Or are rules for schmucks?
So, today we receive news that because the rich guys lost, the East Boston/Revere casino vote won’t count, after all. Despite the fact that the rules for this process were written years ago and that Suffolk and its myriad partners have known them well ahead of time, they get something none of their potential customers would get: a second free spin at the wheel after losing big.
I have a lot of questions right now.
Do we have a state where the people can be confident that everyone will be governed by the rules, that those rules will be applied fairly and that even those with great power will have to then abide by them?
Do we live in a state where if powerful interests fail the very thresholds they helped orchestrate and design, they’ll keep getting second and third chances – if they’re really, really well connected?
Is anyone confident in this process that has been laid out before us?
Has Vito Corleone finally gone legit, figuring there’s more money to be made in masking his family business practices under the auspices of government than there is operating outside it? In effect, are rules officially – perhaps legally – for schmucks?
On this day, there’s really just one question to ask. One I stumbled on earlier today reading #mapoli. It’s a question that would give meaning to all of the above.
If East Boston voted for a Suffolk casino, would the Gaming Commission have given NoEastieCasino a second vote?
If the answer to that question is no, then the Gaming Commission has made a very, very terrible decision. It’s made a decision that can’t be allowed to stand.
It’s a mistake that isn’t just about slots and poker, but about the most foundational questions we must ask ourselves about how we run this republic of ours – whether ordinary people, organized, can do anything at all.
Let’s not forget that the rich and powerful already had more than their fair shot and still lost.
During the casino campaign, Suffolk spent a million bucks to get its casino, on top of god knows how many millions it spent lobbying for casinos in the past, including securing the provision that they could have an East Boston only vote – a vote widely viewed by most until very recently to be the easier for Suffolk to win.
Yet, the opposition spent just $22,000 and won – won big – but it seems like the Gaming Commission thinks the rules don’t apply, not today.
Today, binding votes only count if the little guys lose.
We, the People, have a lot to be worried about over the next few months and years. But there is something far more important here than just the casino question. It’s trying to discover whether or not this very Commonwealth of ours is a mirage, long since bought by the rich and powerful.
A country votes “yes,” that’s it. No second vote. A country votes “no,” six months later the EU tries again. And again until the “yes” is obtained. It’s a farce.
I don’t remember you complaining in 2012 when there was a do-over on the 2009 marriage equality vote up in Maine.
Or closer to home in 2008, when the anti-dog racing people put their question back on the ballot a few years after the electorate had voted to keep dog racing legal.
Did the Maine marriage equality campaign or the Massachusetts dog racing campaign request any special favors or exemptions?
Were there deadlines moved for them?
Were they granted special waivers and allowed to change their language and drastically change the details of what was to be voted on so far into the process that it was days away from a next stage, potentially delaying said stage?
Were they trying to pass something that didn’t even have hard details?
Were people who had undisclosed and on the appearance inappropriate relationships sitting on the boards that effected these kinds of major decisions?
Reasonable people may be able to disagree about casinos, but I find it hard to fathom any reasonable explanation that could justify what has been done re: Suffolk Downs today. This is the definition of corruptness anyway you slice it.
…but at times like this, there’s three words that we need to remember:
I’m willing to give the opposition in Revere a free copy of my organizing software that we used to send Foxwoods packing in Milford – does anyone have any idea who I should talk to? There’s literally no time to lose!
…they are building it anyway, that there will be another vote, or that they are going ahead with a Revere-only plan that has previously been mentioned? I feel like I’m missing a piece here and there was no link to a news article.
wrote this on the fly today, so couldn’t add as many links as I wanted.
The Gaming Commission passed a pair of surprise motions that a) delayed the process and b) allowed Suffolk a special waiver for a second Revere-only vote, after the Dec 31 deadline that’s been set for years, something they’re not giving to anyone else.
None of this was conceived of by any of the people voting for this or even those who passed the law. Heck, the words “binding vote” was included in the legislation… this is a complete subversion of the process.
To be honest, I’m not even sure if it’s legal — the legislation that was passed in the legislature banned cities from re-voting on the issue for a lengthier period of time than exists here… the Commissioners who pushed this through were arguing that it’s a whole new proposal and therefore wouldn’t be subjected to that deadline. I think that’s a very dubious argument to make, IMO.
