Everett Average Citizen
Everett Average Citizen
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Local Election
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

Senior Member

101 Posts

Posted - 06/13/2013 :  08:05:05 AM  Show Profile Send waterboy a Private Message  Reply with Quote


Google AdSense

Mountain View

Advanced Member

1428 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  06:19:17 AM  Show Profile Send justme a Private Message  Reply with Quote
We're planning on voting YES. This city needs the jobs & revenue the casino will generate.
Go to Top of Page


64 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  09:58:08 AM  Show Profile Send snoopy1 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I know the city needs jobs and revenue but I urge people to do their own research and know that entire truths are not being told. Mayor DeMaria has constantly stated “Jobs for Everett Residents” however, Steve Crosby from the gaming commission has come forward and said casinos are not required to hire local residents. Those construction jobs are temporary and again, Wynn can hire who ever he wants. Where is it in writing that he will hire ALL local people for inside the casino and construction? Its NOT. Steve Wynn is like a politician. Tells you what you want to hear and once you get in, they don’t know you anymore.

The host agreement is crap. I think Wynn wrote the host agreement. He is giving the City of Everett peanuts compared to what he gives other cities and towns where Wynn resorts are located. Nothing is earmarked so the mayor can spend it however he likes. If Mayor DeMaria gets re-elected, that is a frightening thought!

We have 9 schools in this city. All the little kids are "liking" Everett United. It's not a legend that I would like to leave to my children and grandchildren that they like gaming and that's a way of life. Talk to people that live near casinos. Divorce rates are high and we already have EBT fraud, I can see Welfare money being spent at the Casino. Those EBT cards are used as a debit card. No way the casino will block that because they don't care. All they want is the money. The money out of children's mouths and into the casino. Read up California welfare spends millions on casinos. That is SAD and will happen here!

I am very concerned about the increased crime and the clientele that will be roaming our streets. There are comprehensive studies (NOT WYNN STUDIES) about increased theft, house break-ins. The quality of life will be on the decline. Local businesses will go under. Who will want to move to a 3-mile city with 45K plus people…that is a traffic nightmare and hosts a casino? Our home/car insurance rates will skyrocket. Is it really worth it?

There is so much more but please see one mans investigation below. When there is underhanded dealings going on, it makes me wonder is it really worth it. At this time, I would have to say no.

You must be logged in to see this link.

“No Saint in this game:
Several weeks ago while scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed, I ran across a post that had been Liked by an acquaintance from my old hometown of Everett, Massachusetts. The post was written by Everett United, a group I’d never heard of before, and it concerned a new casino being proposed for Everett by Las Vegas casino/resort mogul Steve Wynn.

Out of curiosity, I began reading through the group’s Facebook page. Having lived for nine years in Everett, it seemed improbable to me that anyone would find it a good idea to place a casino there. A small suburb just north of Boston, Everett had just under 42,000 residents in the 2010 census, and its median household income is $48,319 (about 8.4% below the national average). From long personal experience, I know that Everett is, in every way, the polar opposite of glamorous.

The Facebook page for Everett United, which launched in March, describes the group as “a coalition of local residents and business leaders who support the idea of a world-class resort hotel and entertainment complex in Everett.” The group’s dedicated web site, EverettUnited.com, contains a similar statement: “Everett United are your neighbors…the clerk at the checkout counter…your friends and co-workers. Together, we view the Wynn Resort and Hotel in Everett as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to greatly improve our city and quality of life. It’s a project we need, and deserve, more than any other community” (ellipses in original).

The objective of the group is to drum up support for a June 22 citywide referendum in Everett, required under state casino law, in which Everett residents will decide whether to approve the host agreement between Wynn Resorts and their city. If they do, the proposed hotel and casino complex will then be one of three contestants for a Greater Boston casino license, whose winner will be decided by the Massachusetts gambling commission.

The further I looked, however, the more unlikely it seemed that Everett United was truly a grassroots organization. The first anomaly that struck me was the overwhelmingly positive tone of posts on its Facebook wall: there was a virtually unanimous consensus in favor of building a casino in Everett.

Secondly, the group appeared highly organized and well-funded. It has its own office on 13 Chelsea Street in Everett, which is open from 12 PM to 8 PM on weekdays and 10 AM to 5 PM on Saturdays. And not only were pro-Wynn Casino signs made available free of charge to anyone who wanted them, but Everett United even offered to deliver them directly to residents’ homes.

