watched carefully but it just seems odd to take the position that scratch tickets, lottery games, keno etc. are all perfectly acceptable and ubiquitous yet 3-4 locations statewide for slots and table games is not ok. People will gamble if they want to whether the casino is 45 minutes from their house or 90 minutes. It's time we stopped letting CT and other states get all the benefits of that industry.

HenryAlan
09-15-2011, 10:50 AM
I can't imagine Lenox wanting to go anywhere near this. Casinos are totally against everything that the Berkshires stand for as a tourist destination that emphasizes art and culture.

No, I find it unlikely, too, but in Europe, casinos in such locations are quite common, and are patronized by the same folks who the night before were at the opera.

Shepard
09-15-2011, 10:55 AM
So where do we think the development opportunities are?

My predictions: Slots at Suffolk Downs, and casinos in Palmer, New Bedford and Seaport (maybe at BMIP).

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 11:06 AM
So where do we think the development opportunities are?

My predictions: Slots at Suffolk Downs, and casinos in Palmer, New Bedford and Seaport (maybe at BMIP).

Suffolkdowns would make a fortune. The majority of the 33% of the Connecticut revenues are focused in those demographic areas. The problem would probably be the traffic and the massive amounts of degenerates living in that area. Revere would end up a being the ARMPIT of Mass.

Seaport interesting. I know it will do well but Boston should not have Casinos in the city. The city is a place of Education, Non-profit Hospitals, and business's.

New Bedford is a shithole a Casino would only upgrade that area.
I just think of BIFF's Casino in Back to the Future II for this area.



Palmer.....Never been out there.

Bubbybu
09-15-2011, 12:02 PM
a resort at the Seaport would work imo...esp with the upgrades looming for the convention center...why not make suckers out of the out of towners and let them blow their money in our state?

and the area is so segregated from the rest of the city i really dont worry about any spillover from the sleaze...if they gonna be ghetto at foxwoods let em be ghetto here

and it could help develop that area as a destination in general if there are developments for children and families...

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 12:22 PM
a resort at the Seaport would work imo...esp with the upgrades looming for the convention center...why not make suckers out of the out of towners and let them blow their money in our state?

and the area is so segregated from the rest of the city i really dont worry about any spillover from the sleaze...if they gonna be ghetto at foxwoods let em be ghetto here

and it could help develop that area as a destination in general if there are developments for children and families...

I have to agree. I think the Seaport would probably be a great location. I just don't trust the powers to be with our tax dollars and how the Gaming Commission will be chosen. Way too much power involved in this process. I'm betting nothing will be balanced.
This is a good quote

"Give them Nothing but take from them EVERYTHING!!!!"

HenryAlan
09-15-2011, 01:01 PM
Actually, corruption is probably my biggest concern about all of this. This state is already so corrupt, how can we possibly expect this to be the exception to the rule?

Lurker
09-15-2011, 01:12 PM
Lynn and Revere might as well have been hit with an atomic bomb. Wonderland and Suffolk Downs were bad enough as it was. Now every professional welfare recipient, low level drug dealer, and petty thief is going to be flocking there to play slots with ill gotten money in the hopes of one big score. The asshole politicians aren't thinking the Riviera, Foxwoods or Vegas, they are just thinking about the kickbacks, and we are going to wind up with a bunch of Atlantic Cities dragging struggling communities further into the gutter.

JohnAKeith
09-15-2011, 01:19 PM
You're being too kind to our elected officials. They're not even smart enough to be thinking about money. They are simply walking in lockstep with the Speaker of the House. Of course, they all voted against similar bills when DiMasi was Speaker because he was against it, now they're all for it because DeLeo is for it.

So disgusting it makes me puke.

Bubbybu
09-15-2011, 01:24 PM
that brings up a important issue...transportation

do you approve and design for car heavy traffic, foot traffic, public transportation?

for the boondock casinos you are clearly looking at a foxwoods model so all these alarmist urbay decay scenerios prob wont pan out...
but for the blue collar suburb and Boston posibilities this could be vital to building a specific type of product...

does anyone have knowledge of these casino logisitics in general?

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 01:48 PM
Lynn and Revere might as well have been hit with an atomic bomb. Wonderland and Suffolk Downs were bad enough as it was. Now every professional welfare recipient, low level drug dealer, and petty thief is going to be flocking there to play slots with ill gotten money in the hopes of one big score. The asshole politicians aren't thinking the Riviera, Foxwoods or Vegas, they are just thinking about the kickbacks, and we are going to wind up with a bunch of Atlantic Cities dragging struggling communities further into the gutter.

You're being too kind to our elected officials. They're not even smart enough to be thinking about money. They are simply walking in lockstep with the Speaker of the House. Of course, they all voted against similar bills when DiMasi was Speaker because he was against it, now they're all for it because DeLeo is for it.

So disgusting it makes me puke.

If Whighlander can't pull a positive spin for the Casino debate we could be looking at a TRIFECTA

stellarfun
09-15-2011, 02:24 PM
Hey, let's first do away with Powerball etc. and be pure about it.

Pennsylvania state revenues from casino gambling were $1.3 billion in 2010, the highest of any state. Indiana garnered $875 million. West Virginia $375 million. Connecticut didn't make the top ten.

Instead of depending on more tax revenue from new casinos, horse tracks, harness tracks, dog tracks, Massachusetts ought to raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco, to discourage their use.

And tax the hell out of Internet use above a certain gigabyte threshold, that thing is more addictive than any opiate. 2.4 million people waiting breathlessly by the hour for the latest tweet from #85. Ridiculous.

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 02:44 PM
Mohegan Sun reports steep revenue drop in August
By Associated Press
Thursday, September 15, 2011 - Added 44 minutes ago

UNCASVILLE, Conn. — The Mohegan Sun says slot revenue plunged 10.6 percent in August as the remnants of Hurricane Irene kept customers home.

The Indian-run casino said Thursday that revenue was $59.9 million, down from $67 million in August 2010.

It was the steepest drop in months. Revenue at the southeastern Connecticut casino dropped between 3 percent and 6 percent in the past few months due to weak consumer spending and increased competition in the Northeast.

Jeffrey Hartmann, president and chief executive officer, said the casino lost business during the last week of August as customers without power stayed home. He said the drop in revenue was comparable to January, when slot revenue fell nearly 12 percent because of back-to-back snow storms.

Hartmann said the sour economy and weak consumer spending also continue
to cut into revenue.

Wonder what the Revenue drop will be when Mass builds 3 casinos?

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1366104

Beton Brut
09-15-2011, 02:46 PM
Lurker and John get it for the sick joke that it is...

My thoughts on casino gambling are well documented, here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=59016&postcount=3), and here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=125997&postcount=377)...

And my elected officials here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=99729&postcount=29)...

TheRifleman
09-15-2011, 02:58 PM
Lurker and John get it for the sick joke that it is...

My thoughts on casino gambling are well documented, here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=59016&postcount=3), and here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=125997&postcount=377)...

And my elected officials here (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=99729&postcount=29)...

I hope you moved.

Beton Brut
09-15-2011, 03:14 PM
I haven't moved, nor do I intend to. I just invested about two years net earnings in my home. I like where I live.

palindrome
09-15-2011, 05:37 PM
I don't want a casino in the seaport. That's the exact opposite way we should be going development wise. Casino's have giant parking lots and require lots of car oriented infrastructure. I don't trust a single developer to do it right.

BostonUrbEx
09-15-2011, 05:59 PM
To all saying casino in the Seaport: I agree. But Peter Meade literally facepalmed after he told a crowd at the BPL about how someone suggested a casino in the Seaport. He said it would be massive waste of Seaport space.

philip
09-15-2011, 06:31 PM
I agree that there many, many minuses to building casinos in the state, especially in an urban area. An urban casino could completely destroy whatever neighborhood it is built in, causing an increase in crime, decrease property values, create some serious traffic issues... so on.

There are some pluses also. The state is desperately in need of revenue and jobs, even the unskilled jobs a casino would create. There will always be bartenders, security jobs, waitresses, cooks, low level management personnel, cleaning people till the end of time. Whatever jobs they would create there is someone who needs and-or wants it. period - fact.

What this now comes down to is that it is going to happen no matter what. The goal, now, should be to minimize the damage and maximize the benefit to the state, the citizens of the state and residents of the areas where these will be built.

I would suggest tons of provisions : Jobs to residents first, money for programs (job training, scholarships, so on....) in the affected areas. They should certainly contribute to any roadwork needed and be encouraged to link to the T (may as well make some money for the broke T as well). Seriously, lets get as much out of the developers and owners we can. Again, its going to happen no matter what make some money.

In my opinion, 4 seems a little much, a max of three one being a slot parlor seems enough.

so.........


Crazy flighty idea: Convert Commonwealth Pier into Bostons downtown casino and link to Waterside Place as it was originally proposed and link to the Convention Center as originally proposed. Having a convention center with easy access to a shopping destination and casino would be an incredible draw for conventioneers and tourists alike. A boon to the hotel industry, restaurants and so on......

Minimize parking as much as possible to encourage use of the T and private transportation companies. Yes, the silver line will need to be upgraded to handle the volume. Maybe this could spur that.

In a nutshell it will happen and the state and city should have it benefit its citizens and minimize its impact as much as possible.

thx

JohnAKeith
09-15-2011, 07:08 PM
Er, before anyone thinks about putting a casino in downtown Boston, might want to query the thousands of residents who are against it. No sense discussing it, it isn't in the cards.

EDIT: Other places are probably better.

philip
09-15-2011, 07:20 PM
chillax guy

I'm not interested in "shitting up" the state nor do I believe my "crazy flighty idea" <<< read!! could actually happen. I'm sure Menino, the residents and businesses would never have it.

btw:

not in your backyard? hmmm... makes one think..

HenryAlan
09-15-2011, 08:17 PM
Casinos cast shadows and are a threat to what little open space remains in the city. What's more, this is Boston, we really don't need to be the next Las Vegas Blvd. for goodness sake!

Sicilian
09-15-2011, 08:26 PM
The Seaport remains a blank slate with stunning potential for a network of streets and buildings celebrating Boston Harbor in one way or another.

That potential is not best spent on (another) massive box without windows.

As for other locations, I think casinos are fixed to be predatory and a drain on civic resources. The payoff, if any, typically is redirected away from the immediate area.

That said, adults are adults. Maybe people should be allowed to do what they want, even if it means throwing money out the window in the hopes of something better.

whighlander
09-15-2011, 09:20 PM
If Whighlander can't pull a positive spin for the Casino debate we could be looking at a TRIFECTA

OK -- I'm game:

1) Casinos belive it or not have the same demographic as most adult entertainment think Bowling Alleys, Bars, Sporting Events

They are as a matter of fact sophisticated entertainment venus -- especially a csino whose developer is required to lay $500 M on construction and outfitting of a first class hotel resort

2) it's not going to degrade Boston to place a casino in the Hub -- I suggest that it be down next to the Convention and expo center -- a 2,000 room hotel and casino would be a nice HQ hotel for the center -- think the Marina Bay Sands complex in Singapore (hotel, shopping, casio, conferene center) which hosted the Global Engineering Education Symposium last October (Profs, Deans, Gov't Leaders, Companies all involved in higher education from arround the world)

http://www.archboston.org/community/picture.php?albumid=4&pictureid=26
view of model of complex located in the lobby of Tower 1 of the 3 Tower hotel -- Buidiing with casino, shopping (think Gucci, Cartier, ... ), Convention Center in the foreground is located across the street -- with underground connection and underground terminal for buses


3) I'd rather see a Casino developer build a 2,000 room hotel than have the citizens of the Commonpoor subsidize its construction -- see the report of the committee considering the expansion of the BCEC

back a few development cycles ago -- when the orginal BCEC was still a pipe dream -- Steve Wynn of Las Vegas offered to build the Convention Center and Hotel for Zero, Zip, Nada if he could buid a Seaport District Casino

4) If our citizen are to gamble as sanctioned by the Commonpoor by all manner of lottery and keno -- why not let them have slots and table games

5) if the site is convenient to Boston -- then a fair fraction of the people gambing will be from the pool of the 12,000,000 annual visitors to Boston - from around New England (e.g. Yankee Dental, US and International) -- especially with the immediate proximity to Logan

OK -- your serve!

davem
09-15-2011, 10:41 PM
Having a convention center with easy access to a shopping destination and casino would be an incredible draw for conventioneers and tourists alike. A boon to the hotel industry, restaurants and so on......
thx

Niagra Falls (canada) does this extremely well. It doesn't seem to have much, if any surface parking, is connected to a pretty upscale mall, and didn't feel all that slummy, nor did it appear to bring down the surrounding area.

I think the waterfront would be perfect for a resort casino because
1) there is plenty of open space on which to build, and it would be a boon for the surrounding area
2) as already mentioned, it would be a draw for conventions and conventioneers. Someone also made a good point on uhub that tourists could also be grabbed on their way to and from the cruise terminal.
3) This is key in my opinion: as a completely undeveloped wasteland, future development can be controlled to discourage or completely eliminate the typical crapiness that usually starts to happen around casinos.

The argument that a resort casino on the waterfront would be a waste of space is asinine. A waste of space is to have an area directly accessible to rapid transit (which connects directly to South Station and Logan all in one shot), an interstate highway, three high capacity surface streets and within walking distance to the central business district of the capital of new england house seagulls, parking lots, and a tent for concerts.

Yes, things are slowly being built there but without some kind of landmark (and the convention center alone aint it) this will never be any kind of a destination. At least there will be a real draw to the area that doesn't exist now with a steady stream of tourists coming with the express intent to spend money.

Unlike Atlantic City, which is now and was before the casinos a dump, and the rural casinos, Boston is in and of itself a draw. Just like Niagra Falls, while people will go there to gamble, they will also probably go outside to see some stuff. With any luck it will start attracting more developers to the area and maybe we will finally see something get built. Sure it might be hotels, generic shopping, and other touristy crap, but it would be one hell of a lot better than whats there now.



As for Suffolk Downs / Wonderland, while I agree it seems like a natural fit at first (it did to me), it would most likely wind up becoming a pit. It's not accessible to any interstates, the commuter rail doesn't currently stop there (or connect to any other cities even if it did), and all the roads are over capacity already. Not to mention the area is teetering on the edge just as Atlantic City was. I would love to see wonderland make a grand return with a boardwalk, hotels, and a resort, but a casino wont do it.



Regarding FR/NB, it would be a good location to compete with Foxwoods, as well as grab people from Providence, the cape, and the two cities themselves. Make it a stipulation they have to pay for the T's boondoggle of a commuter rail extension as mitigation, maybe have the casino itself be the train station. Hell, put it in Fall River and make them extend the line all the way to Newport.

Western Mass near Stockbridge would be my choice for a rural casino. You could grab a ton of people from Albany who otherwise aren't going to make the drive, Pittsfield, and Springfield. Make a special exit off the Pike for the casino that charges a modest fee in addition to the regular toll that goes directly into a fund for infrastructure improvements for those west of Springfield.

The slot parlor should go in an already established upscale area (I'm thinking something like Newburyport or the like). In my opinion they are the dirtiest form of gambling. They are addictive, need no skill whatsoever to operate, and (I think) reap the highest profits for the owners. Quite frankly I'm upset this is even allowed, if anything I think that to have gambling it should be required that there be not just table games in addition to slots, but a hotel and entertainment. Anything to keep zombies from throwing their hard earned money into a machine that does no more then eat it at a predefined rate. This is why I think that perhaps if it was in a really nice area there would be less chance for addicts to constantly stream in. However, I fear it was added with the intent to go directly into Suffolk Downs or Wonderland, similar to the "Raceino" they put in at the track in Monticello, NY

gooseberry
09-16-2011, 02:55 AM
I vote for the casino in the Seaport District. (not that I get a vote obviously) If you put it there, it will atrract tourists and conventioners. If you put it at Suffolk Downs, it'll attract the people who currently sit in corner stores playing Keno.

Shepard
09-16-2011, 08:48 AM
^ Agree with Davem and Goose.

I think it's ethically appropriate for casinos to more-than-subtly message - whether via architecture, amenities, or location - that if you can't afford to be here, i.e. if you can't afford to lose, then you probably don't belong. I realize that this my be a "classist" argument, but if you think about it, casino gambling is actually the most out-of-reach luxury good of all - and it should be thought of and treated as such.

To my point about architecture, amenities and location, go to LV and witness the difference in clientele between the Wynn and Circus Circus. My strong feeling is that a Wynn somewhere in Boston would have far fewer negative externalities than a Circus Circus. Again, is this classist? I think it's just logical. And to the point on location in particular, a Wynn will not sprout on Suffolk Downs. A Gucci location will not open there. Celebrity chefs will not open there. Suffolk Downs, as said above, will attract the Keno crowd, many of whom are content getting by on slurpees and king size Mars bars (ok, now I think I've veered into actual classism!)

Put it in the Seaport, mandate a certain architecture - open, street activating, minimal parking (or valet only), and glittering with exclusivity. It will attract conventioneers. It will anchor the area. And Keno players would more likely stick to Keno. To my original point, architecture amenities and location will indicate who the intended clientele will be, and that in large part will determine whether we will see a net positive or net negative to the city.

HenryAlan
09-16-2011, 08:59 AM
We already have gambling for the masses in the form of lottery and keno. It isn't classest to target another market segment any more than it would be to suggest that a Target shouldn't open because it won't attract the Neiman Marcus crowd. Ultimately, what determines who goes there is more operational in my opinion. $5 dollar tables will attract a certain element, $100 tables will attract a different element. Which will make the most money for the operator? I'm guessing in a restricted supply market (unlike LV, for example), the best way to make money will be going after the richer gambler.

whighlander
09-16-2011, 09:03 AM
^ Agree with Davem and Goose.

I think it's ethically appropriate for casinos to more-than-subtly message - whether via architecture, amenities, or location - that if you can't afford to be here, i.e. if you can't afford to lose, then you probably don't belong. I realize that this my be a "classist" argument, but if you think about it, casino gambling is actually the most out-of-reach luxury good of all - and it should be thought of and treated as such.

Put it in the Seaport, mandate a certain architecture - open, street activating, minimal parking (or valet only), and glittering with exclusivity. It will attract conventioneers. It will anchor the area. And Keno players would more likely stick to Keno. To my original point, architecture amenities and location will indicate who the intended clientele will be, and that in large part will determine whether we will see a net positive or net negative to the city.

I think the Seaport / Innovation District is ideal -- mostly because the BCEC needs a lot more local hotel rooms and that the BCEc Expansion Report is pointing to subsidies for the hotels as well as any BCEC multi-purpose room and exhibt floor expansion

If you put $500 M (minmum madated by the House Legislation) into a big hotel / casino complex -- with a big Ballroom & high end shopping & restaurant courtyard and such with gerbil tube connections to the BCEC -- you've gone a long way to getting most of what the BCEC Expansion Report recommends (1 to 2 1000 room-scale HQ hotels conected to the BCEC) without spending quite so much of the cash of the taxpayers and further benefiting the taxpayers by syphoning some cash from the pool of the BCEC attendees from Topeka, Paris, etc.

whighlander
09-16-2011, 09:08 AM
We already have gambling for the masses in the form of lottery and keno. It isn't classest to target another market segment any more than it would be to suggest that a Target shouldn't open because it won't attract the Neiman Marcus crowd. Ultimately, what determines who goes there is more operational in my opinion. $5 dollar tables will attract a certain element, $100 tables will attract a different element. Which will make the most money for the operator? I'm guessing in a restricted supply market (unlike LV, for example), the best way to make money will be going after the richer gambler.

Note because of the immediate proximity to Logan -- "real high rollers" might decend on a Seaport / Innovation District casino -- particularly if they can sneak in / out to a private area without being watched by the Hoi polloi

BosDevelop
09-16-2011, 12:53 PM
I'd hate to see Suffolk only get the slots if they are going to be one of the 4 sites. That to me is a waste. Most convention attendees are not interested in slots. They want table games and the entertainment/dining options that come with any full scale casino. Just slots at Suffolk would = an urban Twin River. Perhaps more successful than Twin River given its prominent location close to Boston but equally depressing in terms of clientele. Any casino in Boston, should there be one at all, should be the nicest in the state and offer the all the amenities. I enjoy the occasional night out gambling usually about 3-5 nights a year and I would not set foot in a Suffolk Downs casino if it only offered slots.

BostonUrbEx
09-16-2011, 01:08 PM
I vote for the casino in the Seaport District. (not that I get a vote obviously) If you put it there, it will atrract tourists and conventioners. If you put it at Suffolk Downs, it'll attract the people who currently sit in corner stores playing Keno.

Exactly. This.

whighlander
09-16-2011, 06:19 PM
Exactly. This.

With the new relevations from the PO about the lack of need to build in the Seaport / Innovation District -- the table is set for a big roll:

1) Casino Bill to be complete and signed by December
2) PO to hold hearings in Jan / Feb on plans
3) BCEC Expansion Report puts in place some deadlines for preparing for the BCEC Expansion including acquiring land for the HQ Hotel(s) -- within 12 months

I'll guess that this time 2012 we'll be looking at rendierings for a $500 - $700 M 2000 room Hotel / Cassino in the Seaport / Innovation District with construction already underway on Zwei Rivieras del Norte a la Suffolk

briv
09-16-2011, 09:52 PM
Surely those extolling the prospects of a casino for Boston's Seaport, and designating the neighborhood as Boston's "convention district", would jump at the chance at living in Atlantic City, Orlando or Las Vegas, right?

JohnAKeith
09-16-2011, 10:47 PM
Two words: Jai Alai

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1095023/index.htm

briv
09-16-2011, 11:29 PM
I don't necessarily object to legalizing gambling. This bill doesn't do that. It keeps gambling illegal in all but 3-4 designated places, thus concentrating these otherwise-illegal activities in a select few spots. This is the same sort of thinking that created the Combat Zone. If you let these sorts of activities exist freely they simply become a part of life, but if you keep them corralled in a few small areas those areas become theme parks of depravity. Cities are no places for theme parks, IMO.

davem
09-17-2011, 09:42 AM
Surely those extolling the prospects of a casino for Boston's Seaport, and designating the neighborhood as Boston's "convention district", would jump at the chance at living in Atlantic City, Orlando or Las Vegas, right?


I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.

TheRifleman
09-17-2011, 03:41 PM
I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.

First off......If the Seaport was even considered for a casino license there really should be an investigation in the Mayor and his cronies.
First off the city of Boston shutdowns at 1PM.
To even consider a casino in the Mayor's Innovation District would be completely offbase. Since the Mayor's innovation district has such a hefty tax on the Taxpayers. Instead of Biff's Casino in Back to the Future II
We would have MAYOR MORON MENINO Casino in the Seaport District

Would the Seaport work as a destination spot with the casino. Probably since Massachusetts has the most degenerates on the planet. The Seaport would probably attract an upperclass demographic without a doubt.

But Mass being Mass the degenerates would end up ruling the area overtime.

The more and more I think about the casinos, I think they should just let the Indians have their day in the sun with Foxwoods and Mohegan.

Bobby DeLeo is one strange and shady guy. Watching him on TV gives me the creeps and the casino package lights up his eyes. I can't imagine the deal he has with the investors.

Find out who the majority owners Suffolk and Wonderland tracks, the majority investors in Fan Pier and that is who is controlling the puppets in the house on BEACON HILL.

Sicilian
09-17-2011, 06:41 PM
We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino.

By that logic, a proposal for ANYTHING would be better than what we have now, so it should be supported.

As far as I can tell, here is the measure of the potential of the Seaport land:

http://140.241.251.212/Planning/PlanningInitsIndividual.asp?action=ViewInit&InitID=3

A mixed-use, highly dense neighborhood with a wide array of uses, plus civic uses (school, cultural, etc.).

whighlander
09-18-2011, 08:12 AM
I would consider that an offensive comparison. Boston isn't a dead city looking for any out it can, a town in a swamp attempting to attract tourists from a nearby theme park, or a watering hole in the desert attempting to become anything. Its one of the founding cites of the United States, a well established center of culture, arts and learning.

