Hey, there! Log in / Register

At-large candidates generally support gambling at Suffolk Downs, but with caveats

At a candidate forum sponsored by the Brighton Allston Improvement Association tonight, moderator Michael Pahre asked the candidates for the four open at-large City Council seats how they felt about putting a casino or slot machines at the Suffolk Downs racetrack - an idea pushed by Mayor Menino. Their answers follow (see their answers to questions on other issues).

Ayanna Pressley said that in tough times like these, "we need to be considering all options." But she added that while she wouldn't campaign against a casino at Suffolk Downs, she probably wouldn't vote for it, either. "Personally, I'm not sure the social costs are worth that," or that the revenue is sustainable. As the daughter of an addict father, she said she has "serious concerns" supporting anything that could increase a form of addiction.

Tomas Gonzalez said, "I'm not opposed to gaming in the city of Boston; I think it will bring in revenue for the city." However, he added he's not sold on the idea of a "destination casino" in East Boston because of the potential burden it could put on a neighborhood that "has suffered a lot of injustice already" at the hands of Massport. He said he would be more inclined to support slot machines only at the racetrack.

Andrew Kenneally, the only candidate actuallhy living in East Boston, said he supports the idea of slot machines at Suffolk Downs - after the neighborhood gets a plan for dealing with any increased traffic. "We're losing millions of dollars every year to Connecticut and Rhode Island. ... Suffolk Downs is struggling right now, economically."

Incumbent John Connolly said he's open to casino gambling, but only after the developer of a casino shows "flow of community benefits to the neighborhood most affected - East Boston" and only if residents there support it.

Doug Bennett said he simply supports casino gambling and the idea of slots at Suffolk Downs, because the state is losing revenue otherwise, thanks to all the senior citizens who go down to Foxwoods every week.

Tito Jackson worked in the Governor's Office of Housing and Economic Development while the governor was pushing the idea of three resort casinos in the state. Jackson agreed Massachusetts loses revenue when residents travel out of state to gamble, and added that gambling is already legal in the state in the form of the lottery and keno.

NOTE: Incumbent Stephen Murphy and candidate Felix Arroyo, Jr. left before the question.

Other issues at the forum.

Neighborhoods: 


Ad:


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

Comments

I asked similar questions to the nine councilor-at-large candidates two years ago, but got somewhat different answers.

Two years ago, the responses were all over the map. Some were for it immediately, others lukewarm towards it, others dead set against it.

Tonight, I agree with your characterization: the seven*** candidates appeared to be generally leaning towards the idea of some kind of legalized gambling within the City of Boston.

My feeling from tonight's forum is that there is not a lot of political will to oppose a local casino if the legislature were to approve the idea state-wide.

Remember that in Middleborough the citizens in their Town Meeting voted to go forward with a particular casino proposal with the Wampanoag, but later in the day a smaller number of citizens voted against the general idea of having a casino in town. So figuring out how the municipal leaders and voters feel is crucial towards understanding if the casino idea will gain traction locally.

*** Adding to the six who were present to answer these questions, Councilor Steve Murphy was strongly supportive of the idea in 2007.

up
Voting closed 0

It's really unfortunate that these candidates and/or what thus far seems to present the political will of the people, are not outright opposed to this legal "addiction", but at least Ayanna Presley shows a social conscience on the subject. However, the only candidate that really has a clue concerning the reality of "the potential burden it could put on a neighborhood that 'has suffered a lot of injustice already' by Mass Port" is Thomas Gonzalez. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez! Before any of them agree to victimize us any further with their vote, I'd like to invite all of these candidates to come and live in said neighborhood for three days, specifically, Bennington Street, between Day Square and Orient Heights Square.