Thirdly, the wording of certain portions of Everett United’s web site bore an uncanny resemblance to that of the official Wynn web site for the Everett proposal at WynnHarborPark.com, suggesting that the same team had prepared both.

For example, the “Get Involved” panel on EverettUnited.com’s homepage had virtually identical contribution options to the Wynn Harbor Park’s registration page. At the former site, the registrant had the option of checking boxes for “I would like to display a window or lawn sign” and “I would like to volunteer my time for the cause.” At the latter site, the corresponding options were “I would like to display a window or lawn sign in support of Wynn Everett” and “I would like to volunteer my time for the cause.” Similarly, Everett United’s form included a disclaimer that read:

By entering my personal information I hereby grant permission for my name to be used in any promotional materials and advertising that Everett United may prepare in support of the Everett Wynn Resort and Hotel proposal.

The official Wynn Harbor Park registration page had a very similar disclosure:

By submitting this form, I hereby grant permission for my name to be used in any promotional materials and advertising in support of the Everett Wynn Resort and Hotel Proposal.

Fourthly, the tone of posts by Everett United itself was unusually hostile to opponents of the proposed casino resort, especially for an ostensibly community-led organization. On May 14th, for example, Everett United posted the following message:

INTRUDER ALERT: We knew there would be shenanigans and stunts pulled by our competitors to try to influence the vote here in Everett and here they come. We have multiple reports of people hanging around outside Everett stores and coffee shops talking about how bad this project will be for Everett. They are not from here and they are likely being paid to stir up trouble. If you see them, get a picture of them on your mobile phone. Ask them where they live and why they are here. Please report it here so we can expose them for what they are. Everett is going to stand united and no one is going to pull us apart when it comes to winning this project! Keep your eyes and ears open and spread the word. INTRUDER ALERT!

Three days later, the group posted again:

This time, I noticed something odd. Shortly after a couple commenters politely replied that, regardless of one’s views on the casino, there was nothing necessarily wrong with another group sending out materials advocating against the proposal, their posts disappeared. I hadn’t taken any screenshots beforehand, so I had no proof of this. But I began to watch more closely for more of the same.

It didn’t take long before it happened again. Below is a screenshot of a post taken at 5:50 PM EST on May 21st, in which Everett United announced that McKinnon’s (a local butcher shop) had decided to support the Wynn casino resort proposal. One of the comments in reply stated simply, “Dislike.”

By 6:14 PM, just 24 minutes later, that comment had vanished:

Three days later, the same thing happened again. At 12:43 PM, I took a screenshot of an Everett United post from two days earlier, in which the group had posted a link to a Boston Globe article highlighting the Wynn team’s plans to improve traffic near the casino by replacing a busy rotary with a “flyover from Route 16.” One bemused commenter replied, “No way it will help. It’s still a two-lane road.”

Just over two hours later, at 2:57 PM, the comment was nowhere to be found:

(I contacted both commenters to confirm that they had not deleted their own posts. One confirmed that she had not, writing: “I don’t even know how to delete a post.” The other replied, “I don’t remember deleting it.”)

Around this time, I began to dig around a little and quickly found dissenters elsewhere, sporadically disseminated across various message boards and comment sections. Brief research led me to multiple skeptics who, explicitly or otherwise, suggested that Everett United was not exactly what it purported to be. Several of these commenters named an organization called Saint Consulting Group as a financial backer of Everett United.

So I started trying to contact both Everett United and Saint Consulting Group. On May 17th, I called Sandy Juliano, whom the Everett Independent, a local newspaper, identified as the “founder and president of Everett United.” Juliano, along with several others, had been treated to a tour-guided (and Rolls Royce limousine ride-included) stay at Steve Wynn’s properties in Las Vegas in April as the Everett proposal gained steam. (Although her real estate business, JRS Properties, Inc., is based in Everett, Juliano is actually a resident of North Reading.)

Juliano answered her cell phone and I identified myself as a writer who wanted to speak to her about Everett United. She asked me who I wrote for, and I explained that I have written for various publications such as The Huffington Post, as well as on my own web site. She then asked whether my site was pro- or anti-casino, to which I replied that it is neither one and that I mostly cover national and international politics. I mentioned that I am originally from Everett and found the movement interesting.