We are suggesting the seaport because it is currently a dead zone within the city that already has the infrastructure to support a casino. Beacon Hill has rich town houses, the financial district has businesses and bankers, the North End has Italian food, and Southie has Irish bars. The seaport has... parking lots. It needs an identity to become a destination, and being the deformed stepchild to Kendall Square isn't working. The convention center isn't working on its own, but at least its a landmark. It can be improved upon.

We are discussing Las Vegas and especially Atlantic City only as cautionary tales as to what not to do. Casinos can be done right. Boston is usually described as the most european of american cities, so the high stakes casinos there are good examples to look at. Go watch a James Bond movie, he doesn't gamble in Atlantic City, but Prague. Your argument would be much better spent on the knee-jerk reaction to put it at suffolk downs or wonderland. A high end casino wouldn't work there, the demographics don't support it. There it would decimate those neighborhoods, which have struggled to come as far as they have now.


Well said

See my earlier post about World Class cities with casino hotels which enhance rather than detract

BUT I do have one criticism -- Jame Bond (Sean Conery, the real one, not some recent pretender) gambles in Montecarlo -- the game is Bacarat of course, the girls are leggy blonds, and the martinis are shaken not stirrred

SeamusMcFly
09-18-2011, 10:42 AM
Alright. I have worked on a number of casions in the past including the MBS that you showed earlier.

You mention building a 2,000 room hotel and high scale casino, and then throw out $500m.

For a comparison. The Marina Bay Sands complex ( which is admittedly huge, on the order of 6,000,000 sf of development) cost anywhere from 3-5 billion with much cheaper labor than we have here.
The Palazzo in Vegas (2,000 rooms) was budgeted at about $1b, and ran up to approximately $2b when all was said and done.
The Sand's project in Bethlehem, PA was an approximately $900m job that only included a 300 room hotel to begin with.
All of these included massive shopping components as well.

The only reason I don't support this in the Seaport, is because it cannot possibly be done right down there. Not even due to incompetence, but because it physically cannot be done right.

2,000 rooms with a max buildable height of around 300' would take up too much space coupled with a large casino floor, and associated shopping, restaurants, etc. The parking would be subterranean, and the area is (or will be) well served by public transit and other means to mitigate horrible traffic.... MBS and the major high end casinos in Vegas are 500-600 feet tall. We can't do that, so yes it would kill the area due to sheer spacial requirements. Casinos and convention centers go together like peas and carrots, Vegas teaches us this, but a similar (or bigger) footprint next to the BCEC would be most terrible.

whighlander
09-20-2011, 02:28 PM
Alright. I have worked on a number of casions in the past including the MBS that you showed earlier.

You mention building a 2,000 room hotel and high scale casino, and then throw out $500m.

For a comparison. The Marina Bay Sands complex ( which is admittedly huge, on the order of 6,000,000 sf of development) cost anywhere from 3-5 billion with much cheaper labor than we have here.
The Palazzo in Vegas (2,000 rooms) was budgeted at about $1b, and ran up to approximately $2b when all was said and done.
The Sand's project in Bethlehem, PA was an approximately $900m job that only included a 300 room hotel to begin with.
All of these included massive shopping components as well.

The only reason I don't support this in the Seaport, is because it cannot possibly be done right down there. Not even due to incompetence, but because it physically cannot be done right.

2,000 rooms with a max buildable height of around 300' would take up too much space coupled with a large casino floor, and associated shopping, restaurants, etc. The parking would be subterranean, and the area is (or will be) well served by public transit and other means to mitigate horrible traffic.... MBS and the major high end casinos in Vegas are 500-600 feet tall. We can't do that, so yes it would kill the area due to sheer spacial requirements. Casinos and convention centers go together like peas and carrots, Vegas teaches us this, but a similar (or bigger) footprint next to the BCEC would be most terrible.


MBS that I was refering to earlier is the Marina Bay Sands designed by Moshe Safte in Singapore -- I was not suggesting that the complex was a precise model of the BCEC hotel / casino -- my reasons for mentioning the Singapore MBS:

1) Singapore is un-argualbly a World Class Citystate which shares with Boston metro (City-state) a focus on high tech / biotech / education / finance -- aka the Knowledge Economy (KE) -- hence the MBS was not going into a hole in the planet such as Atlantic City or Las Vegas

2) last October I was a participant in an international conference held in the Singapore MBS conference center across the street from the hotel and sharing the same building with the casino -- so I got to do some exploring and photographing

3) the MBS was / is built in a former port / warehouse district -- much like the Seaport Innovation District -- and sill quite isolated transportation-wise though they are building two new rapid transit stations in the area

of course there are many differences in the type of government, climate, cost of materials, cost of labor, attiude toward towering development, location relative to the runways. etc., between the two city-states -- comparable in population.

Then there are the specific Singaporean facts that you can nearly litterally eat-off of public sidewalks and streets and can be caned for overstaying your visa -- all of which are utterly foreign concepts in the HUB

But incorporating the commons and differences -- the MBS Singapore is relevant to the discussion

finally the $500 M was just a ballpark figure as was the 2000 rooms --the BCEC Expansion Report has some much more detailed numbers -- although the report never considers that a casino might be involved

SeamusMcFly
09-22-2011, 11:52 AM
MBS that I was refering to earlier is the Marina Bay Sands designed by Moshe Safte in Singapore -- I was not suggesting that the complex was a precise model of the BCEC hotel / casino -- my reasons for mentioning the Singapore MBS: If it could be that would be great. 3 Hancock towers with a massive 2 acre sky park, with attached convention space.... pretty frikken sweet and one of the most "exciting" projects I have been a part of.


3) the MBS was / is built in a former port / warehouse district -- much like the Seaport Innovation District -- and sill quite isolated transportation-wise though they are building two new rapid transit stations in the area


finally the $500 M was just a ballpark figure as was the 2000 rooms --the BCEC Expansion Report has some much more detailed numbers -- although the report never considers that a casino might be involved

Actually I think the land is even more similar to the Seaport than that. They are both "reclaimed" man made land as I understand it. Singapore is also one of the busiest ports in the world, with tons of product coming and going. An aerial of the port is amazing just for the ships.

Another key to the MBS success is the undeniable love for gambling that the asian community has. Of course we have large Asian communities here as well.

I was hoping to help clarify a bit on the price. Your guesstimate on rooms is a good one. Both large casino/resorts I mention above have roughly 2,000 rooms. The 500 million dollar price tag, I just wanted to point out as being very low, especially in Boston.

Was the skating rink on the lowest level open when you were there? Also, have they finished the museum?

JohnAKeith
09-22-2011, 03:12 PM
I don't know whyyyy anyone would be against a strip club. Esp. in Fall River. It will employ people and bring in taxes. And it's not as if people can gamble 24 hours a day at any casino built nearby.

Oliver's Restaurant, the Fall River bar and grill at the center of a fight between its owner and the city over plans to turn it into Fall River's first strip club, is under new ownership -- and its owner was one of the loudest critics of the strip club idea, the Herald News reports.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2011/09/new-plans-bared-for-would-be-strip-club.html?s=newsletter&ed=2011-09-22&ana=e_boston_blog

TheRifleman
10-26-2011, 03:13 PM
Casino opponent blasts `cozy relationship’ between state officials and gaming industry
10/26/2011 11:58 AM
By Todd Wallack , Globe Staff


A prominent casino opponent sharply criticized the “cozy relationship” between state officials and the gaming industry following a report in The Globe today that Governor Deval Patrick’s top economic development aide bought stock in two Las Vegas gaming companies last year.

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, said “the cozy relationship between our elected and appointed officials, casino bosses, and their hired guns is deeply troubling, and today’s Boston Globe expose just peels back another layer of this rotten onion.”

“The more we learn about the insider dealing that shrouds this entire issue, the more red flags it should wave for all of us, including legislators and the Governor,” Harshbarger said.

The Globe reported today that Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, held more than $17,000 stock last year in Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Wynn Resorts Ltd., both of which have expressed interest in building casinos in Massachusetts.

Bialecki said the stocks were bought by a financial advisor in August 2010 without his knowledge. When he later learned of the purchases, Bialecki said, he did not think the holdings posed a problem because he didn’t pick the stocks ; they accounted for only a small percentage of his portfolio; and he doesn’t expect to award any of the casino licenses. Bialecki sold the stocks last week after the Globe questioned him about the investments.

The House and Senate have approved legislation to allow casinos in the state, but must still agree on a compromise bill to send to Patrick for final approval.


http://www.boston.com/Boston/businessupdates/2011/10/casino-opponent-blasts-cozy-relationship-between-state-officials-and-gaming-industry/c2iqKU0iPGw6NRPtXsexKL/index.html?p1=News_links

SeamusMcFly
10-27-2011, 11:18 AM
Shoulda bought his LVSC stocks in 2008 when they were worth 4 bucks....

ledjes
10-27-2011, 04:03 PM
I don't know whyyyy anyone would be against a strip club. Esp. in Fall River. It will employ people and bring in taxes. And it's not as if people can gamble 24 hours a day at any casino built nearby.



http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2011/09/new-plans-bared-for-would-be-strip-club.html?s=newsletter&ed=2011-09-22&ana=e_boston_blog

Heck, why not...gambling, strip clubs, state officials in bed with casino bosses............
Let's legalize weed and prostitution while we're at it, "esp. in Fall River."

Justin7
10-28-2011, 08:17 AM
Let's legalize weed and prostitution while we're at it, "esp. in Fall River."

Why not?

BostonYoureMyHome
10-28-2011, 08:48 AM
I don't necessarily object to legalizing gambling. This bill doesn't do that. It keeps gambling illegal in all but 3-4 designated places, thus concentrating these otherwise-illegal activities in a select few spots. This is the same sort of thinking that created the Combat Zone. If you let these sorts of activities exist freely they simply become a part of life, but if you keep them corralled in a few small areas those areas become theme parks of depravity. Cities are no places for theme parks, IMO.

The yellow tent is where you go for the H

Lrfox
10-28-2011, 12:44 PM
Heck, why not...gambling, strip clubs, state officials in bed with casino bosses............
Let's legalize weed and prostitution while we're at it, "esp. in Fall River."

Have any of you been to a bar in Fall River? It may as well be legalized already. Jittery cops watching doors with visible coke residue on their noses (not an exaggeration) turn a blind eye to the prostitution (rampant in probably 90% of nightlife venues in the city) and drugs anyway. Everyone's in on it. Bartenders and owners don't mind shady business in the bars because it brings in customers who pay for drinks too. They'd otherwise be doing "business" in a dark alley somewhere. I know of more than one place that gets a cut of the money from solicitation occurring within a bar. The Cops? Please... as long as the shady business is going down, they get paid detail money to stand out there and turn a blind eye. Occasionally they'll make an arrest on someone who's too drunk to stand and starts a fight, but 99 times out of 100, they're just enjoying the ride.

One night out at one of my favorite local dives (the nightlife options in FR are seedy dives or Guido "lounges") in Fall River and I see more meth-head/ crackhead nipple than anyone should see in a lifetime. If I leave a bar without having a hooker try to sell herself to me, it's a weird night.

Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.

ledjes
10-28-2011, 02:43 PM
Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.

Four reasons "Why not":
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.
b) Making F.R. a home to legalized illegitimate industries may result in a quick boost to the city's coffers, but who would want to live there?
c) We have some of the best universities in the country (world?); we are home to Putnam, Fidelity, and State Street Bank among others. With all this incredible brain power resident in the Commonwealth, making money off of people's weaknesses is a massive financial cop-out. Is this really the best plan that we can come up with?
d) Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.

Beton Brut
10-28-2011, 03:32 PM
Food for thought (http://freepdfhosting.com/3e044df305.pdf).

TheRifleman
10-28-2011, 03:46 PM
Have any of you been to a bar in Fall River? It may as well be legalized already. Jittery cops watching doors with visible coke residue on their noses (not an exaggeration) turn a blind eye to the prostitution (rampant in probably 90% of nightlife venues in the city) and drugs anyway. Everyone's in on it. Bartenders and owners don't mind shady business in the bars because it brings in customers who pay for drinks too. They'd otherwise be doing "business" in a dark alley somewhere. I know of more than one place that gets a cut of the money from solicitation occurring within a bar. The Cops? Please... as long as the shady business is going down, they get paid detail money to stand out there and turn a blind eye. Occasionally they'll make an arrest on someone who's too drunk to stand and starts a fight, but 99 times out of 100, they're just enjoying the ride.

One night out at one of my favorite local dives (the nightlife options in FR are seedy dives or Guido "lounges") in Fall River and I see more meth-head/ crackhead nipple than anyone should see in a lifetime. If I leave a bar without having a hooker try to sell herself to me, it's a weird night.

Fall River has very little going for it. Just about everything listed here is commonplace already in the city. Why not capitalize on it and at least get some money out of the deal? I'm sure the same can be said about places like Springfield, Lawrence, Brockton, etc.

LRfox, I might have to start hanging out with you....

Ron Newman
10-28-2011, 04:15 PM
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.

Democracy tends to favor this philosophy; it's not good for the law to be substantially different from people's everyday practice.

Lrfox
10-28-2011, 04:36 PM
Four reasons "Why not":
a) Maybe this comes from my protective parenting as a father of four, but I don't buy the "legalize it, because everyone's doing it" philosophy.

My perspective is obviously different as a single guy in my mid-20s. I don't even necessarily disagree with you to a degree. "Everybody's doing it!" isn't always a good philosophy. But prostitution, gambling and marijuana have been around for centuries. They're not "trends." They're going to continue to be around for centuries. Why not capitalize? I cringe at the waste of money involved with persecuting pot smokers, gamblers and people who pay for sex.

Furthermore, legalizing these things would obviously lead to regulations. I'd much rather see people buying uncut, regulated weed from authorized sellers than some soulless back alley dealer. The health benefits of selling a regulated drug vs. an unregulated one are obvious. What's not as obvious are the benefits of being able to but weed in a safe setting vs. an unregulated dealer.

With prostitution, you can enforce health regulations (STD testing being the big one) and ensure cleaner circumstances for transactions.

If you have an issue with profiting from these things, I can understand (I don't love the idea of it either). But I see it like this... with legalization you're also saving money by reducing health risks and not wasting money chasing "criminals" who aren't guilty of anything significant. Who really cares if a guy wants to pay for a hand job after a massage or smoke a bowl after work? I'd rather see my money spent chasing rapists and murderers.

b) Making F.R. a home to legalized illegitimate industries may result in a quick boost to the city's coffers, but who would want to live there?

Who wants to live there to begin with? I have a lot of nostalgia for the area. I grew up around there. I have family and friends around there. I have no desire to live there. Everyone's already trying to get out. As I said before, most of these things are already happening on a large scale to begin with in Fall River and similar cities.

Furthermore, if you legalize these industries (maybe concentrate them in a "red light district" of sorts), you take the drug dealers and hookers off of neighborhoods streets and put them in legitimate regulated businesses in a concentrated area. In a city where these things run rampant, you can literally clean up the streets by legalizing certain things that are currently considered "crimes." Then of course, the boost to the coffers couldn't hurt an economically depressed city.

c) We have some of the best universities in the country (world?); we are home to Putnam, Fidelity, and State Street Bank among others. With all this incredible brain power resident in the Commonwealth, making money off of people's weaknesses is a massive financial cop-out. Is this really the best plan that we can come up with?

Fall River has none of those things (and again, neither do many of the secondary cities in the state). What they have is crime, unemployment, a complete lack of education, and maybe the occasional state school or community college. In Boston, sure it's a financial cop-out. No one even said it's the BEST plan, but it's A plan and it sure won't hurt these smaller cities financially. They're desperate for money. The investments aren't exactly pouring in to Fall River.

Connecting Fall River to Boston via commuter rail will be a big step forward. Investing in its seaport and waterfront is another. But legalizing some of these so-called crimes will be a nice boost. Possibly even a way to raise a little money to make better investments. Just like parts of a gas tax go to offset infrastructure upgrades, prostitution and weed taxes can help to fund better education programs. Turn a negative (that will be there regardless of legality) into as much of a positive as possible.

d) Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.

I don't buy this. Sure, it's a nice thought; but I don't buy it.

Morals are highly subjective. Frankly, I don't care what other people do on their own time so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else (rape, murder, assault, etc) or directly cost anyone money (theft). I don't care if a lonely older man goes to a brothel to pay for sex. In fact, I almost take more of an issue with anyone who wants to sit there and judge or tell him that he is not allowed to do it because they don't like the concept of it.

Beyond that, all of these things (prostitution, marijuana, gambling) already exist in our society. they always have and they will continue to. I just believe that we should stop wasting time and money by trying to punish those who participate in these activities.

For what it's worth, I don't gamble (not even scratch tickets), I rarely ever smoke weed, and I would NEVER pay for sex. But I don't have an issue with people who do like those things.


LRfox, I might have to start hanging out with you....

Trust me, it's not as cool as it sounds. You should see the "women" selling themselves in these bars.

jermz58
12-02-2011, 12:36 PM
Casino talks this weekend in Foxboro

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/new-details-in-resort-casino-deal-for-foxborough-20111202

ledjes
12-02-2011, 02:35 PM
Hey Lrfox, I hadn’t noticed that you replied until today.
Funny how so many of these posts have turned into a discussion of social and/or political issues…a sign of the times??? Anyhow - a few thoughts in return:

a) “so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else” Prostitution is not a victimless crime. You’re speaking from the perspective of the buyer not of the seller. Regulating prostitution will, by no means, reduce the health risks to the prostitute; nor will there be a sudden increase in prostitutes’ sense of enduring purpose and self-worth.

b) "all of these things (prostitution, marijuana, gambling) already exist in our society. they always have and they will continue to” ...an argument from the edge of a slippery slope…why stop at just these three then? Why not legalize cocaine and heroine? Why not lower the age of consent to 13 or 14? There’s a lot of crap that has always been a part of society; legitimizing it won’t take the what-makes-this-crap and turn it into something good or beneficial.

c) "put them in legitimate regulated businesses“ ….call me after a decade of these being “legitimate” and “regulated” and let me know how clean these industries have become. Pennsylvania’s current gambling-corruption issues being my case in point.

d) "Morals are highly subjective” …no, no. They are not subjective. They are, in fact, timeless and unchangeable. Murder is wrong; theft is wrong; bullying is wrong; cheating on your wife is wrong; child abuse is wrong; tax evasion is wrong; lying is wrong; demeaning another person for your own personal gratification is wrong; abusing or endangering your own body with drugs is wrong; …etc.

I repeat “Civilized society stands most secure when it stands on its moral underpinning.” Why? Although you and I may benefit from a decent upbringing or a decent sense of self-confidence or a reasonable dose of self-control with an even-handed tolerance and respect for our fellow citizens, there is a percentage of our fellow citizens who do not benefit thusly. It is this simple fact that creates this need for laws and regulations based on enduring morals and compassion. What else would they be based on??? I, for one, don’t want my country/state/city to profit from others’ weaknesses. That too is morally wrong.

TheRifleman
12-04-2011, 07:31 PM
Tom Menino, Robert Kraft all in on casino site showdown
Foxboro, Suffolk Downs expected to go head-to-head
By Dave Wedge and John Zaremba
Saturday, December 3, 2011 - Updated 1 day ago

A billion-dollar brawl for lucrative Bay State casino licenses is unfolding as Mayor Thomas M. Menino digs in his heels in support of a gaming palace at Suffolk Downs while wealthy Patriots [team stats] owner Robert Kraft wines and dines a Las Vegas titan hoping to crush the track’s dreams by building a gambling mecca in Foxboro.

“Everyone’s assuming there’s going to be a casino in Foxboro. The media is assuming that it’s a done deal. It’s not a done deal. There’s a long process to go,” Menino told the Herald last night. “The traffic issue is a serious issue out there. You go to a game it takes you two-and-a-half-hours to get out. There’s a real history of issues with Gillette Stadium.”

The mayor has always maintained the best location for a resort-style entertainment destination would be Suffolk Downs. The local Hub racetrack has long been a worthwhile neighbor, Menino said.

“Suffolk Downs has been doing this kind of business for years,” Menino said. “Suffolk Downs has a record of working with the community. Not just 12 days a year, but 365 days a year.”

The Kraft Group said last night in a statement that the family “never ruled out any development options that would be significant economic generators for Foxboro and the region.”

Kraft is hosting casino king Steve Wynn at tomorrow’s Patriots game. The Kraft Group statement called Wynn Resorts “a company that stands alone in quality and character. Their properties are much more than gaming. They are integrated destination resorts.”

The NFL bars team owners from owning a casino but has no rules against owners leasing land for gambling parlors. While Kraft commands lots of respect throughout the league (he is widely credited with brokering the new players union agreement), he could face an uphill battle with the NFL.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who is believed to favor a Suffolk Downs-backed resort casino in his district of East Boston, took a conciliatory stance, saying he is “encouraged” by the Foxboro casino gambit.

“More competition is better for our state,” he said. “It will be entirely up to the independent gaming commission to determine which plan best serves the commonwealth.”

Suffolk Downs spokesman Chip Tuttle said: “We understand we’re going to have to earn a license on the merits of a proposal to spend more than $1 billion to develop a world-class destination resort befitting the city of Boston.”

The Herald first reported in September that gaming moguls were eyeing the Krafts’ Route 1 land and had spoken to town officials about possible zoning changes.

Kraft got a helping hand from the governor and the state Legislature this year when Norfolk County was shifted out of the southeastern Massachusetts casino region and into the same region as Boston and Suffolk Downs — assuring the billionaire wouldn’t be blocked by rules requiring a casino for American Indian tribes on the coast.

Patrick’s camp declined to take sides last night.

“We do not have a position on any individual proposal,” Patrick spokeswoman Kim Haberlin said. “The independent gaming commission will conduct an open, transparent and competitive bidding process to determine which projects move forward.”


Foxboro or Suffolk...............The Battle Begins.
Investors involved in Foxboro (Kraft Group)
What heavy hitter investors are involved in the Suffolk site besides Vornado (Roth)?

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1385497

If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District. It would have been money machine for the city of Boston.

statler
12-04-2011, 07:34 PM
GULP!

BostonUrbEx
12-04-2011, 07:37 PM
Good, let it go in Foxboro. This thing belongs either in the woods or a very glitzy high-end fancy pants block in the Seaport. Due to the very likely possibility of Menino and the BRA screwing it up, I say ditch it in the woods.

HenryAlan
12-04-2011, 08:40 PM
Every casino associated with the word fox is a success. A casino at Foxboro is an even better idea than a stadium in Southie!

Gulp!

Ron Newman
12-04-2011, 09:10 PM
If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District.

You've said this about 177 times; nobody else here appears to agree with you. Time to give it a rest.

datadyne007
12-04-2011, 09:17 PM
GULP!

DRAAAAANK.

TheRifleman
12-05-2011, 08:33 AM
You've said this about 177 times; nobody else here appears to agree with you. Time to give it a rest.

Thanks Ron for keeping count, I thought it was 178.

Sicilian
12-05-2011, 08:55 AM
Like it or not, it seems the casino thing is a done deal. So we'll be looking at Suffolk or Patriots Stadium.

I'm really curious about informed opinions on these specific projects -- not generalizations about gambling or concerns about impacts evident at existing casinos (because it's a done deal, we're getting one). The Boston Globe article earlier this week about Wynn and the two racetracks competing for slots was insightful.

Do people have any factual info or insights on Suffolk Downs v. Patriots Place?