Proposing any additional "injustice" to any neighborhood in this historically, sacrificially-disregarded part of Boston (East Boston)only confirms my conviction that, in so far as the City of Boston is concerned, we who live here must be viewed as some type of underclass or at best, simply second-class citizens. This view could not, of course, ever be justified considering that we and our families who live, work, own property, pay taxes comprise a large diverse population of which the majority are hard working, law biding citizens, including many working and retired senior citizens. We don't need to be dumped on again, especially expecting us to tolerate any addition, impossible traffic conditions.

As it is now, it has become a major production for residents here to get into or out of our cars during the hours when the general public is going to or returning from work, even though the we who live here are doing the same thing. And, God forbid we bother the other drivers (who are maximizing the traffic burden further by being allowed to use our street as a shortcut to Route 1A), as we attempt to safely park our vehicles near where we live. Some of these drivers are quick to let us know we're an inconvenience to them, a real problem, that we're literally in their way. They lean on their horns, swear and curse out their car windows at us as they pass by (often grossly and basely demeaning someone's mother), or best of all, serve us with their intelligent use of the royal "finger". They then continue on their destination beyond Heights Square to the Heights Hill, to Winthrop, to Revere, and to any other town accessed by Route 1A. To add insult to injury, these same drivers are favored once more, in fact the only consideration, whenever we have a winter storm. Again, the City of Boston is quick to demand that we immediately move our cars off both sides of Bennington Street, not caring where, how, or if, we are able to accomplish this task, with no public parking whatever available. Apparently, this is of paramount importance, in order to insure that traffic move smoothly, not for the people who reside here on this street, but rather to accommodate and benefit these same drivers, who mostly drive and live outside of Boston. Depending on the severity of the storm, we can be expected (sometimes for two-three days), to struggle over the ice and snow to wherever we happened to find a parking space and with whatever bundles, packages, or baggage we must carry.

As I see it, regardless of whether or not gambling does in fact come to Suffolk Downs, one fair-minded solution to the insanity of this already intolerable traffic problem is that the section of Bennington Street from Day Square to Orient Heights Square be open only to East Boston and Winthrop residents between the hours of 4:00-6:00PM. It's about time that everyone gets the message that East Boston is no longer Noddle Island; that we, too, belong to the City of Boston.

up
Voting closed 0

One thing I know for sure will mean death for our city is gambling.

Guess that's just one thing ...

up
Voting closed 0

Because we don't have that now. Everybody who opposes the casinos forgets that within the city of Boston, we already have a facility for pari-mutuel wagering. Bringing the one-armed bandits to Suffolk Downs will introduce people to the lovely sport of horse racing, which applies thought and strategy to gaming.

Slot machines in and of themselves might not be the most socially responsible amusement option. I'll bite on that point of the anti-gaming lobby's argument. They're computers that automatically guarantee a profit for the house. But if anything good can come from expanded gaming at Suffolk Downs, it's that we can introduce people to horse racing, a pastime that allows one to experience the thrill of a wager without mindlessly pumping quarters into a machine, a pastime in which one can make money through the science of handicapping. Perhaps then - gasp! - the forces of the free market and the desire to not lose paychecks to a machine will render the slots useless, rather than a ban by busybody activists who want to tell people how they can't spend their money.

To quote the great Bostonian Bobby Brown: "Let me tell you something, it's my prerogative, I'll do what I want to do. I made this money, you didn't."

up
Voting closed 0

What is this "gaming" you speak of? Just a way for pro-gambling forces to make it sound fun and exciting.

It's called gambling. GAMBLING.

up
Voting closed 0

or an XBox, or a PlayStation, or in an arcade. Not a casino or a racetrack.

up
Voting closed 0

So apparently, when people go to Fenway park you think they come home with more money than they went in with?

up
Voting closed 0

You just need to play Moundball and get lucky...

up
Voting closed 0

Gaming = a SKILL game in which you wager money (i.e. poker, horse racing)

Gambling = a LUCK game in which you wager money (i.e. slot machine)

up
Voting closed 0

...but which casinos will ban you from playing if you exhibit ths slightest trace of skill?

;~}

For those needing a hint:

http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/16/0118205/C...

up
Voting closed 0