Suffolk Downs wins again in Revere; Everett mayor gets all Bill the Cat about it

WCVB reports Revere voters have once again approved a Suffolk Downs casino, this time one entirely within their city limits and run by Mohegan Sun.

The vote doesn't guarantee the $1.3-billion resort casino will be built, but instead means the state gaming commission will now choose between Suffolk Downs and a competing Wynn proposal in Everett.

Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria dissed his neighbor to the east:

There’s no comparing Everett’s near-90% margin of victory to tonight's vote in Revere, just as there’s no comparison to Wynn’s 5-star brand, international drawing power or financial strength in the industry. Wynn's transformative impact and unmatched economic development opportunity for Everett and Massachusetts is without parallel in the region. ...

The people of Everett already know what is becoming increasingly clear every day - a Wynn Resort in Everett the best choice for every resident in Massachusetts, today and for decades to come.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

Really?

By on

Are you serious? Traffic is bad enough in this city! If they want a casino so badly, build it outside of I-95, or even further from the city. Every highway will be clogged Friday-Sunday if they build a large casino. It's time Boston started annexing the neighboring smaller towns that receive all the benefits of being near Boston, but don't contribute anything.

up
11

Hey, frustrated citizen, I

By on

Hey, frustrated citizen, I live in Revere, and to be quite honest, annexing towns that border Boston is a horrible idea. First off, Revere is not a small city in terms of population. It contains ~51,000 residents, which actually gives it a larger population than East Boston, Roslindale, Hyde Park, etc, etc. I really don't think that you should be so upset to the point where you think Boston should just annex Revere, and other "small towns" that border the city.

Revere does not leech off Boston. Last I checked, TONS of Boston residents use Revere Beach in the summer. Plus. a large quantity of people living in Revere, work in the city of Boston, where they spend money on food, clothes, and services. Where would this annexing stop? If Revere gets plucked, what about Winthrop? Lynn? Salem? Malden? Melrose? Stoneham? Newton? Milton? Dedham? All of these communities indirectly benefit from Boston being there, but in no way, shape, or form should be annexed by the city. They also contribute a lot more than you think. /rant

up
12

If there were no restrictions

By on

If there were no restrictions on the number of casinos, there wouldn't be large numbers of cars concentrated in the few places that had them.

AND...

By on

There would actually be a competitive atmosphere, benefiting the people who play. Las Vegas has tons of casinos and it is easily the best destination for gamblers. In general, your money will last longer in LV than in other destinations because the casinos have to offer a better payout percentage, a better game. When there's only one casino in town, or in a large geographic area, the house can set the odds whatever way they wish and not have to worry about the guy down the street luring customers away with better odds.

Casinos coming to MA will do that a bit, by competing with CT, RI, etc., but the distances are still too great to have the sort of effect that could be had with more in the same areas.

Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com

up
10

This just in

Revere outsmarts East Boston at geography.

It's happening, folks. If your town rejected a casino, don't cry poor ever again.

up
13

How?

I'm not sure how this is "outsmarting" anyone?

If we want to talk about geography, how about how Revere voted for a casino when it was 100% in East Boston, and now that it is 100% in Revere, East Boston has no say? Sounds like some epic geography fail on someone's part.

up
21

This just in

By on

Somehow the biggest gaming lobbyists and the track the law was written for are getting what they want!

Revere was a host community the first time around because 1/4 of the track is on their side of the line even though all of the casino was in East Boston. East Boston would have shouldered most of the burden since it is an island with two roads connecting the interstate to Suffolk Downs, but the city of Boston would have gotten the money. So Eastie said no.

Now, they want to move the casino over the line into Revere where the horse barns are. They still use the track as an amenity of the casino and Mohegan is partners with Suffolk Downs, then why is East Boston no longer a host? When Revere finds a way to bring people to the casino without passing over 80% of them through East Boston then they can ignore our vote.

up
17

Toll Road?

By on

In case there are any attorneys on here, do the mass laws/regs premit a municipality to enact toll roads at their borders on locally paid roads? Could Boston toll the roads to Revere?

So, you are suggesting tolls

By on

So, you are suggesting tolls be put in on 1A and Bennington St? Have you ever been to East Boston or Revere? One of the issue with this is traffic, and you are suggesting tolls be put in on local roads? Honestly, that's a god damn numbskull idea, that does not even come close to approaching logic.

up
12

And how do you suggest tolls

By on

And how do you suggest tolls be put on Bennington St? That would hurt East Boston exponentially, considering Revere and East Boston have a symbiotic relationship of sorts. Revere made a decision for the city itself, not for Boston. If I bitched about every little decision Boston made that I didn't like, simply because I live next to the city (and I literally do, about 750ft from the Boston/Revere line), I would have a really long list of gripes. I didn't get to vote for the mayor of Boston because I live close by, so neither should Boston have any concern about what Revere does for its city. Plus, traffic and tolls is a state issue, pal. Boston can't really dictate where they want MassDOT to put tolls.