The paper suggested Suffolk Downs would have better attendance due to proximity to Boston. It is also true that the Ted Williams Tunnel often seems to have a much greater bandwidth than used by current traffic.

bbfen
12-05-2011, 09:07 AM
Foxboro or Suffolk...............The Battle Begins.
Investors involved in Foxboro (Kraft Group)
What heavy hitter investors are involved in the Suffolk site besides Vornado (Roth)?

http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1385497

If the Mayor had any vision. Patriots place should have been located in the Seaport District. It would have been money machine for the city of Boston.

There's more to the story than ever will be published. Menino was not the only player .....Kraft rolled over plenty of people over the years. Mugar, Sarkis, Karp and Speaker Finneran's office are power players that must be considered. I privately believe Kraft had no true intention of locating it anywhere except for the lot next to Sullivan Stadium though.

And one story in particular from those days pairs nicely with Menino's vehemence against a casino in Foxborough. The tat for Boston's earlier tit.

TheRifleman
12-05-2011, 10:26 AM
Both Suffolk and Foxboro would be a disaster for the Traffic scenarios..........

I'm completely against the Casinos coming to Mass. I would say that Foxwoods and Mohegan will be bankrupt once they are built since Mass is 33% of the revenues for those casinos. The Indians always get screwed.

Why is Menino even involved when the casino is heading to Revere?

If Kraft gets the ok I believe that we will see another highway in the future.

I would love to know the power players involved in the Suffolk Play.

choo
12-05-2011, 11:53 AM
suffolk downs=east boston

TheRifleman
12-05-2011, 01:00 PM
Thanks Choo. I actually thought Suffolk Downs was Revere.

BosDevelop
12-05-2011, 01:37 PM
About traffic: is it really a major factor? Of the thousands of cars that will enter/exit any casino site in a given day, how many of them come and go at the same time? Save for the time where there is a major concert or sporting event (to the extent these facilities will even have such a venue), aren't customers' arrival and departures generally spread out over the course of the operating hours? Of course there will always be peak arrival and departure times especially on the weekends but will there really be gridlock as many warn if modest traffic improvements are made to any site? I have been to Foxwoods and Mohegan a dozen or so times and never had hit any serious traffic in those areas and it is pretty much one road in and one road out.

BostonUrbEx
12-05-2011, 02:06 PM
The border runs down that creek which surfaces in the middle of the track. Most of the track and all of the stands are in Eastie, a corner of the track and all of the stables are in Revere. The slots would be in Eastie.

jass
12-05-2011, 02:15 PM
Boston should annex Revere. Nom nom beachfront condos.

TheRifleman
12-05-2011, 02:45 PM
Kraft on casino fight: ’We like to win’
By Frank Quaratiello
Monday, December 5, 2011 - Updated 13 minutes ago


Calling him the Bill Belichick of casinos, New England Patriots [team stats] owner Robert Kraft said Las Vegas mogul Steve Wynn has a winning proposal to build a gambling mecca and conference center in Foxboro and hopes to win local approval in a matter of months.

"We have the best (casino) operating person in the world," Kraft said of fellow billionaire Wynn. "We like to win."

Wynn faces an uphill political battle against a Suffolk Downs casino proposal that has the backing of Bay State power brokers Hub Mayor Thomas M. Menino and House Speaker Robert DeLeo.

The mayor and House speaker are looking out for their interests, said Wynn, and "hopefully the selectmen and people of Foxboro will look out for theirs."

Both Kraft and Wynn touted the 10,000-plus jobs a casino would bring to Foxboro, and Kraft said town residents and their children would get first dibs on plum positions.

Wynn said he and Kraft, who is barred by NFL rules from having an ownership stake but would lease the land across Route 1 from Gillette Stadium to Wynn for the casino, would seek a local vote in 90-120 days and plan to release a rendering and more details about the proposed casino soon.

Wynn, who has developed casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and Macao, said a Foxboro gambling establishment would be very different.

"It would be a very beautiful low- to mid-rise building no taller than Gillette Stadium," Wynn said. "A casino’s success these days has a lot to do with non-casino things. It would have a resort feeling."

He described a hotel and resort complex with gardens, trees, lots of glass and windows. Wynn said there would be restaurants, a theater venue, a conference center, shops, ballrooms and a separate casino gaming area that would only be 50,000-60,000 square feet.

The casino mogul said he first approached Kraft seven months ago through mutual friends and this weekend was only the the power pair’s third face-to-face meeting to discuss the proposal.

Calling Foxboro his hometown, Kraft said: "At this point, I’m into legacy, not driven by making money. ... What I care about is the investment my family has made in this town."

Wynn, who said he sought out Kraft as the best person to guide him through the Massachusetts casino approval process, downplayed what he called a professional protest over the weekend in Foxboro against his proposal.

"That protest was put on by our competitors. We’re not really good news for the competition," said Wynn, referring to the two Connecticut Indian casinos as well as gambling proposals by Suffolk Downs and Plainridge racetrack. "In a way, we’re flattered."


WOW this is getting good. Love the hightlighted phrase about giving the plum jobs to the people that live in the area.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view.bg?articleid=1386112&format=comments#CommentsArea

It's funny this news comes up next in the Herald.

Menino getting the news off Kraft fast........Breaking NEWS

Occupy winter tent ordered out
By Marie Szaniszlo
The push to erect a winterized tent at Occupy Boston was thwarted today by police and city inspectors who said no new structures will be allowed. Police formed a line keeping the tent from being brought into the tent city on Dewey...

DominusNovus
12-05-2011, 03:35 PM
I don't get how traffic can be a concern for the Foxboro site. After all, what could possibly be worse for traffic than a football stadium (all I can think of is a larger football stadium)? That is a traffic producer where everyone hits the road around the same time.

HenryAlan
12-05-2011, 06:03 PM
Traffic won't be a problem at either location. This casino should be in Boston. The other two will only have the casino as a draw, it makes sense for the third to be in the city. Suffolk is a good spot for some resort development due to proximity to ocean and airport. It's also relatively close to the rest of downtown, and the Blue Line is better for such a destination than the Silver would be. The only real reason that might suggest the Seaport over Sufolk is that we might be able to work a deal with the developer to fix the Silver Line. Otherwise, why bother?

Beton Brut
12-05-2011, 08:27 PM
The paper suggested Suffolk Downs would have better attendance due to proximity to Boston. It is also true that the Ted Williams Tunnel often seems to have a much greater bandwidth than used by current traffic.

Your assumption about the capacity of the available road infrastructure immediately north of the terminus of I-90 is incorrect. The McClellan Highway (Route 1A) has been obsolete since the early 1970s.

About traffic: is it really a major factor? Of the thousands of cars that will enter/exit any casino site in a given day, how many of them come and go at the same time?

So the alternative to 8 hours of stop and go traffic every day would be...16 hours? 18 hours?

Traffic won't be a problem at either location.

Based on...?

As a taxpayer in one of the proposed "host communities," traffic is actually a red herring. We know what the typical result of increasing highway capacity is, don't we?

Most of you know me as a nominally pro-development, pro-business guy. This proposal is a loser for Boston, and a total pig-fuck for the people who have to live near it. We're not talking about shadows on a park in February anymore. If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.

CORRECTION:
House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who is believed to favor a Suffolk Downs-backed resort casino in his district of East Boston, took a conciliatory stance, saying he is “encouraged” by the Foxboro casino gambit.

Bob DeLeo (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_DeLeo_(politician)) doesn't represent East Boston; he represents Winthrop and part of Revere.

HenryAlan
12-05-2011, 10:12 PM
Based on...?
It will add to the total automotive trips, but it will be incremental. As already pointed out, we aren't talking about suddenly swamping the area with 100,000 tailgaters.
As a taxpayer in one of the proposed "host communities," traffic is actually a red herring. We know what the typical result of increasing highway capacity is, don't we?

I subscribe to Sicillian view. Casinos are happening, quite possibly one will be in Boston. What is the best way to do it? Although I think most of us would prefer that they not happen, we are now past that point.

Most of you know me as a nominally pro-development, pro-business guy. This proposal is a loser for Boston, and a total pig-fuck for the people who have to live near it. We're not talking about shadows on a park in February anymore. If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.


I agree without completely on thins. When is it going to happen? My expec3tation is that the track becomes a casino,or it becomes a wasteland.

datadyne007
12-05-2011, 10:24 PM
Wynn spoke today about the casino concerns for Foxboro. He vowed that he would never build a Vegas-style casino here, it would be no taller than Gillette Stadium, and that there would be lush gardens, tree filled areas, and enormous glass curtain walls to capture the local atmosphere.

bbfen
12-06-2011, 07:16 AM
Wynn spoke today about the casino concerns for Foxboro. He vowed that he would never build a Vegas-style casino here, it would be no taller than Gillette Stadium, and that there would be lush gardens, tree filled areas, and enormous glass curtain walls to capture the local atmosphere.

My eyes just rolled out of my head. All that's missing is unicorns that shit glitter.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 07:56 AM
Mayor Menino pushes to jump start waterfront projects in East Boston

By Andrew Ryan, Globe Staff

Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino took aim at stalled development in East Boston today in a major policy address focused on the waterfront, announcing that the city will build a new marine terminal there to enhance ferry service and will finance roads and other infrastructure to kick-start some construction projects.

In a speech before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, Menino spoke about the city’s intrinsic connection to its shoreline, from Boston Harbor to Jamaica Pond. He called for a new municipal harbor plan and described using the waterfront as an engine of job creation and economic growth.

The mayor pushed for a new “retail and cultural entry point” into Boston for the 300,000 cruise ship passengers who visit the city each year at Massport’s Black Falcon Cruise Terminal in South Boston. He proposed utilizing the nearby Bronstein Center, a massive 825,000-square-foot concrete building near the water.

Menino also pledged $1 million a year to improve ferry or water taxi service in the city. But his main focus was East Boston, where the mayor described nine long-planned residential and retail development projects that have languished in the down economy. Five other large swaths of waterfront land sit dormant with untapped potential.

“Economic uncertainty has stalled progress” in East Boston, Menino said this morning, speaking at a Back Bay hotel ballroom. “But I believe focus, collective action, and investment by the city can jump-start it.”

The administration proposed creating an East Boston Waterfront Development District, a designation that will allow the city to make upfront investments in roads and other infrastructure to lessen the cost of private construction and encourage development. The city would finance the work, in anticipation of an increase in property tax revenue when the residential buildings and commercial storefronts have been completed.

To pay for the $1 million pledge for water transit, Menino suggested a $1 to $2 surcharge in fees paid by cruise ship passengers, a hike that would require state legislation or cooperation from the Massachusetts Port Authority. The increase in ferry or water taxi service would be aided by the construction of a new marine terminal, which would be located near the new T stop in Maverick Square.

“I will be pulling together the developers, the unions, and community stakeholders over the next 90 days to put this plan in action,” Menino said.

The annual speech this morning before the chamber of commerce was typical of Menino’s fifth term. He put forward what appeared to be practical, concrete proposals. Over his 18 years as mayor, Menino has in the past used major speeches to push far-fetched ideas – a new skyscraper, the wind turbine on City Hall Plaza – that never came to fruition.

The grounded, more realistic approach may be the product of a five-term mayor thinking about his legacy. But it could also be the work of an almost 69-year-old elected official seriously considering a run for a sixth, four-year term in 2013. As Menino waxed this morning about the waterfront, he noted that the city has 163 miles of shoreline, which is the equivalent of running the Boston Marathon six times.

“There are some things I could imagine running six times,” Menino said. “But the marathon isn’t one of them.”

He also took a swipe at New England Patriot’s owner Robert Kraft, whose has been in talked with casino mogul Steve Wynn to build a gambling resort in Foxborough. That puts Kraft in direct competition with Menino, who is trying to lure a casino developer to Suffolk Downs racetrack in East Boston. Under the state’s new gaming law, only one of the locations could host a casino.

That would explain Menino’s quip this morning when he began his speech at The Fairmont Copley Plaza.

“Before we start, I have to ask: Are we in the right place?” Menino said. “I heard some reports that Steve Wynn had moved this speech to Foxborough, too.”

Andrew Ryan can be reached at acryan@globe.com Follow him on Twitter @globeandrewryan.

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/12/mayor-menino-pushes-jump-start-waterfront-projects-east-boston/snAcHr7ffqD8T2afDDew1K/index.html?p1=News_links

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 09:14 AM
I subscribe to Sicillian view. Casinos are happening, quite possibly one will be in Boston. What is the best way to do it? Although I think most of us would prefer that they not happen, we are now past that point.



It's a real shame that these casinos got a approved. I have a question. The economy is in shambles for the Middle class and poor people. With so many casinos being built and online gambling available and a bookie on every corner street in Mass it seems that they are all going to cannibalize each other. It's difficult to justify Billion dollar casinos and how they will maintain themselves with the current cash flow coming in.

Foxwoods and Mohegan will go bankrupt unless they create something of a destination for that area. That won't happen at this point. They are DEAD in the water. 35% of Revenues will be GONE forever. Possibly even more.
I personally would never drive back to that area ever again.
The Indians who put their trust in the management that should have protected their money tree made all the wrong decisions. Never had a vision or paid off enough politicians to keep gambling illegal.

Personally I believe the area around Suffolk Downs the Traffic will pose a big problem now especially if a casino development of minimum of 300-500 Million was developed.

The Traffic will look like the area around Wellington Circle that area has become a mess. Benton Brut, you know what I'm talking about. Too much development and not enough focus on road infraustructure have been built in the last 10 years.

30 years ago their was probably 1 car per every household.
We never upgraded the road infrastructure or make things more accesible for those areas. Everybody wants to build developments. Nobody is making it easy to make things more accessible for the citizens around Boston. The MBTA Orange Line is still the same cars from 30 years ago.

mass88
12-06-2011, 11:48 AM
It's a real shame that these casinos got a approved. I have a question. The economy is in shambles for the Middle class and poor people. With so many casinos being built and online gambling available and a bookie on every corner street in Mass it seems that they are all going to cannibalize each other. It's difficult to justify Billion dollar casinos and how they will maintain themselves with the current cash flow coming in.

Foxwoods and Mohegan will go bankrupt unless they create something of a destination for that area. That won't happen at this point. They are DEAD in the water. 35% of Revenues will be GONE forever. Possibly even more.
I personally would never drive back to that area ever again.
The Indians who put their trust in the management that should have protected their money tree made all the wrong decisions. Never had a vision or paid off enough politicians to keep gambling illegal.

Personally I believe the area around Suffolk Downs the Traffic will pose a big problem now especially if a casino development of minimum of 300-500 Million was developed.

The Traffic will look like the area around Wellington Circle that area has become a mess. Benton Brut, you know what I'm talking about. Too much development and not enough focus on road infraustructure have been built in the last 10 years.

30 years ago their was probably 1 car per every household.
We never upgraded the road infrastructure or make things more accesible for those areas. Everybody wants to build developments. Nobody is making it easy to make things more accessible for the citizens around Boston. The MBTA Orange Line is still the same cars from 30 years ago.

I would think that a lot more than 35% of their revenue will be gone forever. Lets say 3 casinos get built in Mass, that will pretty much take Mass out of it. Rhode Island will be split as a casino in Fall River lets say, will capture a large number of people from the Providence area.

Also, I don't know what stadium Menino is going to where it takes 2 and a half hours to get out of. I go to 3 Pats games a year and it never takes more than an hour (with weather issues) to go from P11 to 495.

I would simply widen rte 1. The stretch of rte 1 between 495 and 95 is not populated. It has the stadium and some various business park like developments. You could easily widen rte 1 to 3 lanes in each direction between 495 and 95 without major issue.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 12:49 PM
^^^^
I agree, I would rather the casino in FOXBORO. The state can widen the highway at this point.

East Boston/Revere is a mess during 7-8am 3-5pm for traffic and it will only get worse.
Suffolk would probably be more profitable but Kraft already has Patriots place and the area is geared for entertaiment.

Leave East Boston/Revere alone.

choo
12-06-2011, 01:14 PM
I have to (respectively) disagree with the foxboro idea. First, I think a foxboro casino will directly canabalize the revenue from a fall river/new bedford one.

I also think East Boston/Revere would benefit from the influx of jobs and people. I live in the north end, and aside from the airport, I have only ventured to East Boston once (to explore maverick and piers park). I am not a gambler by any means, but I would like the new shows/concerts/tours that come through the venue. I think it is well positioned to capture a lot of out of state and foreign clients that are in boston, where foxboro would just get more local crowds.

I also really don't think crime will be a huge issue. It is one casino, not a cluster. And i feel too many people watched goodfellas then thought it is how the casino industry operates. It is probably not the cleanest industry, but it is not the 1970s either. I think it can be a boon to the area. The jobs are good jobs, restaurants, hotels, music halls. When a new restaurant opens in back bay no one decries the low paying dishwasher jobs. They should make a concentrated effort to invest in the east boston and revere schools. help the local community.

Traffic is a mitigation that will need to dealt with like any development but i dont see it being a deal breaker. most people visiting the city and from downtown will take the T or ted williams.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 01:30 PM
^^^ Good post......Choo. The problem is I grew up in that area it actually has cleaned up over the years. A casino will only make it worse. Need to get Benton Brut involved in this discussion. He still lives in the area.

BosDevelop
12-06-2011, 01:39 PM
^^^^
East Boston/Revere is a mess during 7-8am 3-5pm for traffic and it will only get worse.

yeah, because there will definitely be thousands of cars trying to get to a casino at 7am on a Tuesday morning. Come on people. Common sense tells you that the vast majority of casino customers will not be arriving/departing by car during weekday rush hour. Peak casino times are in the evenings and the casino traffic during other times of day (especially during the work week) will be negligible.

choo
12-06-2011, 01:40 PM
Thanks. I am still torn on what the casino will do to the quality of life in Eastie, so i ultimately defer to the residents. I've considered moving to East Boston, and I am torn on what the casino would mean. My main hang up has been the water crossing to downtown. As someone without a car, it would be very limiting, especially going out late at night (see my recent posts in the T service thread). The casino may enhance transportation- like cheap all night water taxis and shuttles to the Casino as a way of bringing in more patrons. But as a residnet, that would be a huge benefit in getting from downtown or southie. That service might beget new residential developments (since the waterfront and suffolk downs are divided by the airport). So it really could in some scenarios be a boon for Eastie in several ways.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 01:56 PM
yeah, because there will definitely be thousands of cars trying to get to a casino at 7am on a Tuesday morning. Come on people. Common sense tells you that the vast majority of casino customers will not be arriving/departing by car during weekday rush hour. Peak casino times are in the evenings and the casino traffic during other times of day (especially during the work week) will be negligible.

No matter what traffic will be an issue......the area is still a pain in the ass to drive through, never mind having a casino down there.

Masschusetts is almost 35% of the revenue for Foxwoods. The quality of the people will be more scumbag, degerate, gambling junkies, along with lowest of the low and prostitutes, in the area than quality customers.

This is only my opinion but nothing good will come out of EastBoston/Revere with a casino, It will get RUN down like Detriot. Just my opinion

whighlander
12-06-2011, 01:56 PM
^^^ Good post......Choo. The problem is I grew up in that area it actually has cleaned up over the years. A casino will only make it worse. Need to get Benton Brut involved in this discussion. He still lives in the area.

Riff -- you got off a couple of good shots then the barrel started to foul again

How many cars flood into / out of Foxboro on game day -- 30,000?

even a Big Show at a Foxwoods/Mohegan sun scale complex probaby only draws 10,000 people

A casino would only cause a major traffic jam if some idiot scheduled Springsteen or such on a game afternoon in lousy weather time

Given as no bridges are involved and no tunnels -- expanding highway access to the Foxboro complex is not a major issue

I suggest that Menio / Vornado and Kraft /Wynn do the old Boston thing -- cut a deal

1 -- BIG Slots parlor at Suffolk complete with hotel and such to keep the track open active
2 -- Big Hotel, casino, Music Venue at Foxboro
3 ---Filenes Hole
4 -- BCEC 2nd major Hotel

there is enoigh here for the 4-some to have a nice round of money making -- my guess is that just as the lottery started with one weekly game -- Casinos and slots siting will be relaxed over the next decade and suffolk will be able to upgrade to full casino (perhaps not in name) and the BCEC Hotel will get some gaming opportunity as well

BosDevelop
12-06-2011, 02:05 PM
The quality of the people will be more scumbag, degerate, gambling junkies, along with lowest of the low and prostitutes, in the area than quality customers.

Congrats, you managed to hit nearly every standard anti-gambling argument in one sentence. Guess what, those "scumbag, degenerate, gambling junkies..." can be found on every corner in nearly every town in the Commonwealth scratching away at their scratch tickets, filling in their keno numbers and playing other lottery games right after they meet up with and/or call their bookies. If you have spent any time at the Connecticut casinos, you would realize that 99% of the customers are regular, law abiding people looking for some form of entertainment.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 02:25 PM
Congrats, you managed to hit nearly every standard anti-gambling argument in one sentence. Guess what, those "scumbag, degenerate, gambling junkies..." can be found on every corner in nearly every town in the Commonwealth scratching away at their scratch tickets, filling in their keno numbers and playing other lottery games right after they meet up with and/or call their bookies. If you have spent any time at the Connecticut casinos, you would realize that 99% of the customers are regular, law abiding people looking for some form of entertainment.

But the casinos are also providing false hope besides the poor soul that is a weekly degerate spending 10 bucks on a lottery ticket or owing a bookie 100 bucks for the week. Now he can lose his entire paycheck and completely be demoralized in that area. Do you really believe that a casino is a good idea compared to people scratching dollar tickets and playing $1 keno?

BosDevelop
12-06-2011, 03:06 PM
But the casinos are also providing false hope besides the poor soul that is a weekly degerate spending 10 bucks on a lottery ticket or owing a bookie 100 bucks for the week. Now he can lose his entire paycheck and completely be demoralized in that area. Do you really believe that a casino is a good idea compared to people scratching dollar tickets and playing $1 keno?

I believe that individuals should make their own decisions when it comes to the lawful expenditures of their finances. If someone has a gambling addiction, they are going to gamble no matter what avenue they choose to feed that addiction be it lottery games, on line sports betting etc. For every addict that will lose their entire paycheck in one of these casinos, they are a 1,000 citizens who are just looking to blow off some steam and have some adult fun with like-minded responsible adults. Yes, it is possible for people to view a casino for what it is, entertainment and not a place to make money.

F-Line to Dudley
12-06-2011, 03:10 PM
But the casinos are also providing false hope besides the poor soul that is a weekly degerate spending 10 bucks on a lottery ticket or owing a bookie 100 bucks for the week. Now he can lose his entire paycheck and completely be demoralized in that area. Do you really believe that a casino is a good idea compared to people scratching dollar tickets and playing $1 keno?

You're confronted a little more face-to-face with a gambling problem than in a convenience store scratching quick-picks. A little more immediacy when you get up and go to a place explicitly for gambling to gamble instead of some generic place like a store or Keno bar to do the same, or some internet poker site. I'd argue the lottery and forms of gambling you do on neutral turf are a lot more corrosive to the poor and desperate than a casino. Going to the casino is more of an "event" you have to justify with the family and explicitly think about in terms of money you have to spend. It's not like anyone wanders into a casino to buy today's newspaper from the gift shop and then says, "Oh hell, I might as well play a few games of craps while I'm in the neighborhood." That's exactly what the hook is when people buy scratch tickets...make it a subsconscious decision to someone out on a trip for something else.

Casinos today are a lot more like Foxwoods than run-down Atlantic City or the sad sacks who used to hang around Wonderland all day. It's gone upscale. There's not enough return on investment to target the lowest common denominator unless it's a place maintaining current business. To build a new one and attract all new business from scratch means targeting the upwardly mobile and doing it in a way that's all mixed-development entertainment like Foxwoods instead of just this place you go to to do nothing but gamble. I don't gamble, but I've spent a whole day at Foxwoods before not-gambling and have never been at a shortage of things to do. But that's also the hook...build an all-in-one "entertainment destination", then get people who normally wouldn't wager to do a little gambling while they're there. But it's decidedly upscale...the destitute are not going to get up and plan a day trip to Bob Kraft's Big Patriot Funland to make all their dreams come true. They're going to do it at the corner store under the guise of being frugal.

