As you know if you read BMG (and as you knew a week later if you only read the Globe), it has come to light that horse racing at Suffolk Downs is far from a sure thing. To the contrary, the would-be casino operators at Suffolk Downs, Mohegan Sun, have made clear that they will discontinue racing if racing were to pose any sort of threat to their casino license.
Now, No Eastie Casino has written to Secretary of State Galvin and State Inspector General Cunha, making
a formal request that the Inspector General’s office investigate apparent collusion between the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (“MGC”), Suffolk Downs holding company Sterling Suffolk, LLC (“SSL,”) and their Category 1 gaming license application partner Mohegan Sun Massachusetts (“MSM”). We are concurrently requesting that the Secretary of the Commonwealth investigate possible resulting disenfranchisement of Boston voters as well as fraud which may have followed in the Revere special election held February 25, 2014.
The link has all the details, spelled out at considerable length. The issues all swirl around the question whether continuing racing at Suffolk Downs would create the possibility that Boston would be a “host community” (rather than the less-desirable “surrounding community”), and the related, very real possibility that the residents of Revere might have wanted to know that the race track could be shut down before they voted on whether to a casino into their city. I didn’t see the advertising and other publicity in advance of the host community vote, but I do have the impression that keeping the race track going has always been a big part of the pitch to locate a casino at Suffolk Downs.
So. The deal at Suffolk Downs might be tainted by impropriety around keeping the race track alive. The Wynn deal in Everett might be tainted by convicted criminals profiting from the sale of the land. And we are just barely getting started.
Really, Martha, Steve, Juliette, Joe, and Warren? (And Deval, for that matter.) You really think this is the right path for this state?
Disclosure: I am part of the Repeal The Casino Deal legal team.
is fine with the ballot imitative.
I’m a convert, I want a repeal.
But not sure why you are lumping in Warren here. Especially when Healey flipped Romney-style in a couple of months and attacking Warren.
Interviewed for her announcement to the AG race, then a few months later is all over repeal. Hmmm. Gee, a few months into a primary and all of a sudden you use a hot button issue that you cannot control and hammer an opponent. I’ll give her that it’s great for politics, but I’m not the least bit convinced on the authenticity.
I’m lumping in Warren because he said he opposes the ballot question. He has the same position that Grossman, Kayyem, and Avellone have. IMHO, it’s the wrong position.
If you could fix your Healey link, I’ll take a look.
It’s an interesting and unanswerable question, but I can’t imagine there’s much difference between those who would oppose casinos with a track and those who would oppose casinos without a track. Suffolk is a local landmark and all, but would that have really swayed the vote?
That said, I do enjoy the comedy of all this. A tainted vote, a tainted commission … to erect a tainted business.
I doubt there’s much difference outside the area… but inside Revere, all politics is local.
that in order to secure the license, horse racing would remain at Suffolk Downs. I think the threat should be that to drop racing, the license is a no go. BTW, I support the “Repeal the Casino Deal” drive.