In high-stakes poker game over Everett casino, state calls Boston's bluff

Updated with Gaming Commission statement.

MassLive.com reports the state Gaming Commission told Boston that if it's unwilling to go to arbitration with Wynn over compensation for its proposed Everett casino, then it's stripping Boston of its "surrounding community" status.

In a statement this morning, the commission says this does NOT mean Boston will get nothing from Wynn should it be selected for the Boston area's one casino license:

The Commission has stated that it will impose conditions on any license it awards Wynn, including conditions that require Wynn to mitigate impacts
through payment of money or taking other actions or both. Further, Boston can still negotiate an agreement with Wynn to mitigate impacts. Also, Boston is not precluded from applying to the Community Mitigation Fund for assistance to pay for impact remediation.

In contrast, Mohegan Sun has agreed to millions of dollars' worth of compensation to Boston if it wins a license for its proposed casino in Revere.

Neighborhoods: 

    Topics: 

    Free tagging: 

    Comments

    Frankly, Boston

    By on

    should get bupkis regardless of where the casino is built. This "surrounding community" nonsense and demands for "compensation" are nothing more than legalized extortion.

    up
    16

    Not true

    By on

    If anything the opposite is true. Very close surrounding communities should have more say, not less. In fact, I think they should have been able to vote on the casinos and had their votes somehow prorated.

    The Everett casino is closer to parts of Medford and Charlestown than it is to parts of Everett. The Revere casino was literally moved right over the line from East Boston after East Boston voted it out. Parts of Medford, Charlestown and East Boston will be impacted as much or more as the "host" community. They should have more input than they do now, not less.

    up
    18

    Forcing people to commit to giving money

    By on

    before a facility is even constructed to cover "impacts" that may never occur at all is just plain extortion. Demanding that the casino owners make those payments, regardless of what you call it ("host community", "mitigation", "compensation", etc.), is still extortion.

    And, with respect, Boston had their say - they voted AGAINST the Revere proposal. But let's slow this process down even further with your idiotic notion that a city should have control over proposals that happen in other cities.

    up
    15

    The original deal for the

    By on

    The original deal for the Revere casino was that BOTH communities would have to vote yes. One voted no.

    Afterwards, the rules were changed so that vote wouldn't count.

    You don't think some people might have voted differently if the game had been honest from the get-go?

    Not even a casino gets to change the rules after all hands are dealt, so I really don't see why such shenanigans are acceptable in a so-called democratic process.

    up
    12

    Not quite

    By on

    The original Suffolk Downs proposal had a significant piece of the casino complex in East Boston.

    After the vote, Suffolk Downs moved all the casino buildings onto the Revere side of the property, and the commission decided that, under the state casino law, that meant Boston was no longer a host community.

    One could argue (and I would agree) that this shows the law was pretty stupid - East Boston will have pretty much the same issues as before - but it's not quite the example of the fix being in you say it is.

    It will all be moot in

    By on

    It will all be moot in November. I think people are going to vote against the casinos just because of all the shady dealings that have gone on with the Gaming Commission.

    up
    35

    Agreed

    By on

    I personally will be voting against the casinos because this whole thing stinks of corruption from all sides

    up
    17

    Who in the world is surprised

    By on

    Who in the world is surprised by the goings on with the Gaming Commission? Only someone whose buried their head in the sand for the last 100 years.
    I think any one could've told you how this was going to play out, especially when Crosby was named on the commission.

    The whole gaming commission

    By on

    The whole gaming commission is a load of BS.

    There's more members than there will be casinos. They're creating a state-approved monopoly on gambling.

    Why not let anyone open a casino. Regulate them as needed to make them safe and make sure they aren't swindling customers more than normal. And then let 90% of them fail and you'll only be left with a couple of casinos in a few years anyways.

    up
    13

    Initiative Petition

    By on

    I'm all for the initiative petition process, but I'm extremely doubtful concerning the efficacy of such a vote on casinos. A brief glance at the past history of ballot questions that passed will show that the legislature can find a way around anything they don't feel like implementing.

    Definitely vote as your heart dictates, but be prepared to keep fighting after that.

    Suldog
    http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

    up
    18

    You're playing the same game Walsh is

    By on

    Ignore the fact that there is a chance Wynn gets the license and there is a chance that the voters do not vote for the repeal and you end up with a casino down the street, all the impacts of the casino, including mad traffic at Sullivan Square, and nothing to show for it.

    I'm not saying that one should be supporting casinos in general. Personally, I want to get the license, but I don't want Boston to get screwed if casinos are the reality and the one group the city did not negotiate with gets the license.

    EDIT- there was a sentence in here that even I didn't understand.

    up
    10