It's a slippery slope, no doubt, but I guarantee there's more brainrot to come out of expanding the ubiquity of the lottery even further than building some big expensive palace out in Eastie.



(For personal preference I'd rather it be out in Foxboro. But that's just because I don't want to get flattened by any number of barely-legal casino tourbus operators jumping the curb through downtown. Those things are a fucking terror on the roads. And they're everywhere...especially in the left lane.)

BosDevelop
12-06-2011, 03:17 PM
You're confronted a little more face-to-face with a gambling problem than in a convenience store scratching quick-picks. A little more immediacy when you get up and go to a place explicitly for gambling to gamble instead of some generic place like a store or Keno bar to do the same, or some internet poker site. I'd argue the lottery and forms of gambling you do on neutral turf are a lot more corrosive to the poor and desperate than a casino. Going to the casino is more of an "event" you have to justify with the family and explicitly think about in terms of money you have to spend. It's not like anyone wanders into a casino to buy today's newspaper from the gift shop and then says, "Oh hell, I might as well play a few games of craps while I'm in the neighborhood." That's exactly what the hook is when people buy scratch tickets...make it a subsconscious decision to someone out on a trip for something else.

Casinos today are a lot more like Foxwoods than run-down Atlantic City or the sad sacks who used to hang around Wonderland all day. It's gone upscale. There's not enough return on investment to target the lowest common denominator unless it's a place maintaining current business. To build a new one and attract all new business from scratch means targeting the upwardly mobile and doing it in a way that's all mixed-development entertainment like Foxwoods instead of just this place you go to to do nothing but gamble. I don't gamble, but I've spent a whole day at Foxwoods before not-gambling and have never been at a shortage of things to do. But that's also the hook...build an all-in-one "entertainment destination", then get people who normally wouldn't wager to do a little gambling while they're there. But it's decidedly upscale...the destitute are not going to get up and plan a day trip to Bob Kraft's Big Patriot Funland to make all their dreams come true. They're going to do it at the corner store under the guise of being frugal.

It's a slippery slope, no doubt, but I guarantee there's more brainrot to come out of expanding the ubiquity of the lottery even further than building some big expensive palace out in Eastie.



(For personal preference I'd rather it be out in Foxboro. But that's just because I don't want to get flattened by any number of barely-legal casino tourbus operators jumping the curb through downtown. Those things are a fucking terror on the roads. And they're everywhere...especially in the left lane.)


Excellent post especially in regards to the dangerousness of lottery games over the "event" nature of going to a casino.

GW2500
12-06-2011, 03:17 PM
Most of you know me as a nominally pro-development, pro-business guy. This proposal is a loser for Boston, and a total pig-fuck for the people who have to live near it. We're not talking about shadows on a park in February anymore. If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.



So if this was actually done nicely, pretty architecture and what not, do you think it still wouldn't be successful?

mass88
12-06-2011, 03:19 PM
I have to kind of laugh at the anti-casino arguments at times. People can walk into any number of bars, restaurants, super markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, etc. and buy scratch tickets, lotto tickets and play powerball. I had a friend growing up who worked at a Tedeschi's and he would always mention the number of people that would come in every week, or multiple times every week, or even every day and buy all of the mentioned gambling opinions.

As far as prostitution is concerned, it happens every where and will continue to happen, casino or not. People make it seem like you are going to have scantily clad women just hawking themselves out in the open, blatantly in a casino. As far as I am concerned, prostitution is the least worrying of the strikes against casinos and should not even be worried about.

TheRifleman
12-06-2011, 03:26 PM
Casinos today are a lot more like Foxwoods than run-down Atlantic City or the sad sacks who used to hang around Wonderland all day. It's gone upscale. But it's decidedly upscale...the destitute are not going to get up and plan a day trip to Bob Kraft's Big Patriot Funland to make all their dreams come true. They're going to do it at the corner store under the guise of being frugal.

)

This was a good post.

"sad sacks who used to hang around Wonderland all day"
I'm on the floor laughing.
I guess the entire issue I have is does the Casino in the end demoralizes it's surrounding environment.

I think the public leaders should negotiate that the casino needs to invest a certain amount of profits into the area, parks, education programs, police security and help the area move forward in a positive direction. I just don't think Casinos end up being this way. Even Foxwoods the Enteratainment Mecca of Connecticut. Driving around the area it looks just BLAH

F-Line to Dudley
12-06-2011, 03:42 PM
I have to kind of laugh at the anti-casino arguments at times. People can walk into any number of bars, restaurants, super markets, convenience stores, liquor stores, etc. and buy scratch tickets, lotto tickets and play powerball. I had a friend growing up who worked at a Tedeschi's and he would always mention the number of people that would come in every week, or multiple times every week, or even every day and buy all of the mentioned gambling opinions.

As far as prostitution is concerned, it happens every where and will continue to happen, casino or not. People make it seem like you are going to have scantily clad women just hawking themselves out in the open, blatantly in a casino. As far as I am concerned, prostitution is the least worrying of the strikes against casinos and should not even be worried about.

"Neutral" sites also don't have the security forces of a full-on casino, who for their own reputations need to stay as squeaky clean as possible on the vice they may attract. I much doubt you'll see throngs of hookers lining Route 1. In Puritan suburban Massachusetts that's like pasting a sign to themselves saying "Arrest me and confiscate my day's wages!" To the extent that they thrive at Mohegan Sun it's only the ones deft enough to get in and evade every security camera and staffer who's gone through hard intel training to spot prostitute-like behavior in a crowded room. Those casinos are like Israeli airport security at sniffing out telltale signs. No...it'll always be easier to find one on Lansdowne St., the Theater District, or Copley Marriott any night of the week than somewhere they'll either stick out like a sore thumb or every staffer within miles will be looking for them. The city already has multiple thriving red light districts. They're called BU and Northeastern, where the escort listings are the way a couple hundred or more of the city's brightest luminaries of higher education pay back their crushing student loan debts.

F-Line to Dudley
12-06-2011, 04:20 PM
This was a good post.

"sad sacks who used to hang around Wonderland all day"
I'm on the floor laughing.
I guess the entire issue I have is does the Casino in the end demoralizes it's surrounding environment.

I think the public leaders should negotiate that the casino needs to invest a certain amount of profits into the area, parks, education programs, police security and help the area move forward in a positive direction. I just don't think Casinos end up being this way. Even Foxwoods the Enteratainment Mecca of Connecticut. Driving around the area it looks just BLAH

Foxwoods and Mohegan are poor comparisons for integrated development because of the tribal land. Legally they couldn't build at all outside their soil, so that bunkered them in. The extended development that came later were just leeching off the bunkers.

There is no way something like that will get built on taxable MA land. Too many agencies involved that they'll have to satisfy, including the BRA ogre if there's one inside city limits. And Kraft is not going to build a Funland bunker. All of the development he's been trying to do around Patriot Place has been to try to get a little mixed action in there to attract a non-gameday crowd. He not only knows that his own profits are dependent on trying to get something regionally integrated, but also that he's got legions of pols and locals waiting to cut him down if he doesn't present a plan they can appropriate to their own means.

If it were at all easy to build a casino outside of tribal land where the bunker mentality is the only way and national independence lowers the barrier, or outside of a resort city that has "integrated" (after a fashion) casino development on a wide scale...there'd be a lot more casinos dotting every region. But there isn't, because they're freaking hard to build. If it were only a matter of legalizing it, then somebody immediately coming in and building one...every state would've legalized it. Hand-wringing about vice vs. tax revenue doesn't exactly wash when there stalks Powerball and the limitlessly expanding lotteries. Pols are about money, not morals, every time...especially when it's about morals. They hand-wring over legalizing because if they go through that fight they better get a casino built or it'll be hugely embarrassing and politically damaging to have the debate for nothing. This got passed because they thought--correctly, I think--that the available proposals were real enough to get built and survive the rigors they've got to go through to satisfy the integrated development factions.


There aren't too many places where a law passed successfully gets a casino erected that makes all the players look good in the end. I remember the Hartford one that Wynn proposed 20 years ago when they nearly lured the Patriots. He habitually spreads his chips around and proposes new casinos in places where public money/permission is being considered. Then pulls out because almost always the auxiliary revenues don't look good enough to proceed, or look worse than if he built a new shrine in a bona fide casino city. Playing the market smartly with managed risk on Wynn's part...political suicide on everyone else's. Hence, the hand-wringing in most places that goes on for years and usually doesn't amount to a change in the law except...more endless expansion of the state lottery, Keno, etc. There are a whole lot of good-on-paper opportunities that end up looking like a Hartford when the planning goes deeper, and developers in the gaming industry know how to play prospective markets. If it doesn't work, they walk away and don't get nearly as deep in before bailing as they would a conventional development. A few places like Hartford learned the hard way how the casino real estate market sizes up its expansion opportunities.



If I had to predict, Kraft's is the one that'll get built. He satisfies the money and power grab amongst all the money and power grabbers, and offers up the least resistance to approval because Foxboro's already so dependent on his tax revenue that the resident opposition (unfortunately) is very easily steamrolled. Conversely, I'd be kind of shocked if one got built in Boston because of...the BRA, and its unparalleled ability to turn all it touches into permanent vaporware. Patrick didn't just put his reputation on the line for vaporware. Might end up that a project that maybe shouldn't be built in Boston...not ending up being built in Boston...ends up being the most damning indictment of all the things that should be built in Boston but aren't.

whighlander
12-06-2011, 04:58 PM
Foxwoods and Mohegan are poor comparisons for integrated development because of the tribal land. Legally they couldn't build at all outside their soil, so that bunkered them in. The extended development that came later were just leeching off the bunkers....


If I had to predict, Kraft's is the one that'll get built. He satisfies the money and power grab amongst all the money and power grabbers, and offers up the least resistance to approval because Foxboro's already so dependent on his tax revenue that the resident opposition (unfortunately) is very easily steamrolled. Conversely, I'd be kind of shocked if one got built in Boston because of...the BRA, and its unparalleled ability to turn all it touches into permanent vaporware.

F-Line -- Wynn is to Casino as X is to Football

Answer is X= Patriots -- Steve Wynn does his homework, builds a good team, and unusally gets the project to the end-zone successfully

And it is all first class -- perhaps he got his busines instincts from Reveah (his parents were from there) -- but he got his relevant experience and expertise building in Las Vegs during the heyday of the destination casino -- aka the Mirage, Caesars, Excalibur, Belagio, Mandalay Bay etc.

See for example Wynn as Vegas his flagship hotel
http://www.zimbio.com/Las+Vegas+Vacations/articles/BlYO509M7Fh/Top+10+Las+Vegas+Hotels

3131 Las Vegas Blvd. South,
Las Vegas, NV, 89109
Since it's opening in April 2005, Wynn Las Vegas continues to set new standards for pre-eminent luxury in Las Vegas. The 50-story, 2,716-room Wynn Las Vegas prides itself on its ability to provide an exceptional guest experience.
The Forbes Five-Star, AAA Five Diamond award-winning resort offers award-winning accommodations, signature restaurants, exciting leisure activities and nightly entertainment.

You know that with Wynn's money and Krafts prestige and image / legassy that what will be built on the other side of Rt-1 from Gillete Stadium will be a masterwork integrated development complimenting Patriort Place and maaking Foxboro a year-round 24X7 venue

I would imagine in 10 years:
casino
hotels
convention center
restaurants
shops
music / performance facilties (indoor and outdoor)
Major Transit stop (Boston, Providence, Worcester)

The T will run regularly to Foxboro not just as a in-bound commuter service, but also as an outbound reverse commuter service

Suffolk and Menino will get the consolation prize of a Twin Rivers style slots facility with a smaller hotel complex focused on the local better and people North of Boston

whighlander
12-06-2011, 05:03 PM
Foxwoods and Mohegan are poor comparisons for integrated development because of the tribal land. Legally they couldn't build at all outside their soil, so that bunkered them in. The extended development that came later were just leeching off the bunkers.



F-Line actually the indians can just as anyone else build where ever they want if they meet the local permitting, etc.-- the legal benefit of the tribal land is that on the tribal land they are free to nearly do what they chose to do as long as it doesn't violatate Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations

For example one of the two Indian tribe casino opperators in CT is part of a proposal to build a casino in Palmer -- (the Western MA casino permitted by MA

F-Line to Dudley
12-06-2011, 05:46 PM
F-Line actually the indians can just as anyone else build where ever they want if they meet the local permitting, etc.-- the legal benefit of the tribal land is that on the tribal land they are free to nearly do what they chose to do as long as it doesn't violatate Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations

For example one of the two Indian tribe casino opperators in CT is part of a proposal to build a casino in Palmer -- (the Western MA casino permitted by MA

They can now. In the 90's they couldn't build off their own land until the laws were relaxed for all the ancillary development spilling outside their borders. I remember being in middle school in CT in 1990 when the Pequots were squaring off with the state about first building Foxwoods. Huge controversy, all kinds of sweaty palms and doom and gloom portent. I must've done like 3 different term papers on it whenever we had some current events thing to do for class. MA's passage is completely anticlimactic relative to how tense it was 20 years ago. But Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun raised the bar. Nobody fears a dank Atlantic City mob joint in New England anymore. On pure dollars and cents no developer could ever make a profit off that. The competition's been very, very good for narrowing the field to only the most serious Wynns of the world and all this super-integrated development. A little too bad that a whole lot of other super-integrated development hasn't happened because it takes a casino boss to overpower all the dysfunction and get timely consensus, but we'll probably get a good reference project for how quality integration should be done out of it.


Now, about those casinobus drivers. . .
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2730/4225655380_33e01409d6.jpg
:rolleyes:

DominusNovus
12-06-2011, 06:56 PM
I spend most of my time in various convenience stores, for work. I feel somewhat qualified to echo the sentiments regarding the amount of gambling going on at c-stores: loads.

Next time you're grabbing yourself a slim jim, check out the wall where they brag about all the winning tickets they've sold.

Or find one of the stores where they've got half the floor area devoted to standing tables for people to huddle around the keno monitor. Those places aren't convenience stores, they're gambling parlors that happen to sell junk food and cigarettes.

Not to speak ill of those businesses, but if you want to find degenerate gamblers of lower means, thats where you find them. Not at the Casinos.

datadyne007
12-06-2011, 07:05 PM
"Don't you know the lottery is just a tax on stupid people?"

-Brian Griffin

Lurker
12-06-2011, 07:59 PM
Not to speak ill of those businesses, but if you want to find degenerate gamblers of lower means, thats where you find them. Not at the Casinos. -yet

I take it you never went to Wonderland or have been to Suffolk Downs before?

The whole moral movement against the common vices of the poor isn't always about some snobbery, it is in part motivated by an observation that many people wouldn't be poor if they weren't frittering away excess capital on vices rather than investing it into creating additional wealth.

jass
12-06-2011, 08:18 PM
Thanks. I am still torn on what the casino will do to the quality of life in Eastie, so i ultimately defer to the residents. I've considered moving to East Boston, and I am torn on what the casino would mean. My main hang up has been the water crossing to downtown. As someone without a car, it would be very limiting, especially going out late at night (see my recent posts in the T service thread). The casino may enhance transportation- like cheap all night water taxis and shuttles to the Casino as a way of bringing in more patrons. But as a residnet, that would be a huge benefit in getting from downtown or southie. That service might beget new residential developments (since the waterfront and suffolk downs are divided by the airport). So it really could in some scenarios be a boon for Eastie in several ways.

Taxis would be more willing to go that way, because itll be easier to find a fare who wants to go back.

The casino could be forced to pay to extend the Blue line to Lynn and operate night buses.

SeamusMcFly
12-07-2011, 07:38 AM
and remember when I got caught stealing all those watches from Sears... Well you have a gambling problem!

statler
12-07-2011, 10:14 AM
Question, outside of places like Monte Carlo are there any purpose built casinos that are known for their architecture?

I'm not referring to places like New York, New York, which are notable for their absurdity, but buildings that would be remarkable regardless of what was housed inside of them.

Shepard
12-07-2011, 10:21 AM
Marina Bay in Singapore?

http://www.singaporecasinohotel.com/images/mbaysands.jpg

I think the more interesting question is whether there are purpose-built casinos in an urban setting that contribute positively to the urban fabric, especially at street level?

Sicilian
12-07-2011, 10:22 AM
Funny you should mention that. I'm no fan of casinos, certainly no fan of casinos coming to MA at either location.

That said, I thought the Wynn pair in Las Vegas were striking.

http://sparklingspur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Wynn-Las-Vegas-Encore-Las-Vegas.jpg

statler
12-07-2011, 10:24 AM
Marina Bay in Singapore?

http://www.singaporecasinohotel.com/images/mbaysands.jpg

I think the more interesting question is whether there are purpose-built casinos in an urban setting that contribute positively to the urban fabric, especially at street level?

^^Thanks, and yes, that is a better question.

DominusNovus
12-07-2011, 10:57 AM
-yet

I take it you never went to Wonderland or have been to Suffolk Downs before?

The whole moral movement against the common vices of the poor isn't always about some snobbery, it is in part motivated by an observation that many people wouldn't be poor if they weren't frittering away excess capital on vices rather than investing it into creating additional wealth.

Why the 'yet' part? Are we going to get a different crowd than Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods?

You're absolutely right that many poor people don't help their situation by wasting their money (and, sadly, often other people's money as well) on non-productive uses such as gambling and drugs (legal or otherwise). But all of that happens at your corner Tedeschi's, Honey Farm, 7-11, or Cumberland Farms. They can go in, grab a pack of cigs, a 40 of malt liquor, and a few dozen scratch tickets, keeping them in a cycle of poverty. I see no reason for any of that to change with the construction of a Casino.

Sicilian
12-07-2011, 11:10 AM
I think the more interesting question is whether there are purpose-built casinos in an urban setting that contribute positively to the urban fabric, especially at street level?

The purpose of a casino is to bring people inside, and to keep them there. It is antithetical to casino activity to encourage pedestrian activity along the street. So I'm not clear what deductions could be made by the fact that few examples exist.

statler
12-07-2011, 11:21 AM
Mostly that it can be done. But I'm sure sure we would even be able to find those few examples.

joebos
12-07-2011, 11:28 AM
The purpose of a casino is to bring people inside, and to keep them there. It is antithetical to casino activity to encourage pedestrian activity along the street. So I'm not clear what deductions could be made by the fact that few examples exist.

So true. When I lived in Northwest Ohio I would occasionally go to Windsor with a friend who liked to gamble. I was surprised at how little activity there was on the street. I went there hoping to have an urban experience but the place was like a ghost town outside of the casino.

datadyne007
12-07-2011, 11:33 AM
Funny you should mention that. I'm no fan of casinos, certainly no fan of casinos coming to MA at either location.

That said, I thought the Wynn pair in Las Vegas were striking.

http://sparklingspur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Wynn-Las-Vegas-Encore-Las-Vegas.jpg

Those are my fav in Vegas. The Wynn and Encore are simply beautiful, classy towers. There isn't a speck of cheese to be found inside or out. The theme is luxury and nothing else. The Aria & Vdara at CityCenter are great post-modern Vegas towers too... aside from the whole death ray curtain wall fiasco...

Wynn takes architecture seriously.

BosDevelop
12-07-2011, 11:57 AM
-yet

I take it you never went to Wonderland or have been to Suffolk Downs before?

The whole moral movement against the common vices of the poor isn't always about some snobbery, it is in part motivated by an observation that many people wouldn't be poor if they weren't frittering away excess capital on vices rather than investing it into creating additional wealth.

comparing Wonderland and the current incarnation of Suffolk Downs with a 1 billion dollar+ casino with expensive table games and world class restaurants and entertainment is just plain misguided. Unless, of course, you have never set foot in a world class casino. You are more likely to see degenerates hanging out in Boston parks than you would at this casino whether built in Foxboro or Suffolk Downs.

and no matter how many laws you pass or how much you try and restrict the way people spend their money, there will ALWAYS be people who are "frittering away excess capital on vices." Why should those of us who can control how much we spend in a casino be prevented from enjoying such entertainment because there a few who can't handle it whether due to addiction or otherwise? By that rationale, we should ban hard alcohol only in Massachusetts to protect those who have alcohol addictions and force them to buy anything other than beer and wine in other states. The argument that lottery games available on every corner are acceptable and table games and slots in 3 locations in the entire state are not is as absurd as saying people should only be able to purchase beer and wine in Massachusetts because some folks can't handle their vodka.

whighlander
12-09-2011, 12:48 PM
comparing Wonderland and the current incarnation of Suffolk Downs with a 1 billion dollar+ casino with expensive table games and world class restaurants and entertainment is just plain misguided. Unless, of course, you have never set foot in a world class casino. You are more likely to see degenerates hanging out in Boston parks than you would at this casino whether built in Foxboro or Suffolk Downs.

and no matter how many laws you pass or how much you try and restrict the way people spend their money, there will ALWAYS be people who are "frittering away excess capital on vices." Why should those of us who can control how much we spend in a casino be prevented from enjoying such entertainment because there a few who can't handle it whether due to addiction or otherwise? By that rationale, we should ban hard alcohol only in Massachusetts to protect those who have alcohol addictions and force them to buy anything other than beer and wine in other states. The argument that lottery games available on every corner are acceptable and table games and slots in 3 locations in the entire state are not is as absurd as saying people should only be able to purchase beer and wine in Massachusetts because some folks can't handle their vodka.

BosDev --- well said

The ultimate waste is the waste of an absolutely unrecoverable resource -- your time

If we can't keep people from wasting their time -- we'll never keep them from wasting trivial things such as money

I'd take a Wynn casino in my neighborhood over an ocupyer camp any day of the week

davem
12-10-2011, 04:03 PM
If Suffolk Downs was a good place for a casino, then why isn't Steve Wynn talking to the owners?

If we force these things to get built where developers don't want to we will absolutely end up with a turd.

If they are given the option at least there is a chance it might be something worthwhile.

whighlander
12-11-2011, 03:05 AM
If Suffolk Downs was a good place for a casino, then why isn't Steve Wynn talking to the owners?

If we force these things to get built where developers don't want to we will absolutely end up with a turd.

If they are given the option at least there is a chance it might be something worthwhile.

Dave -- the problem is that the deal cut between the Speaka, da Prez and doGov was for 3 regional casinos plus the mega-slots parlor

This is the same kind of "deal" that keeps Trader Joe's limited to selling beer and wine in only 3 locations 9apparetly eventhis will eventually be relaxed through a "rider" on the casino bill

If there are to be casinos:
1) the Office of Economic Development should draft requirements (sq. footage, number of rooms, special amenities, etc.)
2) then annually or every 3 years have a period to receive proposals from interested parties with a fee of $1M for a slots parlor and $25m for a casino -- this would limit the proposals to those who are serious contenders who've done their homework
3) review the proposals for meeting the requirements
4) and tenatively accept those meeting or exceeding the requirements subject to approval by the local communities involved
5) when a developer's propposal is accepted -- the developer should then make a down payment of about 10% of the construction budget (split between the affected towns and the Cmmonwealth) -- again to keep Filenes Holes from forming

Then let the developer develop and let's see how the first 1 or 2 work out -- if they are successful then the process of RFP can be re-initaited

However many Wynns and others make proposals that meet the minimum criteria

TheRifleman
12-21-2011, 02:19 PM
‘Game-changer’: Sheldon Adelson might enter casino clashBy Frank Quaratiello
Wednesday, December 21, 2011 - Updated 8 hours ago



Multi-billionaire gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson, a Dorchester native who runs Las Vegas Sands Corp., is mulling whether to ante into the Massachusetts casino game, his spokesman confirmed — a development casino watchers say is a potential “game-changer.”