If you want to talk about who should be tolled, the #1 priority should be 93N into Boston. The state would make a huge windfall. The profits from taxing people who are using 1A to access a casino is trivial compared to that.

up
10

Tolls

By on

1. The questioner asked whether tolls were a state or municipal issue. Are you confirming that tolls are legally exclusively for MassDot? Source?
2. The idea of tolls has logic for those in East Boston who seek to re-route those trying to get to the Casino through their neighborhood. If Boston did have the power to do so (and I have no idea if they do), it would be up to the voters of Boston to decide whether those Revere residents like yourself can be tolled coming through their city. Sounds perfectly logical to me.

No.

By on

It would require special legislation, which is not forthcoming.

People also have to travel

By on

People also have to travel through Boston to access Cape Cod, if they are coming from North of the city. Your complaint is moot; more people use the roads for the airport, and last I checked, I can drive there for free from the North Shore. Also, if a large quantity of people come from north of the city to use the Casino, than no one would be traveling through East Boston at all.

"People also have to travel

By on

"People also have to travel through Boston to access Cape Cod, if they are coming from North of the city. "

Uh, no they don't.

up
14

East Boston was told that

By on

East Boston was told that they would have a choice, via a popular vote, about whether or not to allow Suffolk Downs to operate a casino. They were told both East Boston and Revere had to vote for the proposal to make it to the commission, and that it would be unfair to let the whole city of Boston vote because what if East Boston voted against but the city as a whole voted for it.
How were they to know that the state was lying, is your point that they should have known that Deleo, Murray et al. were lying and vote for it because the fix was in for Suffolk Downs all along?

up
14

East Boston did get to vote

East Boston did get to vote on whether to allow Suffolk Downs to operate a casino and they told the track they couldn't...and they won't. Under this proposal, Suffolk Downs doesn't operate the casino. They would be leasing their Revere land to Mohegan Sun, who would operate the casino as an independent business entity, similar to how Suffolk Downs sold off land for the Stop & Shop/Target construction.

Actually, Revere demonstrates

By on

how gullible people can truly be. Funny how when an elected official agrees to a payment from a constituent to curry favor, it's called a bribe and considered illegal. But when a city or town agrees to the same thing from casino operators, it's called "mitigation" and considered acceptable.

up
15

Fascinating exercise

The Revere Mayor was asked if he would ever consider working at a hypothetical casino in his city after his term in office. He answered that there were already so many controversies attached to a casino that he didn't want to exacerbate them. No "greeter" job for him. When asked the same question, Carlo DeMaria of Everett replied (paraphrasing):"I'm forty years old and I have twenty years in 'the system'. Do I look crazy?" And I thought I was cynical.....

Hey, it's all on the Level

By on

The whole Casino thing is totally on the up and up. The fact that these rich Corpo-Casinos are targeting poorer, vulnerable communities? And that Deval's hand picked commisioner, Crosby, has apparent direct conflicts of interest and no problems with his "staff" spending huge Casino dollars on junkets? Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along.

What could go wrong?

up
22

Up the tolls

By on

To $10 in AND out of the tunnels and a second $5 booth on the East Boston/Revere line of 1A, keep the same deal (or make it free) for residents with EZ Pass, and institute some sort of airport discount validation.

Since East Boston will have to suffer through the traffic increase anyway, why not have a little fun. The current roads to Suffolk Downs are beat up enough with NORMAL traffic, and we'll definitely need the money badly for repairs after all of the construction vehicles and casino guests start coming through. Which would be a yearlong project scheduled to start just as the Casino is opening.

Or maybe I've been watching too much House if Cards.

So, you are willing to harm

By on

So, you are willing to harm the lives of Revere residents (and also residents of other towns and cities) to spite voters? The city had a vote, made a decision, and that is that. Chelsea is also going to be affected, as would Everett, Malden, Lynn, and other surrounding municipalities. The gambling is happening on Revere soil, so therefore Boston is not a casino host, just a race track (which, last I checked, is gambling as well...).

up
11

Think about the reverse argument

By on

So, you are willing to harm the lives of Revere residents (and also residents of other towns and cities) to spite voters? The city had a vote, made a decision, and that is that.

If they put a casino at Suffolk Downs you could just as rightly say,

So, you are willing to harm the lives of Eastie residents (and also residents of other towns and cities) to spite voters? The city had a vote, made a decision, and that is that.

up
12

That doesn't hold up. My

By on

That doesn't hold up. My question is this: if something else of high traffic volume were to be put on that property, would you still complain? So if the argument is not a moral one against the corrupt nature of gambling (which is already going on at Suffolk Downs anyway), than would you have issue with, say, a soccer stadium near Wonderland? That would increase traffic in Eastie as well. I think this argument should be separated into two parts: moral argument vs economic argument. But really, you're angry about increased traffic in Eastie without you having a say about it. Tough shit. Rt. 1 through Revere is a mess all the time, and Boston is the reason for that.

