Walsh: Boston should have ultimate say over either casino

Sure, neither the Mohegan Sun nor the Wynn sites are actually in Boston, but they're right on the line and neither could survive without Boston's transportation and world-classness, so the mayor wants the state gaming commission to give Boston the same sort of "host community" status Revere and Everett have, the Globe reports.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Free tagging: 

Comments

How's that Casino thing working out for us so far?

By on

Has there been a single story about this Casino process and Deval's Casino commission (completely on the level!) that hasn't made you want to put your own eyes out with a pair of chopsticks?

up
Voting is closed. 29

State Referendum to Repeal?

By on

Is that actually possible at this point and if so, is someone working on it?

up
Voting is closed. 15

Yes, Required Number Of Signatures Have Already Been Obtained

By on

A group called Repeal The Casino Deal (RTCD) has already collected the needed signatures for it to be presented on the fall ballot, but they still need to get it approved by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

The Boston Globe is reporting that overall support for casinos is falling, so a referendum to stop all casinos in Massachusetts has a chance of succeeding.

up
Voting is closed. 18

Um

By on

Didn't he already say this a few months ago? So is the Globe recycling news again?

Fine, if Boston can be a 'host city' then I want Chelsea to be one also since we are squished right between both Revere and Everett. What's good for the goose, has to be good for the gander ya now. Fair is Fair.

up
Voting is closed. 26

correct

By on

however, If you think any casino "problems" will stay within the casino's land, you're sadly mistaken. It's going to over flow into Chelsea and surrounding areas also.

And Walsh is trying to do this because he wants to make it a city wide thing, so someone in, say, Roslindale, which is as far away from both sites as possible would have a say or get some sort of benefit from the casino. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

Chelsea will get get a direct impact from either casino, along with Charlestown and Eastie, but anywhere on the otherside of the Mystic and Harbor (i.e Downtown and beyond), not so much.

up
Voting is closed. 22

Disagree

My personal life in Roslindale won't be impacted by the casino, but as a taxpayer I am definitely going to be impacted if there is an increase in demands for policing, roadwork, etc... in East Boston. We all pay into one budget.

up
Voting is closed. 24

Roslindale is not as far away

By on

Roslindale is not as far away from Suffolk Downs as possible. That point (in Boston) is likely in Hyde Park. You don't think the mayor, perhaps, is trying to protect East Boston, which voted No on this, from the negative effects of a casino not just on its door step but of which many its ancillary facilities (including main access road) are in Boston? Chelsea is near by but not the same at all.

up
Voting is closed. 15

And Chelsea does not?

By on

really? Chelsea does not while Roslindale or Hyde Park does?

Sorry. I don't buy this at all.

And protect from what? Eastie had a vote. They voted no. Sorry they lose their right in ANY SAY what so over. Maybe they should have voted yes instead so they could have some control over what goes on. The vote wasn't just if it was going to be in Eastie, but also control over what will be done.

I didn't get a yes or a no vote at all in Chelsea whether I want a Wynn or a MS casino, yet I have to bear some brunt of the effects of one on TWO sides. How is this fair? it's not. Why does Boston get preferential treatment? They don't and should not. They had their chance.

up
Voting is closed. 23

Clarification

As to my post, I was responding to this statement by you:

"Someone in, say, Roslindale, which is as far away from both sites as possible would have a say or get some sort of benefit from the casino. Sorry, it doesn't work that way."

I don't think I should have a 'say' as in a referendum vote necessarily, but to argue that the casino doesn't impact the City of Boston in general and its taxpayers just isn't the case. Certainly Boston should get some money aka 'benefit' from it and already will due to the surrounding community provision I believe, same as Chelsea. I have no idea if that amount of money is at all sufficient to offset the impact though.

Your points are valid in that East Boston voted and said no. However, I can't blame Walsh for trying to get access to these millions of dollars - that's just politics. Is anyone really surprised this turned into a money grubbing fiasco? I'm not.

up
Voting is closed. 18

And I should..

By on

Clarify my comments.

I *AM* being the devil's advocate here because my city manager, Jay Ash, is working out a deal with Mohegan Sun. However, Wynn/Everett have yet to speak to him.

From today's Chelsea Record:

http://www.chelsearecord.com/2014/03/19/regional-mohegan-casino-effort-a...

Yes I agree with your statements, it is about a money grab, and it shouldn't be. Maybe this should have been thought up long before a vote for eastie was ever put into place?

up
Voting is closed. 15

Most of Suffolk Downs is in

By on

Most of Suffolk Downs is in East Boston. Some of the Wynn site is right up against Charlestown. Both sites require access from Boston roads to get there, both sites touch Boston directly, the lure of the sites is proximity to the city of Boston, etc. Not the same for Chelsea, sorry. But either way, this isn't about pitting one community against another, that's the whole point of what this has become. It's ridiculous. As for the East Boston vote, I don't live in Eastie, but it's unfair to tell a community you have to vote Yes for something even if you don't want it, otherwise you then get zero say in the matter. And Suffolk Downs is unique because the developer lost his vote but was then given a special exemption by the Gaming Commission to put together another proposal that obviously infringes on Eastie, but technically the casino building itself is not inside the Boston line. It violates the spirit of the law, in my opinion.

up
Voting is closed. 34

again

By on

I just have to say... if you think the 'casino problems' will restrict themselves to the casino property itself, think again. ANY town that touches the town that hosts the casino should have some sort of say because it WILL effect them. So, yes, Chelsea should be included. (along with a few other towns)

up
Voting is closed. 15

The Revere proposal

By on

.really is right on the city line unless they swap out the location to the Wonderland parcel.