“The company remains interested in developing an integrated resort property in Massachusetts, but has not made any final determinations,” said Las Vegas Sands spokesman Ron Reese. “We will continue to monitor the situation and undertake our internal process as it relates to new development opportunities.”

David G. Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, said Adelson’s entry could be a potential “game-changer” in the budding Massachusetts casino landscape, as at least half a dozen developers have begun jockeying for three resort gaming licenses.

“I think Sheldon Adelson will get involved once the other guys have laid their cards on the table,” said casino expert Richard McGowan of Boston College. “He’s the elephant in the room. He’s been much more successful than (Steve) Wynn.”

Schwartz said, “If he tries to compete for the eastern Massachusetts casino license, you’ve got a real clash of the titans. Three of the biggest names in the industry — Wynn, Caesars and Sands — would be competing for one license.” Wynn is linked with Robert Kraft in Foxboro, while Caesars is partnering with Suffolk Downs.

Adelson runs the Venetian and Palazzo resorts on the Las Vegas Strip as well as the massive Sands Expo Center and is worth an estimated $21.5 billion — nearly five times the combined wealth of Wynn and Patriots [team stats] owner Robert Kraft, according to Forbes magazine.

In 2004, the Sands Macao opened as the first Western casino in the Chinese-controlled former Portuguese colony. Then, in 2007, Adelson opened the world’s largest casino, the Venetian Macao. He opened the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore in 2010.

“Adelson’s the only person who owns casinos in the three top markets — Macao, Singapore and Las Vegas,” Schwartz said. “Wherever he goes, he’s formidable. He’s got a real proven track record of creating a real integrated resort that government officials tend to like and that’s what puts him over the top.”

Reese declined to say what Bay State locations Adelson is eyeing. McGowan predicted, “I think Adelson will look at land in the Seaport District depending on what (Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino) thinks, or out in Marlboro.”

Meanwhile, after a Herald review of state unemployment numbers found Boston stands to benefit more from a casino than the Foxboro area, Kraft spokesman Jeff Cournoyer defended Wynn’s Foxboro resort casino proposal yesterday, saying, “Wynn Resorts is best-in-class, and the town, region and state all stand to benefit from the quality of the jobs they would create in Foxboro


The only real game changer I see in the room is Beton Brut.

http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/2011_1221game-changer_magnate_might_enter_casino_clash/srvc=home&position=also

Beton Brut
12-21-2011, 04:59 PM
The only real game changer I see in the room is Benton (sic) Brut.

And I'm on vacation in forlorn West Palm Beach...

I'm currently working with a state-wide coalition to challenge the recent legislation in court, and at the ballot box. Not because one of the proposals is in my back yard, but because expanded gaming is fiscally incompetent for the entire Commonwealth. There are some really bright lights on this board -- put on your thinking caps. Do we want a new bureaucracy that will be a comfy nest for patronage jobs? Lottery profits go back to the cities and towns -- where do casino profits go? Does anyone wonder why the governor has refused requests for an independent cost-benefit analysis on the effects of expanded gaming in Massachusetts?

You don't need to stop by the Suffolk Downs stables to smell the horseshit...

SeamusMcFly
12-22-2011, 07:29 AM
If anyone in the state is "surprised" that Sheldon has thrown his hat into the ring.... they are blind deaf and especially DUMB!!!

It has been stated many times in the past, his intention to build in his home state, when (not if) casinos become legal.

He also revels in bettering Steve Wynn at every possible chance he gets.

TheRifleman
12-22-2011, 08:55 AM
And I'm on vacation in forlorn West Palm Beach...

I'm currently working with a state-wide coalition to challenge the recent legislation in court, and at the ballot box. Not because one of the proposals is in my back yard, but because expanded gaming is fiscally incompetent for the entire Commonwealth. There are some really bright lights on this board -- put on your thinking caps. Do we want a new bureaucracy that will be a comfy nest for patronage jobs? Lottery profits go back to the cities and towns -- where do casino profits go? Does anyone wonder why the governor has refused requests for an independent cost-benefit analysis on the effects of expanded gaming in Massachusetts?

You don't need to stop by the Suffolk Downs stables to smell the horseshit...

How are we going to stop the Suffolk Downs casino? I'm IN.......I grew up near that area and it's finally at a time where things are nice and calm.

I actually enjoy going for a walk on Revere Beach finally.

Suffolk Downs Casino will evolve into Biffs Casino in Back to the Future II.
That area will get RUN DOWN again.

Shepard
12-22-2011, 09:09 AM
Beton, you will enjoy this - Florida considers mega-casinos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml61xnOGRYk&feature=player_embedded

Check out the gorgeous rendering of the Biscayne Bay proposal! Just like Suffolk Downs, right?

HenryAlan
12-22-2011, 10:06 AM
OMGs, that would fit so perfectly in the middle of East Boston. On the other hand, it actually would work in the Seaport.

Beton Brut
12-22-2011, 11:06 AM
How are we going to stop the Suffolk Downs casino?

Not just Suffolk Downs, but the entire state (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/activists_begin_effort_for_bal.html). I've known John Ribeiro for thirty years. This is a well organized and committed group, with connections across the state.

Check out the gorgeous rendering of the Biscayne Bay proposal! Just like Suffolk Downs, right?

Calls to mind Zaha Hadid's unbuilt proposal for the NYC Olympic Village.

Because of the mature resort economy, a city like Miami might be able to support a proposal like this, but I'm not familiar with the political or business landscape in South Florida.

TheRifleman
12-22-2011, 11:28 AM
If Coakley approves the petition, activists will have 90 days from approval of the law to collect 34,456 signatures of registered voters to qualify the referendum for next year's ballot. Ribeiro said it will be a volunteer effort to collect signatures and that about 50,000 will need to be collected to provide a margin of safety.

Under the process, the attorney general would prepare a summary of the law to be repealed. The secretary of state's office would prepare forms with the summary for the purposes of gathering voter signatures.

If Coakley clears the repeal to go forward, Ribeiro said he is confident that people can collect enough signatures to place the referendum on the ballot.

I don't trust Coakley she is part of the problem. If it clears for the ballot it will be interesting to see what the majority will vote for Gambling or not to gamble. But at least it will be OUR VOTE not theirs.

I'm proud of you Beton. Thank god somebody actually cares.

Call me if we have to go old school Shirey Ave.

mass88
12-22-2011, 12:29 PM
Beton, you will enjoy this - Florida considers mega-casinos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml61xnOGRYk&feature=player_embedded

Check out the gorgeous rendering of the Biscayne Bay proposal! Just like Suffolk Downs, right?

That Miami project looks ridiculous. The renders and videos make the thing look way out of scale. Not to mention the hotels on South Beach are non too happy about this thing getting built. The developers seem to think people will bypass Las Vegas and instead make the trip down to Miami which I find laughable.

Shepard
12-22-2011, 12:47 PM
What makes this ridiculous? Much of waterfront Miami, and even some of Miami Beach, is private, suplerblocky high rise scale. The city and region is already known primarily as a leisure destination. What city would you say could be a more credible rival to Vegas? Cleveland? A revitalized Atlantic City (not happening)...?

What's kind of ridiculous to me is that, in one of the most affluent, most populous and largest-by-area countries in the world, we have exactly one catch-all mecca for gambling and entertainment which is located (completely unsustainably) in a west coast desert along a strip of road with all the charm of Route 1 in Saugus.

whighlander
12-23-2011, 02:50 AM
Not just Suffolk Downs, but the entire state (http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/activists_begin_effort_for_bal.html). I've known John Ribeiro for thirty years. This is a well organized and committed group, with connections across the state.



Total waste of time and if it makes the ballot a ridiculous amount of money will be spent on dulling TV commercials

People want to gamble -- look at the success of the Mass Lottery -- and now that they have gotten the agreement of the legislature the ball is rolling

I'm willing to bet that Suffolk will not get a "casino officially" -- but it will get the slots parlor -- just as in Twin Rivers -- it will be a casino except in name -- this will be up and running with 5,000 slots before the referendum can be voted up or down

Meanwhile Adelson and Wynn and their local front-men will dual it out -- if Adelson is really involved -- the stakes will get very high and its possible an "arrangement" will be found to allow both to build in eastern Mass.

Adelson is partial to cities and SPID next to the BCEC fits his model as a location for a Mega Casino / Hotel / Shopping, restaurant complex -- take a look at Marina Bay Sands in Singapore

Beton Brut
12-23-2011, 02:24 PM
Total waste of time...

I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

Ron Newman
12-23-2011, 02:28 PM
Democracy is never "a waste of time". Let people decide once and for all if they want casinos or not.

whighlander
12-23-2011, 11:23 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

Bet -- my 'neighbors" in Lexington are classic NIMBYs -- aside from McMansions they don't seem to really want anything constructed

Despite the photographic evidence of two buildings of 3 story height in the Center which existed at the turn of the 20th Century the project which replaced a derelict "motor hotel" with condos and some shops was unable to get permission for another story. Despite a desperate shortage of parking space the town has been unable to build a 2 story (1 under ground) parking structure behind the CVS

However, even in Lexington BIG MONEY seems to work wonders -- when Shire (Big Pharma) moved into the old Raytheon HQ campus on the corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128 the NIMBYs didn't do their homework to see what the property was permitted for 'by right" -- Shire has now constructed a complex at least 5X the size of the old Raytheon cluster of smallish buildings and may still build more

As for whether a casino is detrimental to the local environment -- it is entirely determined by the nature and quality of the construction and the operation including the clientele -- in that way a casino is no different than any retail complex

Beton Brut
12-24-2011, 11:54 AM
...when Shire (Big Pharma) moved into the old Raytheon HQ campus on the corner of Rt-2 and Rt-128 the NIMBYs didn't do their homework to see what the property was permitted for 'by right" -- Shire has now constructed a complex at least 5X the size of the old Raytheon cluster of smallish buildings and may still build more

We have this sort of thing (http://www.archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=121592&postcount=3) in East Boston as well.

As for whether a casino is detrimental to the local environment -- it is entirely determined by the nature and quality of the construction and the operation including the clientele -- in that way a casino is no different than any retail complex

This seems like a well reasoned assertion, but longitudinal studies based on the "lessons learned" in other states would suggest otherwise. I'm in a good mood, so I'm not going to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty. You're a bright guy -- do some research on the issue. Promised a goose full of golden eggs, some states (most notably Pennsylvania) have found only a fat bird that shits where ever it goes; I believe four states are bailing out casinos that they green-lighted less than a decade ago. I say we keep that goose in someone else's yard.

TheRifleman
12-24-2011, 01:48 PM
Total waste of time and if it makes the ballot a ridiculous amount of money will be spent on dulling TV commercials

People want to gamble -- look at the success of the Mass Lottery -- and now that they have gotten the agreement of the legislature the ball is rolling


gapore

Then let the people of mass decide if they want casinos. Why isn't Internet gambling legal if gambling is becoming legal in every state?

What about the 55million that deval Patrick gave to Evergreen now bankrupt?
We are letting losers like deval Patrick to decide what is good for us in our state instead of the people of mass. Just like when he gave evergreen the
taxpayers money. How did that turn out? I'm wondering if the Evergreen
executives who voted for Deval Patrick are going to return their personal bonuses to the taxpayers?

At least let the people of mass vote.

GW2500
12-24-2011, 02:21 PM
CT has casinos. CT is still an affluent state w/ more economic opportunity than plenty of countries. Casinos in Mass will have the exact same affect. I think the general population will vote for it. Frankly what Mass. needs is to further separate it's self from its boring puritan ways. We're on the right track, liquor stores are now open on Sundays, weed decriminalized. Casinos is another step towards that (I'm a grown ass man and want to have some non-Disney fun) progress. Nightlife is a major aspect to cities, casinos help enhance that scene, which Boston could use. NYC has many vices that turn people out and yet you still go and love the edgy vibe it has. Probably wouldn't be as fun if it was entirely safe and sin-free.

Beton Brut
12-24-2011, 03:13 PM
I understand your point of view, GW, but I think it unwise to simply shrug and say "why not." Care to take a stab at answering my questions in Post #143?

GW2500
12-24-2011, 03:59 PM
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

Yes, I believe it limits the amount of casinos to three. That's diluted enough for me to believe that this state's bread and butter remains what it is, and we just have some more venues for adults to enjoy. I believe CT is the same state it was before the casinos came in. Keep in mind it creates a whole lot of jobs for people. Specifically for the ones who couldn't/didn't go to school till they were 30. That's not the economic black hole that casinos always get broadly painted with. And I think for every one story you would hear about some degenerate losing his life savings at the slots, I think there will be two people who pay their bills b/c they work at the casino.

Sicilian
12-25-2011, 07:05 AM
I respectfully disagree.

Do you feel that this legislation represents intelligent public policy? Are you clear on the economic implications for the Commonwealth? Can you point me to a location in the U.S. where a gaming establishment enhances the quality of life in its host community? Would your neighbors in Lexington roll over for this sort of thing if it were proposed at Hanscom Field?

My point a few weeks ago was that we are getting a casino, like it or not. So let's figure out where it's going.

But since some (Beton Brut et. al.) are up for the challenge...

Given the predatory nature of the lottery and gambling, I'd suggest that it represents a failure of leadership, taxation and budget policy. The fact that people want to go to a casino is irrelevant to a discussion of impacts. If they really thought casinos were great for community and society they'd suggest there should be slot machines in every movie theater lobby across the USA. They don't, and that's why Las Vegas was built in a desert.

I have no problem with a casino in a desert. I'm not clear why an existing neighborhood should have a casino rammed in. Do supporters believe the existing community should vote up or down and let the chips fall where they may? No.

What's worse is that Massachusetts has a notorious history of political patronage, agencies detached from voters with unelected patronage hires milking off public land and resources. Casinos are a magnet for patronage and it's going to get ugly QUICK.

RECOMMENDATION: Rather addressing opposition through the courts, maybe a parallel approach would be to put public officials supporting casinos on notice NOW that they will have strong challengers. Opponents in office should immediately propose legislation banning elected officials from consulting or working for casinos for 10 years.

Yeah, I'd love to go to a casino with 10 friends, have a few drinks and play a few hands. But what I want has to be weighed against the impacts on its host community. That's what I'd expect from others across town if someone proposed a casino in my neighborhood.

Good luck.

PS. From today's NYT, may have bearing on the debate:
Ruling by Justice Dept. Opens a Door on Online Gambling
By EDWARD WYATT
New York officials welcomed a legal opinion removing a big obstacle for states that want to sanction Internet gaming to help fix their budget deficits.

Beton Brut
12-25-2011, 10:03 AM
Thanks for your thoughtful post, Sicilian.

State legislators grudgingly put a one-year waiting period on employment at a gaming establishment. (There's footage of the debate on YouTube.)

Time to get into my folks coffin-sized kitchen. I'm cooking for ten today. Happy-Merry!

TheRifleman
12-27-2011, 08:22 AM
Mass. gambling threatens Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun
Already in debt, Conn. facilities brace for rivals
By Andrew Caffrey
Globe Staff / December 27, 2011
LEDYARD, Conn. - Kyle Dacey is a regular at Foxwoods Resort Casino, driving the 100 miles from Brookline as often as five times a month. And he knows exactly what he’ll do once new casinos open in Massachusetts.

Related
Foxborough prepares for heated debate
“There is no reason to drive an hour and a half when there’s one 20 minutes away,’’ said the 28-year-old Dacey as he concluded a recent evening of card-playing at Foxwoods.

Meanwhile, at the nearby Mohegan Sun casino, Dracut couple Luiza and Greg Harding recently caught a show by pop star Jennifer Lopez. They occasionally go for the full package - dinner, a show, maybe a little gambling, and a relaxing overnight.

The Hardings would certainly prefer to be entertained closer to home, but said they could be persuaded to return if Connecticut casinos make it worth their while, with special deals on hotel rooms, for example, and other promotions.

Such is the challenge facing the once invincible gambling tandem of Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun that - even before the threat of losing customers to Massachusetts - was struggling with declining revenues and big debts. The two are now plotting for the day when they will outright lose customers such as Dacey and scramble to keep those like the Hardings.

Industry specialists estimate that Connecticut’s two casinos could lose as much as 20 percent of their business to Massachusetts and other new competitors, in a mature market that is not producing many new gamblers to replace them.

“I don’t know where they go. Neither has much capacity to respond,’’ said Richard McGowan, an economist at Boston College who studies the casino industry.

While the recession was hard on the casinos, each remains a $1 billion enterprise and their executives said business appears to have stabilized lately.

Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have mapped out overlapping strategies that will have them competing against each other even more intensely - for customers who live nearby and for the high rollers who flit from casino to casino, depending on the personal service and gambling adventure that awaits them.

In other respects their strategies diverge. Foxwoods, for example, aims to expand its convention meeting business, while the parent company of Mohegan Sun is trying to diversify with casinos in other states, including Massachusetts.

Foxwoods is the bigger of the two, a sprawling complex that rises from the Connecticut woods. Its roots go back to a bingo hall operated in 1986 by the Mashantucket Pequots, who opened the first casino in 1992. The Mohegans followed four years later, and their brightly lit 34-story tower can easily been seen from downtown Norwich a few miles away.

Both were immensely successful from the start. Foxwoods is the second-largest casino resort in the world, with four hotels, 6,600 slot machines, and 348 table games. Though smaller, Mohegan Sun does more business: about $1.25 billion in 2010, to Foxwoods’s $1.18 billion, said Clyde Barrow, who runs the New England Gaming Research Project at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth.Continued...

So many people troop through the casinos - tens of thousands on a good weekend - that executives joke about having to change the custom-designed carpets every few years. The two casinos each pay 25 percent of slot proceeds to Connecticut, and over the years have pumped nearly $6 billion into the state’s treasury.

But since the recession Foxwoods and Mohegan have experienced a deep dropoff in business - around 20 percent each, according to Barrow’s calculations.

And now the advent of competition will eat into their base further. Foxwoods is arguably the more vulnerable, as it has bigger debt and a higher percentage of customers from Massachusetts, as much as 30 percent, compared to Mohegan’s 20 percent.

Scott Butera, Foxwoods’ chief executive, acknowledged the customer loss could get as high as 20 percent, but believes it won’t be so severe that Foxwoods will have to close portions of its complex. Instead, Butera suggested, he will be nipping and tucking - replacing underperforming slots areas with different uses, such as newer retail concepts, or refreshing stores, restaurants, and entertainment venues to make them more attractive and profitable.

“We don’t anticipate closing’’ operations, Butera said. “We may run them differently, scale them differently. Maybe we don’t need 6,000 gaming devices.’’

Like his counterparts at Mohegan Sun, Butera says Foxwoods will have to do a better job with its remaining customers. That means relying more heavily on loyalty programs that track how often customers visit and what they spend and reward them with points toward meals and other benefits, such as free hotel stays. The idea is that as customers accrue more points or benefits they remain loyal to that casino and, ideally, willing to spend more before switching to a competitor.

Butera also plans to promote Foxwoods within a larger experience, wooing customers with its proximity to the nearby Connecticut coastline and its many attractions.

“We have to be cognizant of what gives us a bit of a competitive advantage - a retreat away from the city, Butera said. “We have to be more than a casino with gaming devices.’’

Foxwoods is also pushing a major asset: a convention facility with an expansive ballroom. Butera has brought in new managers to expand the business, targeting anything from weddings to meetings of large companies. But this, too, is a fiercely competitive business threatened by overbuilding; many free-standing publicly owned convention centers, for example, typically operate at a loss.

At Mohegan Sun, Mitchell Grossinger Estess, the company’s chief executive, said the casino will better promote on-site amenities such as brand-name restaurants from chefs Bobby Flay and Todd English, and headliner acts, including upcoming shows by country music stars Reba McEntire and Toby Keith.

“What you have to do is to get those people who’ve made no trips to make two trips and three trips to Mohegan Sun. You do that by having activities, having entertainment, by having events like Jennifer Lopez,’’ said Estess, adding that he wants to make “people realize, ‘You know, that’s a real cool place.’ ’’

While Mohegan Sun has fewer customers from Massachusetts than Foxwoods, at 20 percent it’s still a sizable portion. Mohegan is also a tad closer to New York, which now has a huge slots facility at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens that threatens to further drain business from the Connecticut casinos.

The casino’s operator, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, is expanding outside Connecticut, with a casino in Pennsylvania, and another under development with partners in the Catskills. Mohegan is also expected to be a formidable bidder for the gaming license for Western Massachusetts, where it has a site in Palmer.

The biggest issue is debt, and each has been in long talks with lenders.

Mohegan owes about $1.6 billion, about half of which is due next year - bills it accrued financing its expansion over the years. Left unresolved, the debt issue could hamper its expansion.

Foxwoods owes creditors $2.1 billion and has defaulted on payments as far back as 2009. It was especially hurt by the recession because it opened a fourth hotel, the MGM Grand in 2008, whereas Mohegan Sun cut short an $800 million expansion when the economy turned.

Butera was hired last year based on his experience running troubled casinos.

Foxwoods has cut payroll, and crucially, the Pequots agreed that individual tribe members would forgo cash stipends from Foxwoods; Barrows estimated that freed up as much as $40 million a year.

Butera said Foxwoods is close to a refinancing agreement with its lenders, with new repayment terms that will give it enough breathing room to respond to the Massachusetts competition. Though the terms under discussion are not available, financial specialists said troubled casinos have gotten new loans from lenders in exchange for wiping out portions of their debts. But renegotiating such amounts is difficult enough without the added complication that in a few short years Foxwoods’s income will probably drop significantly.

“They’re talking a lot of bravado, but they’re obviously in deep trouble,’’ said Barrow. “They’re boxed in by their debt, and so are their creditors.’’

Andrew Caffrey can be reached at caffrey@globe.com.
© Copyright 2011 Globe Newspaper Company.


Looks like the Board of Directors for Foxwoods and Mohegan should all be FIRED for not protecting their interests.

Sicilian
12-28-2011, 09:11 AM
The fight is going to get ugly.

Pro or con, one has to recognize that these are populated cities with direct impacts on residents who have invested their lives there, not a desert, a remote reservation, or citizenry desperate for major change.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/30085817/detail.html

TheRifleman
12-28-2011, 05:15 PM
Martha Coakley: We’re watching
Attorney general warns prospective operators
By Chris Cassidy
Wednesday, December 28, 2011 - Updated 9 hours ago



E-mail Print (96) Comments Text size Share Hawkeyed Attorney General Martha Coakley has a stern warning for casino operators planning to bring the multibillion-dollar industry and its troubling track record of corruption, crime and legal hijinks to the Bay State: We’re watching you.

“If you’re looking to do business in Massachusetts, you better be prepared,” Coakley told the Herald in an exclusive interview yesterday. “We intend to ... make sure everyone plays by the rules and the rules are tough enough to make sure we do this successfully. Otherwise, it won’t work in Massachusetts.”

The Herald yesterday detailed the corruption, fraud and damaging political scandals that have plagued other states with casinos. The long rap sheet even included casino developers hoping to do business in the Bay State.

Among the findings of the Herald report: A scathing grand jury report in May slammed Pennsylvania’s new gaming board as a secretive patronage haven that’s failed to properly screen casino investors; two casino investors in Iowa were charged last year with making illegal campaign donations to the state’s former governor to influence a gambling license; and a federal probe launched last summer into a $1 million consulting contract between a casino and a company owned by a Florida congressman’s mother.

“It’s extremely important that we send the message to the industry, from Massachusetts, that we intend to do this right,” Coakley said. “That we’ll be monitoring it, hold accountable those who violate the law, and if I feel we don’t have the tools we need, I’ll be the first to ask the Legislature for the tools to do this right.”

Asked whether the corruption and fraud seen elsewhere are a foregone conclusion in a state where three successive speakers have been convicted of felonies, Coakley said: “I’d like to think it’s not inevitable, but I think it’s potentially inherent in the nature of the industry.”