Upon hearing this, Juliano — who remained cordial throughout — explained that she’d been having some kind of trouble with anti-casino advocates recently (I don’t recall her exact phrasing) and that she wanted me to send her a link to my web site via email, after which she would call me back. She had a property inspection she was headed to and would call me back when it was over — in about two hours, she said. I thanked her and immediately emailed her a link to my web site, explaining again, “I saw a few

Facebook posts about Everett United from old friends, and was curious about the project.”

Despite her helpful demeanor, I was somewhat perturbed by the phone call. Once again, immediately questioning the motives of a caller and referencing trouble with opponents of the casino proposal didn’t seem in line with normal strategy for a community-based organization. It was stranger still when Juliano not only never called me back, but also didn’t reply to a follow-up email I sent three days later, on the subsequent Monday.

Meanwhile, on May 17th, the same day I originally contacted Juliano, I performed a quick whois.com domain name search of EverettUnited.com’s site registration, and found that Saint Consulting Group was listed as the registrant and administrative contact for the site:

According to its web site, Saint Consulting Group has been “winning controversial local, state, & federal land use campaigns since 1983.” The site’s Entertainment & Gaming page boasts:

The Saint Entertainment and Gaming Practice represents resort developers, casino operators, gaming companies, race track owners, stadiums, theme park operators, movie theatre owners, golf course developers and other real estate interests related to entertainment and gaming. This practice focuses on developing successful strategies that earn public land use approvals for casinos, racetracks, sporting and hospitality projects and protect commercial assets from unwanted competition.

Our gaming clients are typically seeking local zoning approvals or state level permissions for their casinos and related facilities like racetracks and off track betting. Our entertainment clients are typically seeking local or county zoning permissions and entitlements.

Through our work permitting expansions and greenfield development, we’ve confronted myriad opposition styles, objections and tactics. We have coordinated land use campaigns in every region of the U.S., successfully helping our clients in obtaining county zoning permits, all types of municipal relief, as well as the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers approvals.

Our approach has overcome opposition from local community groups, regional environmental associations, the Sierra Club and elected officials.

The Saint Entertainment and Gaming Practice is experienced and expert in building community support for — and overcoming opposition to —projects of any size or scope.
One case study on the site centered on a client who was planning “a 1,000-acre mixed-use development with conference center and restaurants in a tourist city. To attract convention attendees and high-rent tenants, a ‘liquor by the drink’ question had to be placed on the ballot and approved.” Describing its (ultimately successful) strategy, the case study explained how Saint achieved its client’s objectives, which included the following tactics (among others):

Focused on key local business supporters, such as restaurants and tourism, and on key political supporters including the mayor. These supporters assisted in the petition gathering, making it a “local” effort.

Executed a targeted door-to-door canvass of registered voters, focusing on established neighborhoods with high concentration of registered voters.
Tailored our message to secure signatures from both supporters and opponents.

These strategies hewed closely to Wynn Resorts’ methodology in Everett, a process that has included successfully wooing Everett mayor Carlo DeMaria.

The media has been less kind in its appraisals of Saint Consulting Group. A 2009 Forbes article described one of Saint’s tactics as “[playing] bad cop, in part by painting protesters as carpetbaggers” — a characterization perfectly in line with Everett United’s “INTRUDER ALERT” Facebook post. The article, which claims Saint Consulting Group earns $30 million annually on projects with an average fee of $250,000, continues:

For obvious reasons clients insist on anonymity. So Saint goes “undercover,” riling up neighbors, turning them against a group or company, quietly offering legal advice, as well as tips on how to organize and turn up political pressure. Fox says some neighbors are suspicious that he’s an enemy plant, though he tells them, “I’m here to help you. I do this across the country.” Funds to pay, say, a traffic expert are sometimes handled through attorneys so they can’t be traced back to Saint or its client. Fox encourages neighbors to hold fundraisers, which further disguises Saint’s fingerprints; often its agents use fake names.

In 2010, a Wall Street Journal article described another campaign by Saint Consulting Group in which its client, a grocery-store chain, hired it to drum up opposition to a Wal-Mart being proposed in its area. The article explained:

Mr. Saint, a former newspaper reporter and political press secretary, founded his firm 26 years ago. It specializes in using political-campaign tactics—petition drives, phone banks, websites—to build support for or against controversial projects, from oil refineries and shopping centers to quarries and landfills. Over the years, it has conducted about 1,500 campaigns in 44 states. Mr. Saint says about 500 have involved trying to block a development, and most of those have been clandestine.

