Hey, there! Log in / Register

Casino wynns in Everett

The Globe reports the idea of a casino in Everett won voter approval there by some ridiculous margin.

Neighborhoods: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

This reminds me of a line a fellow driver used to use:

"i was in Paris last night, but I wanted some real action , so I caught the first plane to Saugus"

up
Voting closed 0

is a more accurate headline.

up
Voting closed 0

I dont think it matters , that casino is going over there some place , too much political juice in that area. The Revere Beach Parkway is the connector there,so it is going to take the hit. Medford , Somerville ,Chelsea , Everett , Boston / Ctown ,Malden , and points east are all in it together, and are going to sustain clogging of the artery. So if the Everett lagoon can get cleaned up , and some ching from Wynnie boy in the process, Winner = Everett , Loser = Suffering Downs & Caesar/Menino group , et al. Caesar''s group is waffling , and your man ,Menino is losing his potency.

up
Voting closed 0

like a win for Boston to me. East Boston is the next Seaport/Southie and further partitioning off huge amounts of land for single private use is stupid.

up
Voting closed 0

That's the problem with these sorts of thing. The (minority) of people in support usually are very well organized and feel very strongly in favor. The majority against are against it, but their intensity is about a inch deep. "Oh, there was a election/voting"!?

But, that's Democracy. You don't vote, you have zero right to complain.

up
Voting closed 0

More than 6,000 people turned out for this on a Saturday. Let's see how many show up for the special election on Tuesday for Senator.

From the Herald, a quote from city official Sal Sachetta:

"This will put Everett on the map,' Sachetta said. 'People always say to me, 'Oh you live in Everett,' meaning it's a crappy city. But it won't be a crappy city if we get this."

That is just pathetic and partially explains the vote. Low city esteem on the part of residents. They're proud of their H.S. football and that's about it. The other part is that Wynn's campaign was lightening fast. They came in with the money and the proposal and got their deal cut with the city ASAP. No time for people to think much about it beyond "we won't be a crap city anymore." The more a population knows about the effects of casinos in urban areas the less they typically want it, so the proponent has to move fast, like any good grifter.

Ultimately the traffic over there is going to be abysmal and Everett will be known as the crappy city with the casino.

up
Voting closed 0

I live in Everett and voted yes for Wynn for a few reasons. I like what Wynn has proposed for the casino and the improvements along lower Broadway and Rt. 16--and honestly, I doubt those improvements would happen without Wynn's $$$. No one else is knocking down the door to clean up the old Monsanto site and build a business there. No one else is talking about improving and restructuring the roads and rotaries around Rt. 16 and Broadway. Obviously there will be more traffic to go with the improvements if this goes through, but I am willing to accept that with the benefits the casino will bring. If you've ever seen lower Broadway, you know it feels different than the rest of Everett. People just don't want to spend a lot of time there--it's not visually appealing and there's nothing to attract people to it. This would open up the waterfront, widen Broadway, and attract local businesses who would benefit from the casino/hotel traffic. People have their arguments about it bringing in more crime, addicts, etc. which we may see a surge in at first, but those things exist with or without a casino. At least this brings a good jobs and tax benefits to the city.

Also, I like the competition factor. Suffolk Downs seemed to be the sure winner for this area at first but now Wynn is making things interesting. I at least think Wynn deserved the chance to put his plan forward, and now I'm excited to see where it goes.

And lastly, I like this city. I don't think it's shitty at all. Gritty and blue collar maybe, but not shitty.

up
Voting closed 0

Seems a bit like you don't even know what the effects are of casinos in urban areas. I lived in St. Louis prior to moving to the Boston area, and St. Louis has a "luxury" casino that is not nearly like what Wynn is proposing. The area around the casino did not see a spike in crime or trash or prostitution or drunk joyriders or what have you. What it did see was a lot of people going in to spend a lot of money, some of which the city got back. If some of those people were poor, well they can spend their money how they please. If some of those people had problems, there were loss limits in place to help prevent it and signs/promotions all over the place to help those for whom it was already a problem.

You are correct, though, that traffic will be horrific. But that would be just as true if the casino were at Suffolk Downs.

up
Voting closed 0

I can't imagine this ever being implemented, but it is an interesting idea:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/vi...
3/06/new_york_s_bike_share_try_quadratic_vote_buying_to_figure_out_if_people.html

Why does QVB work? It forces voters to pay for the impact of their votes on other people, in the same way that a tax forces factories to take into account the effects of pollution on others. In economic terms, the voter chooses a number of votes that equalizes the marginal benefit for her, in terms of her influence on policy, and the marginal cost for those who vote the other way.

up
Voting closed 0