By statute, Coakley must appoint someone with a strong law-enforcement background to the five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission. She also plans to staff a new gaming enforcement division with state police and civilian investigators smart enough to keep up with the ever-evolving sophistication of white-collar crime.

Campaign finance and conflict-of-interest violations are also a concern, she added.

“We’ve really stressed the need for transparency and disclosure,” Coakley said. “If we don’t have that, we will have the problems seen coming out of Pennsylvania, Iowa and the other states outlined in the Herald (yesterday).”

Coakley said she’s had long talks with the attorneys general in Nevada — the nation’s casino capital — and New Jersey, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, who as attorney general launched a probe into that state’s scandal-ridden gambling industry.

“We need to learn from each of these states what has worked and what hasn’t,” Coakley said.

Asked whether casinos will go any more smoothly than the grotesquely mismanaged Big Dig, Coakley said Massachusetts has learned its lessons and they’re fresh in regulators’ minds.

“We saw a phenomenal lack of oversight and appropriate management,” she said of the public works fiasco. “We’re not going to make that mistake with this

This is comical. The only fiasco in the room is Martha Coakley.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/2011_1228ag_on_casinos_eyes_wide_open_coakley_warn s_prospective_operators/

whighlander
01-04-2012, 10:32 AM
Then let the people of mass decide if they want casinos. Why isn't Internet gambling legal if gambling is becoming legal in every state?

What about the 55million that deval Patrick gave to Evergreen now bankrupt?
We are letting losers like deval Patrick to decide what is good for us in our state instead of the people of mass. Just like when he gave evergreen the
taxpayers money. How did that turn out? I'm wondering if the Evergreen
executives who voted for Deval Patrick are going to return their personal bonuses to the taxpayers?

At least let the people of mass vote.

Riff -- unfortunately they did -- and they put in place the current aggregation of House, Senate and Governor

Since we are a republic --- we have put in their hands the decision process -- come November we can remove some (not the Governor however for another 2 years)

whighlander
01-04-2012, 10:43 AM
My point a few weeks ago was that we are getting a casino, like it or not. So let's figure out where it's going.

But since some (Beton Brut et. al.) are up for the challenge...

Given the predatory nature of the lottery and gambling, I'd suggest that it represents a failure of leadership, taxation and budget policy. The fact that people want to go to a casino is irrelevant to a discussion of impacts. If they really thought casinos were great for community and society they'd suggest there should be slot machines in every movie theater lobby across the USA. They don't, and that's why Las Vegas was built in a desert.

:

Sicil -- Las Vegas began as a collection of whore houses associated with the railroad and mining -- but it grew into its first generation incarnation as R&R for the Hoover Dam construction crew-- nobody planned it

Its later much bigger incarnations were connected with the power (the lights and the AC) and the water for Caesar's, the Mirage, the Venetian, etc., provided by Lake Meade and Hoover Dam. The burgeoning demand was supplied by various military operations in the vicinity including the Nevada est Site.

There was an era of outright mob ownership -- but eventually, Vegas became much more tame and a family oriented and business convention entertainment environment -- the gambling is important of course -- but much of the operations in the major casino complexes are driven by attendance at events at the mammoth Las Vegas Convent on Center and the independent but often coordinated convention facilities at the major hotel casino complexes such as the Sands Expo and Convention Center and Venetian Congress facility

The easiest way to see the importance of conventions and trade shows in Las Vegas' is to look at the price of hotel rooms in the casino hotel complexes -- they can range by approximately 10X between the week after the CES or "World of Concrete" and the week of including the weekend for final set-up

It is totally intellectually dishonest to associate casinos in Boston with the mob in Vegas or the slums a block from the boardwalk in Atlantic City -- Boston will not repeat the history and mayhem associated with the early Las Vegas nor the already unseemly history associated with New Jersey and Atlantic City prior to the casinos arrival.

Look instead to the overseas Global Cities such as Hong Kong and Singapore with their world class casinos associated with conference venues, exposition halls and big ticket entertainment.


See for instance to reports such as:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/casinos_gambling/online_gaming/prweb8121151.htm


" Global Casinos Market to Reach US$101.30 Billion by 2015, According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.

GIA announces the release of a comprehensive global report on Casinos market. The global market for casinos is forecast to reach US$101.30 billion by the year 2015, powered by growing popularity of gambling, legalizing of casinos by several governments, huge capital inflows and development of attractive new casino destinations. Existing casinos are becoming more plush, luxurious and world-class havens for entertainment and gambling. In addition to existing and thriving casino businesses in traditional hotspots such as Las Vegas and Macau, development of new locations worldwide is bound to push the boundaries for future growth and expansion. "

Another way to look at Las Vegas -- while its economy is not nearly as broad as Boston's and substantially beaten down by the recession (particularly its housing bubble) -- in 199 or 2000 or so -- the once wide spot in the road through the desert became as important an airline location (McCarran International Airport) as the much older and presumably wiser "Birthplace of Liberty and / or Hub of the Universe aka the Athens of America" -- now Vegas McCarran is handling at least 10% more passengers than Logan

I believe that with Addelson, Wynn and the other major players -- Boston will be there with Singapore (one of our peer cities in the Knowledge Economy)

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 03:46 AM
Use casino leverage to fix Filene’s site
January 10, 2012

Save THE BOSTON City Council is forming a special committee on gaming so the body will look like it is actually debating whether or not to bring casinos to town. The council’s leader also suggested last week that the committee could be useful in pressuring one potential casino developer to patch the hole it owns in downtown Boston. Despite all the big talk, neither move looks like it will be of much effect.

The Menino administration, which almost always gets it way over the council, seems determined to place a casino at Suffolk Downs and allow only its East Boston neighbors to have a say on it. That means the new council committee will have no real leverage with which to threaten Vornado Realty Trust, the firm that is both the creator the Filene’s pit downtown and a 20 percent owner of Suffolk Downs.

But if it really wanted to, the new committee could create genuine pressure on Vornado, and truly hold the developer accountable for blowing a crater in Boston’s downtown shopping district three years ago. It’s as easy as subjecting Vornado’s East Boston casino proposal to a citywide referendum.

In Boston, the casino question is about whether the firm that bulldozed Filene’s gets to open a lucrative business. Mayor Menino has already said as much. The longtime Suffolk Downs booster isn’t believable playing the bad cop, though.

There won’t be any real debate inside the council about bringing casinos to Boston because the council is dominated by two types of politicians - those who are owned and operated by Menino, and those who know that going to war with the mayor means the end of one’s political life. The pragmatists are smart enough to pretend to lack ambition beyond the council, while the others owe their livelihood to Hizzoner.

There’s an easy way to put some teeth behind these threats. Bostonians should call the bluff.

This combination of loyalty and fear usually ensures that Menino gets what he needs from the council. Since he now wants to be sure that a casino lands at Suffolk Downs, he needs the council to decline to hold a citywide referendum on bringing gambling to Boston.

The state’s recently enacted casino law requires local approval of any gambling facility, but legislative supporters of a casino at Suffolk Downs exempted Boston from automatically having to hold a citywide vote, instead allowing the City Council to call for a referendum if it so chooses. Casino proponents wrote the law this way because the council will ultimately do whatever Menino wants it do, and right now, he wants the council to provide Suffolk Downs with the path of least resistance. This means limiting democracy to East Boston, where the vote’s outcome can most easily be controlled.

For Menino and the council, the purpose of dodging a citywide vote is setting up a slam-dunk local approval. But if local approvals are already in the bag, Menino and the City Council don’t have any real sticks to threaten Vornado with. Council President Steve Murphy spoke last week of using the new gaming committee to send a tough message to Vornado. The city has tried this avenue already. It’s been blowing hot rhetoric at Vornado for over three years. Threats and name-calling have failed miserably.

Vornado can do whatever it wants with its downtown pit. The city can’t compel the developer to build - at least without some powerful new leverage in hand. City officials are hoping the threat of holding up a Suffolk Downs casino will light a fire under Vornado, but after rigging the casino law in a Boston casino’s favor, the suggestion that the Menino administration would follow through on its threats and block a Suffolk Downs casino is just not plausible. Vornado knows this, so City Hall’s newest threats are falling flat.

There’s an easy way to put some teeth behind these threats. Bostonians should call the bluff, and make the City Council put its shiny new committee to real use by forcing a citywide referendum on Suffolk Downs and Vornado. Doing so would force Menino to relinquish control of the casino approval process. But it would also throw a legitimate scare into Vornado - something Menino has been unable to do. As long as the Filene’s pit is festering, why should these blight barons stay in business?

Good luck Beton they are not even going to ask the Revere Residents. That is pretty disrespectful since I feel Suffolk Downs is right on the border. What a disgrace.

I would love to know the backroom deals on this corruption.
Sorry pal you will never see this on the ballot.


http://bostonglobe.com/opinion/columns/2012/01/10/use-casino-leverage-fix-filene-site/vsnaVB0Y5mnTpzHo84I8hI/story.html

Ron Newman
01-10-2012, 07:48 AM
If the casino development crosses the city line, then Revere has to vote on it also. *All* of Revere, unlike Boston.

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 07:53 AM
^^^^
This is a done deal. Some major players in the state that want this casino at Suffolk Downs. I believe the cards have been already dealt.

The only thing keeping this casino out is a revolt from the public. I don't see that happening.

Sicilian
01-10-2012, 07:54 AM
A priest will represent the down side to Boston's commercial investment community during this discussion (http://www.naiopma.org/index.php?src=events&srctype=detail&refno=107&category=Main%20Event).

HenryAlan
01-10-2012, 08:41 AM
There’s an easy way to put some teeth behind these threats. Bostonians should call the bluff, and make the City Council put its shiny new committee to real use by forcing a citywide referendum on Suffolk Downs and Vornado. Doing so would force Menino to relinquish control of the casino approval process. But it would also throw a legitimate scare into Vornado - something Menino has been unable to do. As long as the Filene’s pit is festering, why should these blight barons stay in business?

I'm a bit confused. Isn't the question one of city-wide rather than an Eastie only vote? Why would the city as a whole be more likely to oppose the casino than just the neighborhood where it would be built? Unless my understanding of the local approval provision is incorrect, the Globe seems to be advocating for something that would lessen Menino's leverage with Vernado.

Sicilian
01-10-2012, 08:49 AM
And why should a thumbs up or down on the casino be used as leverage on Filenes Hole in the first place?

A casino at Suffolk Downs would have impacts of a significantly greater impact than the hole in its present condition. This should be the discussion, for or against.

And we all know that Filenes Hole is destined to be developed at some point.

There must be some other agenda at work here.

Ron Newman
01-10-2012, 08:49 AM
With a citywide vote, voters could threaten to vote No unless Vornado finds a way to develop or unload the Filene's property.

It's totally reasonable to tell a developer that if you can't competently manage and finish development A, you don't get to do development B.

HenryAlan
01-10-2012, 08:58 AM
With a citywide vote, voters could threaten to vote No unless Vornado finds a way to develop or unload the Filene's property.

It's totally reasonable to tell a developer that if you can't competently manage and finish development A, you don't get to do development B.

Ron, I don't disagree with the premise that we should hold Vernado accountable. But as a strategy, I think leaving the vote to the people who might really be against the casino works better than opening it up to a larger group that might not care so much about negative impact.

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 09:01 AM
Don't forget Hynes was the developer of Filenes from the get go. And what doe the BRA do when VORNADO FIRES Hynes. The BRA then gives HYNES the greenlight for the Seaport District development.

I think Vornado and Menino are nothing more than noise. I don't think Menino cares about the hole in DTX. If he did he would position himself to get something down.

Seriously how bad does Menino want this casino in East Boston/Revere line. Menino must see the pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow. This might be his Lucky Charms box of cearel.

I was still wondering if Kinvely is deleting emails as the casino process continues to move forward?

AdamBC
01-10-2012, 01:11 PM
A priest will represent the down side to Boston's commercial investment community during this discussion (http://www.naiopma.org/index.php?src=events&srctype=detail&refno=107&category=Main%20Event).

Fr McGowan has done extensive studies on gambling and its effects on communities and government. Not a bad voice of reason for the downside to casinos.

http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/schools/csom/faculty/bios/mcgowan.html

whighlander
01-10-2012, 01:13 PM
Rif -- it really is quite simple:

If you have a Ph.D. or even an M.S> in cell biology, biochemistry, the new discipline of biological engineering -- you have your choice of employers on a nearly global scale

Make those degrees a B.S. and the picking is slimmer, make it a B.A. (still much more common) and you will eventually find a job as the unemployment rate for any 4 year college degree is 5%

But if you are the Mayah of a city with still a lot of Blue Collar High School or GED graduates and some even who didn't finish 10th grade -- how do you keep the crowd happy

You get them a job in the one boom part of the local economy that doesn't require a college degree -- Hospitality

What is more hospitable than a mega casino and hotel complex to be built on the Blue Line (2000 potential jobs) for the Blue Collar crowd

Nuff said

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 01:19 PM
Rif -- it really is quite simple:

If you have a Ph.D. or even an M.S> in cell biology, biochemistry, the new discipline of biological engineering -- you have your choice of employers on a nearly global scale

Make those degrees a B.S. and the picking is slimmer, make it a B.A. (still much more common) and you will eventually find a job as the unemployment rate for any 4 year college degree is 5%

But if you are the Mayah of a city with still a lot of Blue Collar High School or GED graduates and some even who didn't finish 10th grade -- how do you keep the crowd happy
You get them a job in the one boom part of the local economy that doesn't require a college degree -- Hospitality

What is more hospitable than a mega casino and hotel complex to be built on the Blue Line (2000 potential jobs) for the Blue Collar crowd

Nuff said



So instead of educated people that worked hard their whole life by going to college to succeed we get the DUMB dropouts running things at the casino. Now you know why we need taxpayers money to build everything around here.

Whigh ^^^^

One of your better posts..........

Sicilian
01-10-2012, 01:32 PM
Fr McGowan has done extensive studies on gambling and its effects on communities and government. Not a bad voice of reason for the downside to casinos.

http://www.bc.edu/content/bc/schools/csom/faculty/bios/mcgowan.html

I applaud Father McGowan.

He is participating in a summit headlined by this statement:

"Casinos are coming to Massachusetts. Investors and developers are clamoring to be a part of the process."

My point was that Fr McGowan voice appears to be marginal relative to the agenda of the rest of the speakers and the audience. It is not a commentary on him, I am making the point that the discussion in Boston's investment community is already tipping the scales.

PS. Let me add, Adam, I meant no disrespect to Fr McGowan and actually am personally in line with his position.

Beton Brut
01-10-2012, 01:35 PM
Why would the city as a whole be more likely to oppose the casino than just the neighborhood where it would be built?

Promoting "jobs" and "community benefits" and "highway improvements" (and an untold litany of other horseshit) to the voters of East Boston and Revere through forums sponsored by elected officials (who are vocal proponents of both expanded gaming and the Suffolk Downs casino proposal) is perceived to be an easier sell than promoting it to the entire City of Boston.

There must be some other agenda at work here.

...I think leaving the vote to the people who might really be against the casino works better than opening it up to a larger group that might not care so much about negative impact.

Menino and the elected officials representing East Boston (likely in coordination with those in Revere, and Speaker DeLeo in Winthrop) are selling their constituents a bill of goods. The "empowerment" language for host-communities is a bit of a red-herring.

It's addition (to their influence) by subtraction (of educated opponents elsewhere in Boston):
"You get to decide what happens at Suffolk Downs" + "There's jobs, and little league uniforms, and free icecream" = "Casino at Suffolk Downs."

In a recent communique to a growing network of gaming opponents, I said: If we allow our elected officials to control the venue, tone, and content of any public discourse around expanded gambling (in and beyond our communities), we run the risk of surrendering the result they've already come forward to advocate.

Recently, a neighbor forwarded me a listing on Craigslist that lead me to this survey (https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/2Y6CX3X), offering focus group attendees $100 for their opinion on "neighborhood issues." Anyone have a thought on who might be sponsoring three sessions @ $100/opinion? I signed up, but haven't heard back -- if I attend this event, it'll be in the context of intelligence gathering, and I'll put the $100 toward opposition activities.


But if you are the Mayah of a city with still a lot of Blue Collar High School or GED graduates and some even who didn't finish 10th grade -- how do you keep the crowd happy[?]

You get them a job in the one boom part of the local economy that doesn't require a college degree -- Hospitality

And to think I wasted seven years on college and grad school...

whighlander
01-10-2012, 01:52 PM
Promoting "jobs" and "community benefits" and "highway improvements" (and an untold litany of other horseshit) to the voters of East Boston and Revere through forums sponsored by elected officials (who are vocal proponents of both expanded gaming and the Suffolk Downs casino proposal) is perceived to be an easier sell than promoting it to the entire City of Boston.
....


And to think I wasted seven years on college and grad school...

Bet -- I went to school from age 4 (1/2 nursery school) to age 29 (Ph.D. defense and finishing the editing)

i really enjoy those telephone surveys which always finish by saying "can I ask you about your education background for demographic purposes" --- they start 12 years or less, 16 years .. .and say keep going till you get to 23 9they don't even count kindergarten)

however I don't begrudge someone with only 1/2 as many years of education earning an honest living moving someone's suitcases or tending bar, dealing cards, sweeping, etc.

Massachusetts has the highest percentage of College (4 year) graduates of any state (25%) and Boston is even a bit ahead of the Commonwealth -- but that still leaves 3/4 of the adult population who are the modern version of my father's sister who finished high school and then got a job sewing shoes.

Except that there are no shoe factories or most any of the other traditional "blue" or even "pink' collar jobs

A major exception is the hospitality / entertainment industry which is fiendishly difficult to automate and so will continue to provide jobs for those who for whatever reason don't get Ph.D.s in experimental sciences or engineering.

Don't be so elitist

Beton Brut
01-10-2012, 01:59 PM
Don't be so elitist

On the contrary, working-class people deserve livable communities. Help me understand how a casino will make any urban neighborhood more livable, and more attractive people with school-aged children (regardless of socioeconomics).

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 02:20 PM
^^^
Whats wrong with constant smokers, drinking and all night gambling. I might actually move to Revere. Yeah this is great for the NIMBYS........Another Night club where all the gang bangers and drug dealers out of Lynn, Everett, Chelsea, East Boston and Revere can hang out. Welcome to BIFF'S CASINO at Suffolk Downs.
This will be the downfall to those areas heading right in the direction of DETRIOT. It's like the Nuclear Bomb of social economics for this part of the state.

Those areas were actually shaping up since the 70's and 80's right back down the drain.........Revere Beach will be the new desert to plant the degenerates that can't make the weekly vig. What a ashame.

I wouldn't complain if I was one of the owners. The investors involved in this project will clean up.

whighlander
01-10-2012, 02:29 PM
On the contrary, working-class people deserve livable communities. Help me understand how a casino will make any urban neighborhood more livable, and more attractive people with school-aged children (regardless of socioeconomics).

How is a casino really different than a theme restaurant or one of those fancy movie theaters with the 'stadium seats" or for that matter a sports stadium

In all of the above people come to spend some money gratuitously -- they don't get a product or a vital service -- its just play

And don't tell me about poor people who can't afford to play a slot machine occasionally -- note I'm not talking about gambling addicts any more than I'm taking about alcoholics at a theme restaurant and bar

The key in all the above is that our society has evolved to the point that in the U.S. today -- a significant part of nearly everybody's income is expended on gratuitous purchases far above the threshold required for survival.

When I'm in Vegas I usually drop $20 to $50 on slots and play for a few hours -- then I go back to my room. My wife thinks that when I'm home that I spend too much time on the computer and / or watching TV with the dog -- she would rather read a book a night or so. Casios, lottery tickets, keno, the "President's picks for the NCAA basketball final 4" all are just vehicles for adult play -- of the "gaming" nature. So I really can not find any argument against the business of a legally operated casino.

To that argument you couple the requirements of $1B + investment in a "destination casino / hotel complex" -- you are not going to be talking about some back-alley operation. the kind of operation proposed by Kraft / Wynn or Vornado / Suffolk or Adelson will provide thousands of jobs for all manner of skills and levels from dealing cards to managing a significant computer / communications infrastructure, vacuuming carpets and vacuuming coins from slots, mixing drinks, parking cars, making beds, making reservations, cleaning sinks, fixing light fixtures, cooking, baking, driving trucks, etc.,etc.

As a model take away the office aspects of Pru / Copley complex and what is left: hotels, restaurants, shops, and the Hynes is a fair guess at the scale of the casino we are discussing

nico
01-10-2012, 02:43 PM
settle down

Beton Brut
01-10-2012, 03:50 PM
Let me get my X-ACTO Knife:

How is a casino really different than a theme restaurant or one of those fancy movie theaters with the "stadium seats" or for that matter a sports stadium[?]

For one, non-gaming entertainment facilities don't create a financial profile of their customers. Here's what the IRS has to say (http://www.irs.gov/govt/tribes/article/0,,id=182041,00.html) in terms of federal regulation of casinos as financial institutions, able to grant credit to "qualified borrowers."

And here are the sorts of tools casinos use to profile their guests:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPdcXol6tSk

-- they don't get a product or a vital service -- its just play (http://www.phil.frb.org/community-development/publications/cascade/70/05_poverty-in-atlantic-city.cfm)

The key in all the above is that our society has evolved to the point that in the U.S. today -- a significant part of nearly everybody's income is expended on gratuitous purchases far above the threshold required for survival.

Given the fragility of the global economy, and how that effects the lives of individuals and families, is this a quality of contemporary American life that local and state governments should be trying to enhance (directly or indirectly)?

[T]he kind of operation proposed by Kraft / Wynn or Vornado / Suffolk or Adelson will provide thousands of jobs for all manner of skills and levels from dealing cards to managing a significant computer / communications infrastructure, vacuuming carpets and vacuuming coins from slots, mixing drinks, parking cars, making beds, making reservations, cleaning sinks, fixing light fixtures, cooking, baking, driving trucks, etc.,etc.

Casino operators spend tens of thousands of dollars training their high-skill staff. Given the failing state of the gaming industry elsewhere in the U.S., isn't it reasonable to think that relocating already-trained dealers, pit bosses, IT staff, and financial managers to Massachusetts from less profitable facilities will be a no-brainer? Low-skill jobs are a wash, if a hotel is built next to the Convention Center, or at a resort casino.

GW2500
01-10-2012, 04:03 PM
Promoting "jobs" and "community benefits" and "highway improvements" (and an untold litany of other horseshit) to the voters of East Boston and Revere through forums sponsored by elected officials (who are vocal proponents of both expanded gaming and the Suffolk Downs casino proposal) is perceived to be an easier sell than promoting it to the entire City of Boston.

.

Your clearly against this, how is having the community that it is closest to it having the only community say a bad thing? I can't see how that works against your cause, which I'm against.

"On the contrary, working-class people deserve livable communities. Help me understand how a casino will make any urban neighborhood more livable, and more attractive people with school-aged children (regardless of socioeconomics)"

Is this community going to live in this casino, cause otherwise they can just not go to it and they're lives stay the same. It's also relevant to note it's right next oil tanks. If you really want a better neighborhood around Suffolk Downs then those would most certainly have to go. I think you should at least entertain the thought that if it gets built your life won't really change and Suffolk Downs owes you something about as much as you owe it.

F-Line to Dudley
01-10-2012, 04:47 PM
Your clearly against this, how is having the community that it is closest to it having the only community say a bad thing? I can't see how that works against your cause, which I'm against.

"On the contrary, working-class people deserve livable communities. Help me understand how a casino will make any urban neighborhood more livable, and more attractive people with school-aged children (regardless of socioeconomics)"

Is this community going to live in this casino, cause otherwise they can just not go to it and they're lives stay the same. It's also relevant to note it's right next oil tanks. If you really want a better neighborhood around Suffolk Downs then those would most certainly have to go. I think you should at least entertain the thought that if it gets built your life won't really change and Suffolk Downs owes you something about as much as you owe it.