For the typical anti-Wal-Mart assignment, a Saint manager will drop into town using an assumed name to create or take control of local opposition, according to former Saint employees. They flood local politicians with calls, using multiple phones to make it appear that the calls are coming from different people, the former employees say.

They hire lawyers and traffic experts to help derail the project or stall it as long as possible, in hopes that the developer will pull the plug or Wal-Mart will find another location.

Mr. Saint says he “encouraged” his employees not to use their real names in campaigns in order to protect the client’s identity and “to protect our employees, who have been followed, threatened and harassed by the opposition.”

The article described numerous unsavory activities that Saint has participated in on behalf of its corporate clients. During one anti-Wal-Mart campaign, even opponents of the superstore were unaware that Saint was funding their advocacy:

One member of the citizens group, Kip Kelly, says a woman he assumed was from a labor group or anti-Wal-Mart coalition had offered to fund the effort. Former Saint employees say the woman was a Saint operative and that Giant was paying the group’s legal bills through Saint. Tracy Cadzow, the lawyer who represented the group, says she had no idea that the grocer was behind the effort. “This is new information to me,” she says.

The article’s allegations were so severe that Thomas E. Eppes, Chair of the Public Relations Society of America’s Board of Ethics and Professional Standards, unequivocally denounced Saint’s practices in an online post:

For that reason, it is essential that we clearly and firmly declare our separation from this “dark side” of communications. As ethical public relations practitioners, we encourage every reputable business and practitioner to join PRSA in categorically condemning and disavowing these strategies and those who practice them.

Finally, the Wall Street Journal article included this revelation, from another Saint project: “Former Saint employees say much of the work consisted of training Safeway’s unionized workers to fight land-use battles, including how to speak at public hearings.”
This would again be consistent with Everett United’s methods. An April article in the Everett Independent stated:

Following the public speaking portion of the agenda, the Aldermen did allow Sandy Juliano, a North Reading resident, Everett businesswoman and founder and president of Everett United to address the [Everett Board of Aldermen] for approximately five minutes to explain Everett United’s support for the casino and its mission as a whole.

On Friday, May 17th, the same day I’d called Juliano, I also called the media relations contact for Saint Consulting Group, Stephen Shepherd, twice but was unable to reach him. I then sent him an email, explaining that I’d found Saint Consulting Group registered for the EverettUnited.com domain name and asking him to confirm that SCG owned and funded Everett United on behalf of Wynn.

Shepherd never responded. But by the following Monday, just three days later, the whois.com domain-name registration had changed to eliminate all references to Saint Consulting Group:

They weren’t very careful, however. As seen above, someone named Nate Sharkey was listed as the administrative contact for the site. A quick Facebook search led to a profile that included “Worked at The Saint Consulting Group” in the About section:

Furthermore, as seen in the above screenshot, the URL for Sharkey’s Facebook profile (which is viewable in the address bar) references someone named Seth Cargiuolo. Searching for this name leads to a profile with a photo of the same man, and an About section that states: “CKO & Director, Digital Strategy at The Saint Consulting Group.”

His Twitter profile says essentially the same thing: “CKO & Digital Strategy Guy at The Saint Consulting Group.”

As do his LinkedIn page and Quora profile. So regardless of Saint Consulting Group’s disappearance from Everett United’s domain-name registration, it is still very present behind the scenes.

What is so problematic about this arrangement is that everything from the name of the group — Everett United — to its grassroots pretensions, from its hostility towards casino opponents to its apparent censorship of critical Facebook posts, deliberately portrays an image of popular consensus on the proposed Wynn casino/hotel complex that is decidedly at odds with reality.

(Even Everett United’s “Facts” page gets it wrong: it states that “Steve Wynn grew up in Revere,” which is a stretch at best. Steve Wynn has made numerous references to his Revere connection, but his childhood was mostly spent in Utica, New York.)

Everett will get its chance to vote for or against the proposed casino in just a few short weeks. If, as expected, the residents approve the proposal and if Massachusetts subsequently awards the gaming license to Wynn and not either of his competitors, time will tell whether the ambitious project is beneficial to Everett in the long run. But it shouldn’t be too much to ask to ensure that Everett’s residents know just who is purporting to unite them.
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

1428 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  12:42:18 PM  Show Profile Send justme a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I realize there are no job guarantees but there is revenue to be gained & our city needs all the help it can get. Carlo is not going to be the mayor forever & anyone with a brain has to realize Wynn is financing the Everett United group. He's made a large financial commitment & intends to make a much larger one if the casino is approved. He'd be a fool not to financially support people who want to make this happen.