Belle Isle Marsh is almost across the street.

And it will make life hell for that side of Eastie given the road grid and the issues it already has.

The Everett angle is a bit weaker. It has a wide swath of the Mystic as a kind of moat for Charlestown and is in an old school industrial waste land.

The road grid is still weak.

Let the Chump Tax Portal War begin.

up
Voting is closed. 25

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

By on

IT'S NOT FAIR! YOU CAN'T HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRAFT AND LEAVE US OUT!

up
Voting is closed. 32

Mayor is Correct

By on

Of course the city of Boston should be a huge part of all decision making that goes into planning for the nw casino and should definitely have host status.
Where do they think these visitors will go when they aren't gambling, Revere Beach?
And Chelsea? Ummm, maybe concentrate more on your own gentrification first.

http://cappyinboston.blogspot.com/

up
Voting is closed. 21

Has Marty always felt this way?

By on

Does anyone know how the Mayor felt about this issue when he was a State Representative? I'd be interested to know whether he felt the same way then.

up
Voting is closed. 13

Dear Marty,

The citizens of Revere and Everett didn't vote for you. They did, however, vote for casinos.

Most of the infrastructure in your "claim" is actually not Boston's. Logan Airport: Massport. Highways: MassDOT. MBTA: MBTA (MassDOT). etc.etc.

Go be mayor of Boston and quit whining at the suburbs.

up
Voting is closed. 34

If that's what Boston wanted

By on

If that's what Boston wanted then they shouldn't have voted the Casino down. You can't have it both ways.

up
Voting is closed. 20

Switcheroo

By on

The after-the-fact scheme of shifting the project so as to only be on the Revere side of the property wasn't playing fair towards Boston. Had that possibility been known before the game was played, Boston may have voted differently and/or gathered stronger opposition in Revere.

Sure, it might be legal; in the fine print of the rules; but it's also another red flag that shows how the powerful, privately owned casino interests will do anything and everything they can to make sure the house always wins.

up
Voting is closed. 27

Why not?

By on

This is an ordered list of my preferences:

1. No casino in or near my town.
2. Have a casino in or near my town, and receive payment to offset the increased spending on police, infrastructure etc.
3. Have a casino in or near my town, no payment to offset costs.

To prefer 1 over 2 does not stop me preferring 2 over 3 -- there is no consistency problem. Who knows what the mayor's motivations are, but his actions seem reasonable to me.

up
Voting is closed. 21

Other towns don't have input, why should Boston?

In other places in the state where casinos were voted on, the surrounding towns weren't going to be allowed to have input, why should Boston? Was it written into the law? Luckily, the casino has been voted down in those places, so we'll never know what really would have happened. But, I know it wasn't looking good for the towns outside of Milford.

And yes, this was brought up before, I made the same comment and someone snarked about Boston being so much more important than other towns. Well, not to those people who would have to deal with a casino in Milford. With regard to casinos, we care as much about Boston as you care about Hopkinton.

I'm curious to see what eventually happens.

up
Voting is closed. 16

I disagree. Boston definitely SHOULD have some input here.

By on

I disagree. Boston definitely should have some input regarding the issue with casinos. Boston and the surrounding cities are already quite congested trafficwise, not to mention very densely populated. Casinos, imho, are the last thing that we need in this area, or anywhere in the Bay State, for that matter. I say...no...Casinos really don't belong here.

up
Voting is closed. 15

This is how much of Boston borders Everett

By on

https://www.google.com/maps/search/everett+boston+line/@42.3928022,-71.0672134,16z

What "Boston Roads" do you have to take to get there, again?

I swear, this is one of the most stupid pretenses for interfering in NOT your business that I have seen yet. Pure Boston, though.

Just more geographically challenged politicians, none of whom have the guts to just say: IF you want services you HAVE to pay taxes!

up
Voting is closed. 16

Alford Street, also known as Route 99

is a Boston road, and is the *only* current access to the proposed Wynn casino site.

To mitigate traffic impact, Boston could reasonably demand that Wynn build a road across the railroad tracks (either a grade crossing or a bridge) to the Target-Costco shopping center in Everett. That at least would distribute the traffic in two different directions instead of dumping it all onto 99 and Sullivan Square.

(And Somerville should demand a pedestrian/bike bridge from Wynn's property across the Mystic River to the brand-new Assembly Square T station that will open this summer. With such a bridge, the casino would be less than 1/5 mile walk from the Orange Line.)

up
Voting is closed. 20

STATE route 99

By on

Boston neither owns or maintains it.

Also notice that you can get to Rt. 99 from the other side, too.

up
Voting is closed. 15