Or, rather:

"Would you've preferred the dog track came back?"

This is a hell of a lot more upscale than what's there before and the nothing that's there now. The communities are absolutely right at exercising caution with something the state may be moving way too fast to build, but there needs to be a distinction drawn between prudent caution and total fear of changing the status quo. The status quo ain't been so great for a very long time. Is that really preferable to an huge investment of new development they can have considerable say in shaping?

HenryAlan
01-10-2012, 05:27 PM
I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site. It is completely surrounded by neighborhood. That means an inward only focus, which is fine for the casino, but not at all good for the resort. I'd look for something that is actually on the harbor, rather than simply near the harbor. This makes me think that Menino figures he has a better chance of selling it in Eastie than he does in the proper location, which is the Seaport.

Beton Brut
01-10-2012, 08:45 PM
The communities are absolutely right at exercising caution with something the state may be moving way too fast to build...

My opposition to the concept of a casino at Suffolk Downs has become more nuanced over the past couple of years. My initial concerns were traffic on the already overburdened road infrastructure, but I've come to believe that though these concerns are real, there not the core of what makes expanded gaming a bad idea for the entire Commonwealth.

In the past couple of years since discussion and debate began, I've read up on the gaming industry quite a bit. I've spoken to many people with a variety of opinions on the topic and how it plays into real estate values, economic development, and social issues. I've also visited Atlantic City, and Ledyard, CT.

Let's begin with the interesting point Henry makes here:

I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site.

It must those oil tanks GW2500 mentions in his post:

It's also relevant to note it's right next oil tanks. If you really want a better neighborhood around Suffolk Downs then those would most certainly have to go.

Those oil tanks aren't going anyplace in the next 100 or so years. No one's gonna build a golf course there.

Nothing about the site says "resort," though the owners of Suffolk Downs are licking their chops at the prospect of a slots-barn to prop up their failing "thoroughbred" track. This is the model that's overtaken the industry across racetracks in colder climates. Slap some paint on the walls, roll in the slot and poker machines, throw up a budget hotel, and wait for the bus-loads of old folks to feed their pension-checks into the investors' portfolio. Tip your waitress, try the veal...

...but there needs to be a distinction drawn between prudent caution and total fear of changing the status quo. The status quo ain't been so great for a very long time.

I absolutely agree. The status quo in the Commonwealth is really part of the problem. Injecting the gaming industry and all the money that comes with it into a state with such a rich culture of political corruption and patronage requires the highest degree of "prudent caution." Senator Jamie Eldridge (http://www.senatoreldridge.com/) had the temerity to suggest that a five-year waiting period for state legislators to accept a position in gaming should be written into the Expanded Gaming Bill:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PShjXsp911A

One of his colleagues took offense:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_ArfRFoDtA

We've sent these folks to Beacon Hill to do our business; how much of our business are they actually doing? How much of it is their own?

Is [the status quo] really preferable to an huge investment of new development they can have considerable say in shaping?

I'm all for seeing Suffolk Downs redeveloped.

If the owners of Suffolk Downs decided to close the track and develop it as a large mixed-use TOD with thousands of units of mixed-market housing, and office and retail space, I'd walk over there with a shovel.

I dissent with the view that a gaming facility is the best and highest use for the property.

I think you should at least entertain the thought that if it gets built your life won't really change and Suffolk Downs owes you something about as much as you owe it.

I'm not suggesting that I'm "owed" anything beyond the opportunity to speak my mind about this issue to anyone who will listen. I think your suggestion that my life (and my neighbors' lives) "won't really change" is simply not rooted in reality. If the value of my home is undermined, that's pretty life-changing. If there's an uptick in violent crime in my neighborhood, that'll hit my wallet as well, through higher auto and homeowners' insurance premiums.

Since the beginning of the expanded gaming debate, fair-minded people have listened to proponents and elected officials talk about job creation and expanding tourism. Many of us have asked the Commonwealth to provide an independent cost-benefit analysis that considers benefits to the state, and benefits to host communities, measured against the expense of creating a new bureaucracy, enhancing public safety and infrastructure, and the aggregated effects of casino gambling on Lottery revenues which are paid back to cities and towns. No such study was ever commissioned, and the "nothing to see here" attitude of my elected officials makes me a bit queasy. It should make you queasy too.

TheRifleman
01-10-2012, 09:31 PM
I still don't understand why Suffolk Downs is thought of as a good location for this. Setting aside the community impact issue for the moment, were I an investor, I wouldn't like the site. It is completely surrounded by neighborhood. That means an inward only focus, which is fine for the casino, but not at all good for the resort. I'd look for something that is actually on the harbor, rather than simply near the harbor. This makes me think that Menino figures he has a better chance of selling it in Eastie than he does in the proper location, which is the Seaport.

I'm not really sold on casinos in Mass. But I have to admit if they were going to build them it should have been in the SEAPORT.
Option #1
Along with Patriots Place & Stadium New Fenway Park & New Lansdown Street leading to the sea
Condos--Over looking the stadiums.
Casinos--
Hotels---
ESPN-New Lansdown area for both Patriots & Sox
With a huge MBTA expansion paid for by the taxpayers. Which could have been justified with the amount of Tax Revenue that could have been generated.
Seaport=Entertainment District open till 4 in the morning.

Seaport would have been a destination spot......All it takes is VISION.

Instead we are heading for the path of option#2 The innovation district.
Trying to copycat Kendall Square.
Vertex- Fan Pier buildings are just not that intriguing for an area with unlimited potential.
Hynes approval to build something better than his last development at Filenes

but at least the taxpayers get to see another Convention Center built in the area with 300 Million dollars of your money.

No serioulsy option 2 is coming along.

Ron Newman
01-10-2012, 09:36 PM
Option #1
Along with Patriots Place & Stadium New Fenway Park & New Lansdown Street leading to the sea

Yawn.

statler
01-11-2012, 05:07 AM
Ron, if you are a teetotaler you can just chug Coke or something.

TheRifleman
01-11-2012, 08:06 AM
Yawn.

I know........But ask yourself this. Are you ever really going to go out of your way to head down to the Seaport District? Probably not

Ron Newman
01-11-2012, 08:13 AM
I'll go to the ICA now and again. This weekend I'm going to the 'Arisia' science fiction convention at the Westin Waterfront hotel, next to the convention center. In the summer maybe I'll check out one of Harpoon Brewery's events.

Devlin77
01-11-2012, 09:17 AM
I think the Casino should go on the East Boston Waterfront where the old piers are. Imagine taking a free water taxi form the airport to the Seaport, Aquarium or Casino right form the airport.

I'm sure the casino would front the costs to get some free transport around our harbor.

TheRifleman
01-11-2012, 09:23 AM
^^^^
I could agree with that........The only problem I have with that is the access route with a car from the city to E.Boston. That area could become grid lock at times with car traffic in and out of the tunnels.

The location would be prime. I think Massport owns all that land.

Talk about best views in the city.

Lurker
01-11-2012, 12:43 PM
Build a lifting bridge, to clear the tanker traffic, across the harbor funded through an assessment on the casinos. Being able to walk or bike to East Boston across a scenic bridge alone would spur massive redevelopment to what's considered a difficult to access area.

TheRifleman
01-11-2012, 03:09 PM
Build a lifting bridge, to clear the tanker traffic, across the harbor funded through an assessment on the casinos. Being able to walk or bike to East Boston across a scenic bridge alone would spur massive redevelopment to what's considered a difficult to access area.


How much would that cost? Could be something like the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.............East Boston would be PRIME TIME REAL ESTATE.

Lurker
01-11-2012, 04:44 PM
How much would that cost? Could be something like the Golden Gate Bridge in SF.............East Boston would be PRIME TIME REAL ESTATE.

The height restrictions from the airport would be a damper overall. But Eastie would quickly morph from 2-3 stories to 5-6. Assuming the zoning was changed to allow for it.

Beton Brut
01-11-2012, 09:59 PM
Haven't we sorta rapped about this before? (http://www.archboston.org/community/showthread.php?t=2486)

The only design I think could work as a Boston harbor crossing would be similar to the Coronado Bridge in San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_%E2%80%93_Coronado_Bridge). It's high enough to let an aircraft carrier pass (200'), but it's more utilitarian than picturesque.

But what two points would be connected?

MBTAddict
01-12-2012, 07:46 AM
Bit off topic, and moderators if this should be moved to a different thread go right ahead, but if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.

TheRifleman
01-12-2012, 07:53 AM
Suffolk casino plan on easier track
Law may limit vote on plan
By Noah Bierman | Globe Staff January 12, 2012

Save While community opposition is proving a significant hurdle for a proposed casino in Foxborough, the path to local approval for a similar facility at the Suffolk Downs race track in East Boston is looking much smoother.

Suffolk’s owners, who say they want to build a $1 billion resort-style casino, have both legal and political advantages over Foxborough’s developers in winning local approval, a necessary step to building a casino.

The new casino law was written to allow the horse track’s owners to bypass a requirement that the entire city vote on a casino proposal. For Boston Springfield, and Worcester, the law dictates that only the local ward or neighborhood votes, unless the mayor and city council opt to hold a citywide referendum.

Because of Suffolk’s political clout in the city, Boston appears unlikely to hold a larger vote, sparing Suffolk Downs a costly and difficult political campaign to win citywide backing.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino is unequivocal in his support for limiting the vote to East Boston and, as required by law, the neighboring city of Revere.

“It should be the neighborhood that’s affected the most,’’ Menino said. “I said that from day one.’’

And the City Council, though divided, appears unwilling so far to buck Menino, even as some councilors argue that denying a citywide referendum would disenfranchise their own voters, according to recent interviews.

Ultimately, the casino law gives Menino the power to veto the council, potentially without the threat of an override.

The difference between the politics in Foxborough and Boston have been on stark display in recent weeks.

At a rancorous meeting late last month, Foxborough’s Board of Selectmen voted 3 to 2 against negotiating with casino mogul Steve Wynn, who wants to develop a $1 billion facility on New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft’s land near Gillette Stadium. That vote did not formally kill the proposal, but it severely impedes it.

The Boston City Council, on the other hand, has addressed the issue only fleetingly, without arousing public discord. Yesterday, Council President Stephen J. Murphy killed a plan hatched a week earlier to let a special committee study the issue, reducing the potential for controversy.

Salvatore LaMattina, the councilor who represents East Boston, said it would not be fair to let residents in distant neighborhoods decide a quality-of-life issue for his constituents.

“We have to live with the impacts of a casino on our neighborhood,’’ he said. “. . . The people who live in Hyde Park, 45 minutes away, they don’t have to sit in [the same] traffic to go home at night.’’

LaMattina is one of five city councilors who support, a limited vote in East Boston. Three councilors favor a citywide vote, four said they were undecided, and one did not return calls.

On the issue’s flip side, Councilor Matt O’Malley, whose Jamaica Plain and West Roxbury district is considered fertile ground for casino opponents, agrees that East Boston would bear the brunt of any casino impacts, “but this obviously affects the entire city.’’

“There’s no East Boston police department or East Boston fire department or East Boston EMS,’’ he said. “This is all Boston.’’

Menino, who lives in Hyde Park, denies there will be a significant impact in areas of the city outside East Boston, which is accessible from other Boston neighborhoods only by tunnels, the Tobin Bridge, or the Blue Line. He disputed the suggestion he and council members would be disenfranchising their own voters.

“How do you disenfranchise anybody?’’ he said. “The people who are going to have to vote are the people that it’s going to impact. It’s not going to impact me in Hyde Park.’’

Secretary of State William F. Galvin, who oversees state elections, has warned state lawmakers that the provision in the casino law restricting the vote to a single ward may not withstand potential lawsuits because it is questionable under the state’s constitution.

“The decision is going to affect the bottom line of the whole city, so why wouldn’t the entire city have the right to vote on it?’’ said Galvin, a Brighton resident.

It is unclear how soon any voters would see Suffolk Downs on a ballot. It could take months, if not several years, given the time it will take to establish a gambling commission, set up regulations and bidding criteria, and decide which of three regions will get the first casino.

In a statement, Chip Tuttle, Suffolk Downs’ chief operating officer, acknowledged the track has been speaking with Menino and the City Council and would prefer a vote restricted to East Boston. He also argues that any costs borne by the rest of the city would be defrayed by mitigation money casinos are required to pay local municipalities.

“Our preference doesn’t matter, but a vote from the East Boston community combined with a mitigation agreement with the city of Boston gives the largest say to the neighborhood most directly impacted by our proposed development while ensuring that the entire city can derive benefits,’’ Tuttle wrote.

Suffolk Downs executives have made thousands of dollars in campaign donations to the mayor and a half-dozen members of the council.

A citywide vote could cost Suffolk’s developers at least a million dollars to run a vigorous marketing campaign prior to the vote and to pay for the election costs, as required by law.

Councilor Michael P. Ross said he is also leaning toward supporting a citywide vote.

Those leaning toward an East Boston-only vote include LaMattina; Bill Linehan; Robert Consalvo; John R. Connolly, and Mark S. Ciommo.

LaMattina acknowledges he is not sure how his neighbors would vote, though he predicts about half of East Boston residents are still undecided and the other half are divided evenly between pro and anti casino camps.

Anticasino activist John Ribeiro, who grew up in East Boston and now lives in Winthrop, predicts a casino would pass narrowly if a vote were held today in East Boston.

“They’ve been cultivating people in the neighborhood for several years now,’’ he said.


Looks like Beton you have no shot. They are already by passing the NIMBYS to even have a vote. I guess they call this freedom.

Also Martha Coakley is a puppet.
Menino agenda is big on this.........He was promised something big to get this through.

My thinking is the politicans are laughing their asses off at the NIMBYS. DeLeo, Murray, Patrick and Menino are just pissing all over the taxpayers in this state. I have been warning everybody on this board what is been going on. Most of you already knew it and the rest of you just hate hearing it.

All I'm saying for this development process is a joke. The casinos need to be voted by the people of MA. Not slammed down their throat because the Democrats need to buy more votes for the next election.

This is the most blantant slap in the face development process I have ever seen.
I'm still wondering how you can justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers money on private developments. I'ts not even legal. Wake the fuck up.


I remember when the indians proposed Foxwoods it took them forever to get the casino finally built. MASS the hacks just come out one year and say gambling is legal and have the casino built in 2 years tops.

Beton Brut
01-12-2012, 10:58 AM
...if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.

Do you think the high-rollers are going to take the T to the "resort?" Any meaningful infrastructure improvements will be for vehicular traffic.

If this infamy goes forward, the Commonwealth will likely receive incremental payments of $2-300M for improvements to Route 1A, between Boardman Street (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=boston+map&hl=en&ll=42.391421,-71.012941&spn=0.000777,0.001742&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts&t=h&vpsrc=6&layer=c&cbll=42.391416,-71.01309&panoid=UHgSv7UGKH7qgSt9MTVqqg&z=20) in Orient Heights and Copland Circle (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=boston+map&hl=en&ll=42.430069,-71.017084&spn=0.00624,0.013937&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&hnear=Boston,+Suffolk,+Massachusetts&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6) in North Revere.

Looks like Beton you have no shot.

Trust me, boys and girls -- my neighbors and I are sharpening our spears for this one.

We know that the "empowerment" written into the legislation is disingenuous (http://archboston.org/community/showpost.php?p=133674&postcount=171), and that our elected officials are trying to divide and conquer. They're looking at voter turnout, and demographic information to generate the result they want. But data can only tell you so much about a given population...

TheRifleman
01-12-2012, 11:02 AM
Trust me, boys and girls -- my neighbors and I are sharpening our spears for this one.

the "empowerment" written into the legislation is disingenuous and that our elected officials are trying to divide and conquer. They're looking at voter turnout, and demographic information to generate the result they want. But data can only tell you so much about a given population...

I'm not for or against the casino for the state. I would rather the people vote for the outcome not our elected representives. I just don't like what is going on. I also believe this is a very bad location to build a 1 Billion dollar development at Suffolk Downs.

I just have a bad feeling since you have to deal with Martha Coakley and she is completely part of the entire problem in this state.

As your sharpening your spears you better hope the political hacks don't bring Machine guns to this fight.

jdrinboston
01-12-2012, 12:01 PM
This may be a dumb question - and perhaps nobody really has an answer to it - but I'll ask it anyway.

The Revere Town Line runs roughly halfway through the Suffolk Downs property. If Suffolk Downs were to site the gambling infrastructure of their resort completely within the town of Revere, could they potentially bypass any vote in the city of Boston at all?

I live in Revere, and frankly, I don't envision any scenario where Revere votes against any form of expanded gambling.

jermz58
01-12-2012, 05:55 PM
Western MA casino news

http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/mgm-resorts-unveils-mass-casino-plan-20120112

bbfen
01-12-2012, 08:33 PM
I don't claim to have a solution to the vote issue, but Mr. Mayor is short-sighted in claiming it will only affect Eastie. Some of us have to go home at night to the east end of Back Bay near Storrow. Some of us live near North Station. Some of us live near 93S. I have no faith that enhanced public transportations will be part of this proposal (or even be viable for it!), so that translates to increased vehicular traffic. Just because Mr. Mayor barely lives in city limits and won't be impacted doesn't mean that tens of thousands of others outside East Boston proper won't be.

cozzyd
01-12-2012, 08:37 PM
Bit off topic, and moderators if this should be moved to a different thread go right ahead, but if it's decided the casino is going to be built at Suffolk Downs, wouldn't that be a chance for the state to get some money towards extending the Blue line beyond Wonderland? I can't imagine the developer would be opposed to this as they could justify less parking needed on site.

Or perhaps to Charles/MGH?

whighlander
01-16-2012, 08:49 AM
Do you think the high-rollers are going to take the T to the "resort?" Any meaningful infrastructure improvements will be for vehicular traffic.

...

Bet -- the Transit improvements wouldn't be for the high rollers -- the Transit improvements would be for the employees

The vaunted "single seat ride" from Duley to Logan wasn't intended to enable people living on Lagrange Street to make an easy commute to Marleybone in London -- it was to be for the employees

Similarly if five thousand -- give or take -- people are going to be working at Suffolk Casino and resort -- the assumption is that a significant number would commute on transit -- and improvements in the access would probably be included in the proposed development

Note that the latest proposal for the Western Mass resort casino put forth by MGM would include an new interchange on the Tunnpike

HenryAlan
01-16-2012, 03:57 PM
There's another reason for transit improvements: we are in a position to demand it. The state is about to provide a licensed gambling monopoly to somebody. We should drive a hard bargain, and why not make that mean a light rail line to replace the Silver Bus if built in the Seaport, or a Blue Line-Charles connector if built in East Boston. Once an operator has a license to print money, the state's leverage will be significantly more limited. Normally i don't favor linking unrelated community benefits to development projects, but this is one case where we ought to make a few demands, and paying for better transit should be one of them.

jass
01-20-2012, 02:32 AM
Google maps now shows city borders, convenient for casino discussion!

Ron Newman
01-20-2012, 06:59 AM
I don't see these borders, and I just went to Suffolk Downs on Google Maps. Do I need to turn on some special setting to see them?

MBTAddict
01-20-2012, 07:18 AM
There's another reason for transit improvements: we are in a position to demand it. The state is about to provide a licensed gambling monopoly to somebody. We should drive a hard bargain, and why not make that mean a light rail line to replace the Silver Bus if built in the Seaport, or a Blue Line-Charles connector if built in East Boston. Once an operator has a license to print money, the state's leverage will be significantly more limited. Normally i don't favor linking unrelated community benefits to development projects, but this is one case where we ought to make a few demands, and paying for better transit should be one of them.

I agree. Before any deal is made, the state has some serious leverage. If the state and the mayor's office could get on the same page, I think we could see some serious improvements made to the T if the casino ends up at Suffolk Downs.

TheRifleman
01-20-2012, 08:16 AM
I agree. Before any deal is made, the state has some serious leverage. If the state and the mayor's office could get on the same page, I think we could see some serious improvements made to the T if the casino ends up at Suffolk Downs.

Suffolk Downs area does not have the street grids to hold this type of development. The traffic in that area around 3 or 5 o'clock sucks.

Now they are going to put a billion dollar development at Suffolk Downs. GOOD LUCK to the Revere Residents that live in that area.

Like I said before I'm not for the casinos.

#1 The people of Mass should be voting on the casinos.
#2 Seaport or East Boston waterfront (Massport property with a new highway bridge) going across the city would make more sense.
#3 Massive Multi-Billion dollar MBTA overhaul throughout the city. (this should have been done back in the 90's.) Development, Education, and industry will expand overtime.

Our stimilus money should have gone to #3 in the first place.

AdamBC
01-20-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't see these borders, and I just went to Suffolk Downs on Google Maps. Do I need to turn on some special setting to see them?

Flip over from Satellite view to Map view and you should see the peach borders when you search for a town name and state.

Shepard
01-20-2012, 11:00 AM
You need to search "Boston, MA" to see the borders. And, borders are visible only at city-level zoom, not street-level zoom.

Beton Brut
01-20-2012, 02:01 PM
If the state and the mayor's office could get on the same page, I think we could see some serious improvements made to the T if the casino ends up at Suffolk Downs.

Yes, of course. And 2 + 2 = 5

jass
01-20-2012, 03:49 PM
Flip over from Satellite view to Map view and you should see the peach borders when you search for a town name and state.

Its even better.

If you search Boston, you get the Boston borders.
If you search 02215, you get the zip code borders.

This is true around the country.

TheRifleman
01-31-2012, 08:16 AM
6.2-acre lot near Suffolk Downs fetches $3.75 million Boston Business Journal by Thomas Grillo, Real Estate Editor
Date: Monday, January 30, 2012, 12:38pm EST
Thomas Grillo
Real Estate Editor - Boston Business Journal
A Fall River, Mass.-based developer, has purchased a 6.2-acre site near the Suffolk Downs racecourse at 415 McClellan Highway in East Boston, Mass., for $3.75 million.

The company acquired the parcel from Sawyer Enterprises, the Boston firm that owns the W Hotel and Residences in the Theater District. Last fall, Sawyer won approval from U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boston to reorganize over strong objections from creditor Prudential Insurance Co. Prudential Insurance Co. Latest from The Business Journals Prudential settles with California, other states over unclaimed death benefitsSlideshow: M.D. Anderson building implosionApartments rule the real estate roost among investors Follow this company , which sought to foreclosure on the condo portion of the project.

In 2010, the owners of Suffolk Downs unveiled plans for a $600 million casino at the 75-year-old racetrack. They said investors would line up for a gambling facility that would include a 400- to 600-room hotel, casino, spa, restaurants and shops. The proposal also calls for expansion and renovation of the existing 800,000-square-foot grandstand, which would also contain a clubhouse with the addition of new gambling, restaurant and retail facilities.

Suffolk Downs said it will compete for one of the casino licenses in Eastern Massachusetts that will be offered by the state. It will face competition from a resort style casino plan in Milford and possibly one from The Kraft Group The Kraft Group Latest from The Business Journals BBJ names Boston's Most Admired Cos., CEOs and BrandsTrader Joe's to touch down in Patriot PlaceJackpot: Milford proponent sees winning hand in Foxborough casino rejection Follow this company and Wynn Resorts Wynn Resorts Latest from The Business Journals Bids for casinos could get more competitiveJackpot: Milford proponent sees winning hand in Foxborough casino rejectionKraft and Wynn tout Foxborough casino Follow this company across to be built across the highway from Gillette Stadium.

It’s unclear whether First Bristol Corp. is positioning itself to offer a hotel and retail that would benefit from traffic to the casino. James Karam, president and CEO of First Bristol, did not return a call seeking comment.


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/01/62-acre-lot-near-suffolk-downs.html


Somebody believes the casinos are going in the Suffolk Downs Location

TheRifleman
02-02-2012, 07:53 AM
Casino vote link to downtown fix has council, mayor trading barbs
By Gintautas Dumcius
Feb. 2, 2012

With a potential casino in East Boston and the pit in the middle of Downtown Crossing as backdrops, tensions are flaring between the Menino administration and City Council President Stephen Murphy.