The bottom line is if Suffolk wanted a Revere casino, they could have nixed the East Boston plan to begin with. They knew the process. They knew the rules. They cast their bets.
They shouldn’t get special waivers and new 11th hour, previously inconceivable chances when no one else would, least of all any organization that opposed casinos and lost a vote in their community.
This approval process need to be clean, transparent and fair… and so far the Gaming Commission has badly failed on all three.
Since the joint East Boston/Revere plan failed, but Revere agreed they need to do something in only Revere. What would have disrespected voters IMO is to go ahead with Revere-only WITHOUT a new vote for a new plan. I think it’s good that Revere voters are being allowed to weigh in on this new plan rather than taking their agreement on the last vote as assumed permission to do something very different.
I hope you’ll read it, because he put things better than I could.
To say that it’s “good” that Revere gets another vote ignores the gross abuse of the process that has taken place.
I know a lot of things are going on here, but the facts are clear: there was a process laid forward that every casino applicant was well versed in, including Suffolk. Suffolk failed, fair and square.
The Gaming Commission shouldn’t get to rewrite the rules as it goes along to benefit the well connected and powerful Suffolk. As Sleeples said, the commission is not a legislative body and no one voted to give them this authority to subvert the rules and violate clearly expressed intentions of the process.
If Revere said no the first time around I would be inclined to agree with you, but since Revere voted for it it seems reasonable to double-check that they still want it given the new proposal. If the intent is to let the community decide whether to host a casino, then Revere should be given the chance to host one since that what they said they wanted. To deny them that opportunity would be disrespecting them from the other direction.
The rules explicitly said that the vote was binding and there couldn’t be a revote until after the deadline.
Suffolk chose to center it’s plan around East Boston. It chose to put its Craps money on red, but the wheel came out black and now it wants a do over.
They took a gamble and lost. The process should not be subverted to benefit one of the most well connected outfits in the state just because they lost . Period.
The voters did not vote for the current proposal – they said yes to a casino that was largely located outside of their town. If Mohegan Sun now wants to put a new casino forward, there’s a 180 day waiting period IN THE LEGISLATION for new proposals following rejection. This new vote is a miscarriage of justice, Chris.
…which is exactly why they should be given a chance to vote on a new proposal. I did not realize, however, that there was such a short window. If it’s only 6 months before this can be brought up again I see no harm in waiting out that window and then bringing the new plan to a vote.
What the Gaming Commission did clearly circumvents the law by bypassing the 6th month period.
But there is another piece to this that I don’t think you’ve realized either. The law not only established that 6th month waiting period, it also set a timetable for license approval.
The issue for Suffolk is that in the 6 or so months they’d have to wait under the statute, Wynn’s proposed Everett casino would likely get the approval. Since there’s only one license per region, that would mean Suffolk wouldn’t be getting a casino.
That doesn’t mean they should get any special exemptions, though.
Suffolk knew how the law worked well in advance: their lobbyists had a very large hand in writing it. They, like anyone else, should have to abide by the process that was set out. The voting process was fair and known well in advance. They simply lost.
Time to beat these big money pricks a second time.
I this what Crosby’s bedroom looked like this morning?
It seems clear the intent of the law is to give the affected communities veto power.
Apparently, unless the community executes that veto power. In which case the law can just be switched around, the plans moved 500 feet, a new owner brought in, and another vote without calling it a ‘new plan’ and waiting the 180 normally required to submit a new plan.
A good law would allow the actual affected communities a say, not just let someone plop it down on the border and say nothing else matters. This is why the law, even enacted correctly (which I am not convinced of here) NEEDS to be repealed.
“Do we live in a state where if powerful interests fail the very thresholds they helped orchestrate and design, they’ll keep getting second and third chances – if they’re really, really well connected?”
Ask Dan Wolf!
This became most blatanttly obvious when they changed the law so Romney couldn’t appoint President Kerry’s successor. Ryan – the supermajority of Democrats have changed and twisted laws they find inconvenient for so long they don’t know any other way to behave anymore.
And spare me the ‘conservative’ Democrat Finneran meme or how they fought the good fight with a neat Progressive like Sal – your progressive heroes voted to empower the successive convicted Speakers eagerly.
Why should Mass government treat this law with any more respect than they do day-in, day-out? It’s INCONVENIENT, dammit!
Who was President Kerry’s successor?