Not much gambling at SD

By on

Actually, not much gambling takes place at Suffolk Downs right now. If people really cared about saving the track then they would actually go there.

Unfortunately, casinos are different from most developments since they do have moral implications so I don't think you can separate the two arguments If our legislators deemed casinos different enough as to ensure a vote in the host community then they are obviously worried about more than traffic, but still traffic is a big part of the impact. Most developments have more public good to offer to offset their negative impacts. Casinos are guaranteed to prey on those that are the most vulnerable (a moral problem) and they bring a lot of other economic problems along too (small biz canabilization, traffic, etc.).

Sure am

By on

Let's think about trees for a second. Your neighbor has a huge tree close to your property line. The trunk and roots are solely on the neighbors property, but a significant portion of the branches reach well into your yard. You get to deal with the leaves, branches and bird shit covering everything you have in the yard-your grill, maybe your kids toys, a car if you have a driveway that extends back. You've personally offered to take an economical hit to not have that tree exist anymore, but the neighbor could care less. What would you do? Because once being civil didn't work, I would cut off every branch that reaches into my yard and throw it in his.

Don't want Casinos? Legalize Marijuana!

This whole issue could go good night immediately if pot were legalized, sold at the packies, and taxed.

Colorado has a similarly -sized population to Massachusetts. Their first projections of pot tax revenue were $70 million. Their next were $100 million, and now that is believed to be a serious underestimate.

up
15

Plus, it is a more consistent

By on

Plus, it is a more consistent form of income for the government than casinos are. I voted yes yesterday, but I'm not a big fan of casinos either. The options were 1. develop the land or 2. let it sit there and rot away. Urban blight, I feel, has a lot more negative externally than a casino. My question to the anti-casino crowd is "what else would you like to see go there?" I'd like it to be turned into a lot of different things that aren't a casino, but that land has been there forever, and no one has wanted to do anything with it in terms of development. Like my mother aways says, shit or get off the pot.

You forgot Option 3

By on

(which wasn't pursued but should have been). Find somebody to develop the land for manufacturing purposes. This would have resulted in better paying jobs and production of something actually useful to society in the long run.

up
13

Agreed, but that would also

By on

Agreed, but that would also be a negative for property values in the area (not that a casino can't affect that as well). I always thought some sort of office/retail/housing space could have gone up there, something similar to Wellington. There is a Target and Stop and Shop right there, Beachmont Station is less than a 5 minute walk, and the beach is about a 10min walk away. Prime real estate that SD just didn't want to surrender. And IMHO, Beachmont is a lot better than Wellington in terms of an area to develop. Bureaucracy at its finest.

up
11

Suffolk Downs was waiting for their gaming law

By on

The reason that nothing has been done with the land (if you count housing all the horse barns as nothing), was because Suffolk Downs was gambling on getting to build a casino there. Once Dimasi was gone, their last hurdle disappeared and they rammed the legislation through quickly so they could get their slot barn. It doesn't matter what other great ideas there are for that location because Suffolk Downs has been single minded in their pursuit of slots to save horses.

I grew up in Beachmont

By on

and you know who is excited about the casino? Joey the lounge singer, who has been blasting everyone in the neighborhood to vote for the casino so he can sing in the lounge. Then there's the 3 brothers who have lived in Beachmont their whole life and own about 8 single and multiple family homes. They will make out like bandits when they can start charging even more for rent than they charge the yuppies now who like the fact that they can live near the beach and the T, but won't like living near casino people. That way they can charge casino workers up the ass for rents.Then there are the old timers who fear that Beachmont will become like Shirley Ave, an immigrant wasteland.

Then we have the track itself, where one day a year people pretend the MassCap is a nice little event for nice ladies to wear nice hats, but the rest of the year it's a shit hole where at any given time you can purchase almost anything you want illegally from prescription pills to hot cigarettes from the same group of degenerates that have been hanging around there since I was a kid. So rest assured kiddies, when Mayor Rizzo said that it was a great day for Revere yesterday, he was referring to the boatloads of cash that he and the pols that infest a city that has been Boston's Cicero for years will be pocketing for years to come. This will not be Vegas or even Atlantic City, this will still be the same old shithole that Suffolk always was.

"a great day for Revere"

So rest assured kiddies, when Mayor Rizzo said that it was a great day for Revere yesterday, he was referring to the boatloads of cash that he and the pols that infest a city that has been Boston's Cicero for years will be pocketing for years to come.

I specifically asked Mayor Rizzo where the $1million for the school budget was going, and if he was at least willing to sit with educational leaders, teachers, and students' parents to work out where the money was going. I said something along the lines of how $1mil/year is useless if its not being properly dispensed and is just being adsorbed into the current academics.

I'm still waiting on a response.