Some of that stems from confusion over how much leverage the City Council has in forcing a developer who is a minority stakeholder in the Suffolk Downs race track – which is angling for a casino license – to act on restarting the development of the Downtown Crossing hole. To the chagrin of local officials, including Mayor Thomas Menino, developer Steven Roth of New York’s Vornado Realty Trust has done little to the downtown site after the former Filene’s Basement was demolished and financing for new construction dried up.

“I’m not trying to do anything but add my voice to chorus and be very, very surgical in the way we maximize leverage on behalf of the people who send us to City Hall,” Murphy said, expressing frustration with Roth, whom he referred to as a “jackass from Manhattan.”

Roth did not return a call for comment.

The leverage, according to Murphy, includes the power of the City Council to sign off on a referendum on a casino proposal.

Whether it’s a vote city-wide – or simply in the ward the casino would be located in – Murphy contended that an order with the vote must come through the City Council, citing the casino law passed in November 2011.

“In our reading of the law, that was an area that gave – and I don’t mean just us – gave the mayor and us more leverage because of that component,” said Murphy, who met with Suffolk Downs officials last week and told them of his stance.

At the center of the leverage debate is the complex casino bill that Beacon Hill crafted and passed into law last year. According to the Menino administration, the law requires a referendum to occur once an applicant such as Suffolk Downs requests it, leaving little leverage for the City Council. The request would come after officials from the host community for the casino – in this case, Boston and Revere – came to a mitigation agreement with the applicant.

In the law, the “local governing body” has the ability to opt out of a ward-only vote, and go to a city-wide vote on whether a specific proposal for a casino should go forward. Ask around City Hall and Beacon Hill, including those who kept close watch on the casino law as it made its way to the governor’s desk, and most would say “local governing body” refers to the City Council.

But the law defines “local governing body” as the mayor and the City Council. And one reading of the law contends that even if the Council moves towards a city-wide vote, Menino, who along with East Boston’s elected officials ardently supports a ward-only vote, is needed to sign off on such a move. In this view, then, for a city-wide vote to happen, the City Council and the mayor have to agree on it.

Murphy maintains that in taking his aggressive stance he is acting as the “captain of the legislative team”, with Mayor Menino playing the role as “captain of the executive team.”

On the other side of City Hall’s fifth floor, the feeling does not appear to be mutual.

“The mayor will not engage in politics when it comes to economic development and jobs in the city of Boston,” said Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce, echoing some of the comments she made to the Boston Globe over the weekend when asked about Murphy’s comments. “The project at One Franklin Street is too important.”

In the Globe’s weekend story, the head of the Boston Redevelopment Authority appeared to slap down Murphy’s stance. “Singing, dancing, yelling, screaming – nothing can make this more important than the mayor has made this already,” the BRA’s Peter Meade told the newspaper.

Murphy hit back, telling the Reporter on Monday, “I think Peter Meade’s comments are unprofessional and unnecessary and Dot Joyce’s comments are bizarre.”

Asked about Murphy’s comments, including his mention of at being “captain of the legislative team,” Meade offered a clipped response: “Good for Steve.”

http://www.dotnews.com/2012/casino-vote-link-downtown-fix-has-council-mayor-trading-barbs

whighlander
02-02-2012, 11:48 AM
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/real_estate/2012/01/62-acre-lot-near-suffolk-downs.html


Somebody believes the casinos are going in the Suffolk Downs Location

Riff -- at least they are putting their marker on the table -- the wheel is still spinning

PS: when you post a quote -- do some editing as when you do the cut and paste you are picking-up and transferring a bunch of extraneous junk!

Exhibit One [my comments in brackets];


"The company acquired the parcel from Sawyer Enterprises, the Boston firm that owns the W Hotel and Residences in the Theater District. [key]
Last fall, Sawyer won approval from U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boston to reorganize over strong objections from creditor Prudential Insurance Co. [less important but still relevant]
Prudential Insurance Co. Latest from The Business Journals Prudential settles with California, other states over unclaimed death benefits [Huh???]
Slideshow: M.D. Anderson building implosionApartments rule the real estate roost among investors Follow this company [Huh?? Huh????],
which sought to foreclosure on the condo portion of the project." [back to the meet of the story]

Exhibit Two -- how it might have been posted:
"The company acquired the parcel from Sawyer Enterprises, the Boston firm that owns the W Hotel and Residences in the Theater District. Last fall, Sawyer won approval from U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Boston to reorganize over strong objections from creditor Prudential Insurance Co.,which sought to {foreclose} on the condo portion of the project."

TheRifleman
02-02-2012, 01:04 PM
My bad Whigh..........

whighlander
02-02-2012, 01:29 PM
My bad Whigh..........

Riff -- it takes a bit longer -- but you don't dilute your major points with too much background or even extraneous noise

The publishers set-up their pages on purpose so that when you grab the stuff that you want - you also get stuff such as ads peripheral or unrelated to the topic of interest -- although some of the more quotable publications will provide a "single page [printer] view" of the pages in question usually without anything extraneous

JohnAKeith
02-02-2012, 08:01 PM
So Murph's running for Mayor next year?

Officejab
02-09-2012, 04:45 AM
http://www.bostonherald.com/business/general/view/20220209gambling_odds_favor_kraft_pats_honcho_seek s_wynn_deal_owns_stake_in_rival/srvc=home&position=5

Kraft seems to have his hand in both cookie jars

TheRifleman
02-16-2012, 02:35 PM
East Boston group to fight casino
Concerns raised over crime, traffic
By Andrew Ryan | Globe Staff February 16, 2012

In living rooms in East Boston, a few dozen residents have begun gathering on couches and chairs to discuss how they might stop what seems like the inevitable arrival of slot machines and blackjack tables at a proposed casino at Suffolk Downs.

The nascent group, No Eastie Casino, has constructed the outlines of a website. They have launched a Facebook page with 96 members.

They have started to strategize about how they might combat the power and influence of casino magnates, developers, and elected officials who are pushing hard for a casino at the racetrack.

“I love East Boston; I want to stay here,’’ said Celeste Myers, 40, a group organizer whose family emigrated from Portugal to East Boston 70 years ago. “I don’t want to be driven out by a casino or the fallout from a casino.’’

The group, a mix of longtime East Boston residents and newcomers, faces extraordinary odds.

But this neighborhood, isolated on an angular peninsula it shares with Logan Airport, has a history of galvanizing to fight for its rights against formidable foes.

East Boston’s battles with the Massachusetts Port Authority have become neighborhood lore, especially the fight in the late 1960s and early 1970s over the extension of a runway, when mothers lay in the streets to protest the destruction of parks and homes.

“In a lot of respects, that is kind of the Alamo in East Boston,’’ said Mike Russo, 42, who lives in a Dutch Colonial his grandfather bought in 1935 and can hear the public address announcements at the racetrack from the front steps. “We’re in this to win this. We’re not in it for mitigation. I don’t give a flying handshake about ornamental street lights or new uniforms for the T-ball team.’’

The opponents worry about a surge in traffic through the neighborhood and fear the addiction, theft, and other ills that can accompany gambling. Many are dubious about the promise of good jobs and shared prosperity.

“The concerns they have are legitimate concerns; they are concerns that I have,’’ said Councilor Salvatore LaMattina, a vocal booster of a casino at Suffolk Downs. “If it is going to have a really negative impact on the neighborhood, then East Boston should reject it.’’

But, LaMattina added, “What I’m hearing in East Boston is a lot of people looking for jobs.’’

The Suffolk Downs ownership has not made a formal proposal to build a casino. Before a developer can compete for a state license to build a casino, the plans must be approved by local voters in a referendum.

But the push to build a casino at Suffolk Downs has the support of elected officials, who can be influential at the ballot box.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino, for example, captured 60 percent of the vote in East Boston his last election and is an ardent proponent of a casino at Suffolk Downs. That may be difficult for a group such as No Eastie Casino to overcome.

“Of course people are concerned about any economic project in their neighborhood,’’ said Menino’s spokeswoman, Dot Joyce.

“It’s not uncommon for these types of groups to form around those economic development proposals. Our position remains the same, that East Boston, because of its history with the gaming facility at Suffolk Downs, would be an ideal spot for a resort-style gaming development,’’ she said.

Before any casino can open, voters get a say. In large cities such as Boston, the state casino law limits a referendum to the local ward or neighborhood, unless the mayor and City Council opt for a citywide vote.

Menino is against a citywide vote, but the opposition group plans to push the issue. A casino would affect all of Boston, Myers said, and a proposal would more likely be rejected if the entire city got to decide.

A vote on a local casino may cut across traditional political alliances. Myers, one organizer of the opposition group, volunteered for Menino’s 2009 reelection campaign, helping to organize phone banks.

“East Boston is a community that loves the mayor, so this is going to be kind of a challenge,’’ Myers said. “But you can love the mayor and not love all of his points of view.’’

Myers is the sister of John Ribeiro, who lives in Winthrop and has been an opponent of the law that paved the way for casinos in Massachusetts. Some members of No Eastie Casino share that sentiment.

“Casinos are a bad idea generally,’’ said Jessica Curtis, 31, who bought a house in East Boston in 2009. “It’s not in a not-in-my-backyard perspective. It’s a not-in-anybody’s-backyard.’’

But others who have been in touch with the opposition group remain undecided. Chris Marchi, for example, wants to be sure the process is transparent and that the neighborhood gets a chance to scrutinize the claims of both sides.

“We’re pretty savvy as a neighborhood,’’ Marchi said. “We’ve been here for 400 years on this little island. We’ve never lacked the ability to stand up for ourselves.’’

The battle for middle earth begins

BostonUrbEx
02-16-2012, 04:42 PM
You have my sword.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff209/JDG331/aragon.jpg

GW2500
02-16-2012, 04:49 PM
I still think a vote localized in Eastie stands a better chance of defeating the casino than a city wide vote. I live in Allston, even if the casino ends up becoming the Atlantic City the opponents fear, it wouldn't effect me in the least. So I think most of Boston, seeing that we are on the other side of the harbor, doesn't have that much skin in the game and would more likely to say: "Why not."

Beton Brut
02-16-2012, 05:05 PM
I still think a vote localized in Eastie stands a better chance of defeating the casino than a city wide vote.

Perhaps.

But also consider, it's easier to "sell" jobs and mitigation money to 40,000 in East Boston (Working Class/Low Income Wage-Earners) than an entire City.

Addition by subtraction -- it's voter suppression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_suppression) in the guise of community empowerment.

I live in Allston, even if the casino ends up becoming the Atlantic City the opponents fear, it wouldn't effect me in the least.

Bostonians need to stop thinking about where a casino might be, and consider what it would mean for our city and region.

TheRifleman
02-16-2012, 06:51 PM
Should we be buying all the MULTI-FAMILIES in the neighborhood?

GW2500
02-16-2012, 11:07 PM
Ok now I see how it might be able to work against your community's cause. But as a whole I'm still uncertain weather or not your cause will benefit or not from a localized vote.

jermz58
03-02-2012, 12:40 PM
From boston.com: renderings released

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/casino-mogul-steve-wynn-releases-renderings-billion-dollar-foxborough-project/THOj3VlV29oiiXsgALkA9M/index.html?p1=News_links

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f329/bigsir58/Wynncasinoimageresized.jpg

TheRifleman
03-02-2012, 12:58 PM
^^^^

I actually thought that this was proposed for E.Boston for second. Can anybody say the Great Outdoors with John Candy?

MBTAddict
03-02-2012, 01:04 PM
I don't get this kind of thing. It's not as if Foxborough has log cabins all over the place and this is trying to blend in with anything else. Does he think this will win people over more than a more contemporary design would?

Beton Brut
03-02-2012, 01:06 PM
If you squint your eyes, you can see Jack Nicholson running around the pond with an ax (http://www.unrealaudio.net/theshining2/images/overlook1.jpg). I wonder if they'll have a hedge maze...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ley9k94GoZU

TheRifleman
03-02-2012, 01:10 PM
^^^
Wynn's design should have been a sometype of Architectural sports Casino theme. I'm not sure what that would actually look like..... but I know it wouldn't look like John Candy's Vacation home.

BostonUrbEx
03-02-2012, 01:22 PM
^^^^

I actually thought that this was proposed for E.Boston for second. Can anybody say the Great Outdoors with John Candy?

Same here. I just about died thinking this was the rendering for East Boston.

What's that in front of it? A six line boulevard? Sheesh.

TheRifleman
03-02-2012, 01:23 PM
I think WYNN has a winner for the next Casino Design for Colorado or Vermont.
With a GIANT MOOSE SYMBOL on top of the building.

HenryAlan
03-02-2012, 01:51 PM
From boston.com: renderings released

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/casino-mogul-steve-wynn-releases-renderings-billion-dollar-foxborough-project/THOj3VlV29oiiXsgALkA9M/index.html?p1=News_links

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f329/bigsir58/Wynncasinoimageresized.jpg

This is the planned expansion for Disney's Wilderness Lodge?

http://www.familyvacationcritic.com/images/fampics/disney-wilderness-lodge-overview.jpg

Hutchison
03-02-2012, 01:57 PM
Absolutely Fugly. Keep the fake ski resorts at the fake ski mountains.

whighlander
03-02-2012, 01:59 PM
Same here. I just about died thinking this was the rendering for East Boston.

What's that in front of it? A six line boulevard? Sheesh.

Urb -- I think the 6 lane Blvd is Rt-1

The existing gravel parking lot is directly across Rt-1 from Gillette Stadium and Patriot Place
from the story:

"Wynn wants to develop what is now a vast gravel parking lot on Route 1 into a casino and convention center modeled after the design of his own luxury home in Sun Valley, Idaho, which is built of local stone and heavy timber. The plans in Foxborough include a 5,000-car parking garage, a pedestrian bridge connecting the project with Patriot Place, more retail stores, and a spa, in addition to a gambling room with slot machines and table games."

However -- as far as the design -- it reminded me of appropriatenss of the 'ol Sheraton in Framingham that tried to look like something from Henry VIII

http://www.sheratonframingham.com/assets/u/SheratonFraminghamExterior.jpg

There is nothing which I'd associate with anyplace south of Boston -- its more of a scaled-up Jackson Hole lodge look

Officejab
03-03-2012, 05:14 AM
From boston.com: renderings released

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/casino-mogul-steve-wynn-releases-renderings-billion-dollar-foxborough-project/THOj3VlV29oiiXsgALkA9M/index.html?p1=News_links

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f329/bigsir58/Wynncasinoimageresized.jpg

Yikes!!!

Suffolk Downs is starting to look better. I also pray Adelson will throw his hat into casino mix

datadyne007
03-03-2012, 05:17 AM
This is the planned expansion for Disney's Wilderness Lodge?

http://www.familyvacationcritic.com/images/fampics/disney-wilderness-lodge-overview.jpg
Dammit, you beat me.

Also Whigh, the Sheraton Braintree (near SSP) looks the same. I think Sheraton went through a Tudor-style phase. I personally LOATHE the Tudor style.

whighlander
03-04-2012, 06:53 AM
Dammit, you beat me.

Also Whigh, the Sheraton Braintree (near SSP) looks the same. I think Sheraton went through a Tudor-style phase. I personally LOATHE the Tudor style.

Data -- not Sheraton per se -- but a developer who built those two and then got the Sheraton brand under the name Sheraton Tara [something or other]. Now that I recollect and do some Googling -- I believe that there were more than the two we've mentioned -- one in Nashua NH and one in South Portland ME -- perhaps even more

They were great for meeting out-of-towners -- as who could miss a Tudor Castle on the Pike -- but outside of the exterior they were just garden variety suburban hotels

The Sheraton Hotel chain started in Boston and for many years their World HQ was in 60 State St.
That is probably why the Sheraton at the Pru was the flagship hotel of the old Hynes -- as a lot of things in Boston -- it was a local deal

Commuting Boston Student
03-04-2012, 11:06 AM
Leaving aside my own personal feelings on the matter for a minute - I love the idea of a resort destination, and I just hope that there's going to be more to whatever gets built than the gambling facilities - but...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we approved to build a grand total of three casinos?

I'm not sure that's feasible... There's already two casinos in Connecticut, plus the aborted "no, really, it's NOT a casino, we PROMISE" Twin River in Rhode Island.

How many times can you split this pie up?

Lrfox
03-04-2012, 12:47 PM
From boston.com: renderings released

http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2012/03/casino-mogul-steve-wynn-releases-renderings-billion-dollar-foxborough-project/THOj3VlV29oiiXsgALkA9M/index.html?p1=News_links

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f329/bigsir58/Wynncasinoimageresized.jpg

It looks like the residences section for the Bass Pro Shops across the street.

TheRifleman
03-04-2012, 01:45 PM
Leaving aside my own personal feelings on the matter for a minute - I love the idea of a resort destination, and I just hope that there's going to be more to whatever gets built than the gambling facilities - but...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we approved to build a grand total of three casinos?

I'm not sure that's feasible... There's already two casinos in Connecticut, plus the aborted "no, really, it's NOT a casino, we PROMISE" Twin River in Rhode Island.

How many times can you split this pie up?

You make an excellent point.

gooseberry
03-05-2012, 01:04 AM
'Bad times': Several major casinos saddled with heavy debt (http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-02-27/casinos-saddled-with-heavy-debt/53307706/1)

Indian Casinos Struggle To Get Out From Under 'Wall Of Debt' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/22/indian-casinos-debt_n_1222121.html)

TheRifleman
03-05-2012, 05:41 AM
^^^^^
Somebody told me this I'm not sure if this is true for the Casinos in CT. But since the Casinos are built on Tribal Land they actually have there own laws that are different from the state. I'm sure bankruptcy law is Federal but I'm curious to see if the bankers foreclose on the casinos. The Indians get their land taken away again.

The Board of Directors for both casinos defintely did not look out for the best interest of their tribe or the shareholders.

whighlander
03-05-2012, 08:20 AM
^^^^^
Somebody told me this I'm not sure if this is true for the Casinos in CT. But since the Casinos are built on Tribal Land they actually have there own laws that are different from the state. I'm sure bankruptcy law is Federal but I'm curious to see if the bankers foreclose on the casinos. The Indians get their land taken away again.

The Board of Directors for both casinos defintely did not look out for the best interest of their tribe or the shareholders.

Riff -- the Casinos that are built on Tribal land are sovereign territory of the tribes -- they can not go bankrupt and the land is not at risk - there is a separation between revenues of the casino and who gets the payout:
1) state
2) bond holders
3) tribal members

so if the total is cut back because of a lousy economy -- the state gets a haircut (usually state's sign-up for a % of say slots revenue (CT) and perhaps some other revenue stream) and the payout to the tribe may be cut back so that the bond holders get their piece of the pie

Of course the Indians are free to renegotiate the deal if they can -- especially if they are trying to expand the overall destination -- e.g. Foxwoods is planning an up-scale outlet mall

Of course -- none of the above applies if the Indians are just investors in a casino built on land off of the tribal estate -- then the land could be at risk such as in the case of the proposed western Mass casino

Officejab
03-24-2012, 09:51 PM
http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120324/NEWS/203240320/-1/NEWS01

Mashpee Wampanoags buying up more land for their bid in Taunton

datadyne007
03-30-2012, 09:34 AM
OMFG. Rofl. My tiny hometown that doesn't even have street lights on many of the streets.

Lakeville casino land would be adjacent to Freetown parcel
By Christopher Nichols
Herald News Staff Reporter
Posted Mar 30, 2012 @ 12:51 AM

LAKEVILLE —

The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay-Head Aquinnah identified on Thursday the 200-acre parcel of land where the tribe would look to develop a resort casino in Lakeville.

The potential site — located immediately to the west of Route 140 between Exits 8 and 9 — is attached to the parcel of land the tribe previously announced as the potential site in Freetown.

“We’re hopeful that this property’s location is something that the town would be interested in pursuing,” Aquinnah Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais said.

With this announcement, the selectmen also stated that they are looking at June 2 for the date of the town’s referendum on the future of the casino project. Andrew-Maltais said the tribe plans on holding public forums and assembling more details on the project in the near future, something that Selectman Chair Stephen Olivier said is necessary.

“(June 2) is the date that we need to get all the information together so that everyone can make an educated vote at that time,” said Olivier. “...We’re going to need as much information as possible.”

Freetown officials previously scheduled a referendum on the casino for May 29.

If only one of the two towns supports the casino, Andrews-Maltais said the Aquinnah would still wish to go ahead with the casino project, even though the parcels in each town are connected. In this scenario, the Aquinnah would build the casino as far away as possible from the town that did not support the project.

Andrews-Maltais did not say what would happen if both towns support the casino, but she did say it could potentially turn into a two-town project.
Selectman Derek Maksy supported the idea of working with Freetown.

“We’re all going to get the traffic. We’re all going to get the impact,” Maksy said.

The Aquinnah have also discussed building a casino in Fall River — where they say they have an option to purchase land in that city. They will be meeting with Fall River officials on Friday to release details of their plan.

In Lakeville, Andrews-Maltais said the Aquinnah are ready to invest about $200 million for a resort casino — although the financial backer for this project was not revealed on Thursday. Since the parcel in Lakeville is culturally significant to the Aquinnah, the tribe also has plans to include housing, health clinics, museums and open space in their casino project, Andrews-Maltais said.

The expanded gaming law, which was passed last year, allows for one resort casino in each of three designated regions of Massachusetts: eastern, western and southeastern. A provision in the law gives a federally recognized American Indian tribe exclusive rights until July 31 to negotiate with the governor for the gaming license in the southeastern region.

If a tribe and the state government are unable to negotiate such a deal by the July 31 deadline, then the bidding for the Southeastern Massachusetts casino license will be opened to commercial entities.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe requested to begin negotiating with Gov. Deval Patrick in a March 14 letter, after the Taunton City Council announced June 9 as the city’s referendum.

Read more: http://www.heraldnews.com/news/x1440919899/Lakeville-casino-land-would-be-adjacent-to-Freetown-parcel#ixzz1qbv5J9BQ

Beton Brut
04-16-2012, 12:24 PM
More food for thought (http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3825389/the-boston-casino-fun-house).

Two key meetings this week, tonight in Revere (http://freepdfhosting.com/f5423f57e6.pdf), and Wednesday in East Boston (https://www.facebook.com/events/288523677894504/).

LordStanleyCup2011
04-18-2012, 10:00 PM
A casino in Lakeville?

Anyone else not able to wrap their minds around that!?

SeamusMcFly
04-19-2012, 06:44 AM
As a tribal casino...... somewhat, although Middleboro made a bit more sense to me.
Though I don't like my casinos in the middle of nowhere. I like the idea of urban casinos much more than deep in the woods...

F-Line to Dudley
05-08-2012, 03:26 PM
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/05/kraft-and-wynn-suspend-casino-plan-after-majority-foxborough-voters-back-anti-casino-candidates-selectmen-race/DzCP3ZAPvwtBVAk7Va4FsL/index.html?p1=News_links

*THUD*

whighlander
05-08-2012, 03:35 PM
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/05/kraft-and-wynn-suspend-casino-plan-after-majority-foxborough-voters-back-anti-casino-candidates-selectmen-race/DzCP3ZAPvwtBVAk7Va4FsL/index.html?p1=News_links

*THUD*

" The Kraft-Wynn decision eliminates an experienced, well-financed competitor to the team hoping to build a casino at East Boston’s Suffolk Downs. But because the Greater Boston casino is expected to be the most lucrative of the licenses the state will auction, there is likely to be interest from other companies."

I'd say Suffolk is now green-lighted and we can expect the wired decision before the end of 2012 with the first Spin of wheel in 2013

Beton Brut
05-08-2012, 03:46 PM
^^ Wanna bet?