I’m no expert on the nitty-gritty details of the casino law. But it seems to me that the question whether Suffolk Downs, having lost a host-community vote in East Boston, should be allowed to substantially reconfigure its proposal such that it sits only in Revere, cut a new deal with Revere, and then proceed, is a legally complicated one. For starters, it seems pretty obvious that the plan for which Revere voted is not the one that is now under consideration – for instance, as the Globe just reported, the agreement on which both East Boston and Revere voted states that “‘As planned, the project would be constructed within the municipal boundaries of the city of Boston and no new significant construction is currently proposed on the portion of the property located in the city’ of Revere.” Is the Revere vote really valid for an agreement in which all the construction is going to happen in Revere? Doesn’t seem obvious to me.
Here is Shirley Leung’s hilarious take on that question:
The commission has to decide whether the yes vote is valid for a Revere-only project.
Suffolk Downs and Revere think so, as does former Massachusetts attorney general Tom Reilly, whom Suffolk has retained as counsel. “Everyone should respect the outcome of the elections,” said Reilly. “Revere welcomed it, and East Boston chose not to. It’s their right. It’s a very viable option.”
Enough said. He is the former AG, after all.
Well, gosh! A lawyer hired by one of the parties takes a position that favors the interest of that party! I guess that’s the end of the matter, then – no need for any independent analysis of the question, or consideration of what the law actually says, or anything like that.
The Globe should be embarrassed to publish something like that. There may be good arguments for why a Revere-only casino should be permitted without Suffolk Downs having to start the process over, but the say-so of someone on Suffolk Downs’ payroll is surely not among them.
UPDATE: First, thanks to Shirley Leung for engaging directly on Twitter. But, second, I am constrained to point out that one of her responses to my post makes little sense. When I questioned whether it really made sense to treat Tom Reilly’s opinion on the Revere question as the final word, given that he’s working for Suffolk Downs, Leung asked:
Did u ever think the enough said line was a little sarcasm?
Hmm. I mean, yes, it did occur to me that treating an ex-Attorney General’s legal opinion as gospel simply because he used to be AG was a bit strange. But I’m afraid the “sarcasm” dog won’t hunt. One definition of “sarcasm”, which seems about right, is “the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.” In this context, that would mean ironically noting Reilly’s ex-AG status as though it settled the question, when it obviously didn’t, and perhaps to convey the notion that one should pay a lot more attention to who is paying Reilly’s bills now than what office he held a decade ago in evaluating his legal conclusion on this matter. Indeed, one arguing that Suffolk Downs should not be allowed to shift the casino into Revere without a new vote might “sarcastically” refer to the fact that Reilly is the ex-AG when discussing his position.
But is Leung really trying to “mock” or “convey contempt” for Reilly’s opinion? To the contrary, she clearly believes that Reilly is right, and that the Gaming Commission should follow his advice. Here, after all, is her conclusion:
Many questions remain about Suffolk Downs’ casino proposal, but one of them should not be whether it can be built in Revere. The commission needs to get on the right side of the track on this one.
It’s hard to be sarcastic about something that you actually think is correct. I don’t know what Leung thought she was doing with her “enough said” line. But sarcasm? No, that wasn’t it.
…with her heart-wrenching column about the controversial changing of the menu at a power lunch Oh the Humanity!
I will never care about her opinion again.
It’s hard to tell whether or not it’s satire…
…that whether absolutely required or not, a new plan should be subject to a new vote.
not necessarily because they think they can’t win another vote in Revere, but because the timing will be such that that effectively kills the plan because of built-in deadlines. That’s what the fuss is about.
Maybe SD, The Speaker and Casino Menino should have actually spent some time listening to people in East Boston about their concerns vs. listening to the lobbyists, special interests and the gimmick cheerleaders. If they had, they may not have been caught with their collective pants down and their ar$e$ glowing whilst they sucked their thumbs.
Poor business planning. Poor community outreach. Poor leadership. Poor choice of kool-aid. And a wicked poor return on investment (ROI) for SD with the inept lobbyists, marketing and legislative influencers.
Is a poorly skilled writer and journalist.
Enough said.
and Boston’s elites.
Columns like this that are just blatantly terrible in every aspect stop her from being a particularly skilled mouthpiece of the 1%, though, hard as she tries.
I guess that’s why she’s writing columns for the Boston Globe instead of the Wall Street Journal or something.
a reliable voice in support of any business proposition, including being more than slightly dismissive of anyone who dares have an opposing view. I guess my problem is I mistook her for a business reporter, and not a columnist, writing her opinions, which she is. I guess I’m sorry that an issue as contentious as casinos, couldn’t be presented by someone more sensitive to the fact that this has tension on both sides an should be written about with that in mind.
It seems to me that a political blog focused on state issues is downright reliant on traditional journalism. It isn’t important or even a small part of every diary. But, it’s important enough for some.
I believe BMG and other blogs are also better when the journalists themselves show up from time to time, or even just communicate with The Editors ™.
It seems to me that heartlanddem’s post actually harms blogs like BMG [a teeny bit] without anything beneficial, a post like ryepower12 provides about equal parts reasonable commentary and shinkicking, and af’s post is a productive, constructive criticism of Leung.
I don’t know where I’m going with this; heartlanddem’s post just sat funny with me. And no, I couldn’t pick out Leung or her articles from a lineup.
pick up on the double entendre play on “Enough said.” ;-
you’d agree a little “shinkicking” is in order. She’s one of the few business columnists on the Globe and apparently thinks, if businesses are rich and powerful or backed by big money, they can do no wrong and shame on anyone who doesn’t worship the ground they walk on.
in fact, I probably wouldn’t, as I tend to think similar to Ryepower12 on these matters.
I just don’t think it’s productive to write things like “S.L. is a poorly skilled writer and journalist.” I think it’s productive to critique her piece (as David did) or even a common theme in her pieces (as ryepower12 did in the first 1/2).
What you seemed to have missed is that my comment is a satirical mimic of the columnist’s writing. 😉 😉
In fact, stomv should congratulate you on your graciousness. Saying “Shirley Leung is a poorly skilled writer and journalist,” followed by “Enough said,” is, by Leung’s own formula, to be read as meaning the opposite. That stomv didn’t read it that way is all the proof we need that Leung’s Twitter defense is pretty weak. So everyone wins. Except Shirley Leung.
Having read the whole column, it’s unmistakable that she’s in favor of Revere having its casino and Eastie be damned. The only way to reconcile her column and her defense would be that she thinks the question is clearly in Revere’s favor, just not because Tom Reilly said so. That seems like hair-splitting.