The city of Everett needs help............ A lot of help. We need to get rid of DeMaria & bring some money into the city. The casino project has the potential for doing just that. Is it perfect? Of course not. But........ where are we headed without it? Personally, I can't imagine things are going to improve any without the casino nor do I see the casino making it worse than it already is.

We have a lot of people who say they love this city. That's bull! They love what it was, not what it is. I've watched this city go downhill for the last 20+ years & I've listened to a lot of politicians talk about making it the city it once was. We can't turn back the clock. We can only move forward & to do that, we need to open our arms to the casino & what it can bring.

Don't forget.............. There's no one else sitting in the wings waiting for the opportunity to bring jobs & tax revenue Everett.
Go to Top of Page


2682 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  3:31:29 PM  Show Profile Send Tails a Private Message  Reply with Quote
The area is blighted and the money is good. As you said justme, nothing is perfect. I'm not against the development, I'm against the host agreement.... I'm against the mayor for using this as a political tool. He did not seek Wynn, it was the other way around and DeMaria people are trying to use this to their advantage. I don't like the big scuttle to get this on the ballot.....and most especially the hostility coming from people that are supposed to represent Steve Wynn.....aka Everett United! I saw that Facebook post about " intruder alert " and I've never seen anymore more childish coming from people that are supposed to representing a billion dollar corporation. I don't even think Steve Wynn would approved of that. I think a lot of people are misguided by the fact if it passes on the ballot, they think the license will be granted to Wynn. That is not necessarily true.

Suffolk is meeting to have a televised debate about the pros and cons of Caesars Palace going there. It makes me wonder why everything that we have heard is all one sided. If it's so great, why is Everett United so scared of people in opposition?

Suffolk has been first in line for a casino long before Wynn's proposal. Suffolk could be granted the license with all the problems in Everett (Old Monsanto Site, traffic, etc) and all this was for not.

We may never see a development of this magnitude again,.....but no matter what anyone says, it's up to the voters to show community support. You have to vote with your heart and conscience.
Go to Top of Page

Advanced Member

1428 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  6:38:58 PM  Show Profile Send justme a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My guess is that the childishness that's being displayed is because the leaders of the pack are Carlo's people. Intimidation is his preferred method of managing.

I agree with you about the host agreement but, Carlo will sell his first born to try to impress someone like Wynn. If Wynn is granted the license, it will still be a gain for the city. Not as good as it could have been, but IMHO, it will still benefit the taxpayers. On a smaller scale, other mayors have given businesses tax incentives to locate their business here, so you could say it's similar......

I'm hoping to see VanCampen out & talking to let people know that he is in favor of the casino & that it can happen regardless of who's sitting in the corner office. It seems to me Carlo is misleading people so they think the only way it will come is if he's running the show............

I know there are a lot of hurdles & there will be many negatives but I sincerely believe the positives outweigh them & that in the long run the city, & it's residents, will be in a better place if Wynn is granted the license.
Go to Top of Page


47 Posts

Posted - 06/14/2013 :  6:40:45 PM  Show Profile Send imbroglio a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If this passes - and it probably will, it will be interesting to see how the state gambling commission will deal with the proposal. Their are a myriad of issues and concerns.
Go to Top of Page


64 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2013 :  10:04:21 AM  Show Profile Send snoopy1 a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Evmorphia Stratis: No casino for Everett

JUNE 20, 2013

Q. What would be the most significant impact a casino would have on the residents of Everett?

A. I’d love to support a casino that creates jobs, business growth, and tax revenues for Everett. But Steve Wynn’s casino plan would destroy jobs, cannibalize businesses, rob Everett of legitimate tax revenues, and destroy our quality of life in the process.

Q. Can concerns over traffic caused by the casino be addressed?

A. Of course they can be addressed, but can they be solved? The traffic study cited in the host agreement was financed by Wynn. Where are the independent traffic and transportation studies? After all, if there’s going to be another 15,000 to 20,000 cars a day shoehorned into that small area where Everett abuts both Charlestown and Somerville, shouldn’t there be a plan to handle that traffic and the likely impacts on our community and quality of life?

‘Even just the talk that there couldbe a casino in Everett has compromisedour propertyvalue.’

Wynn proposes to widen Broadway “if easements can be obtained.” This is very unlikely. Homes and businesses are within 8 feet of the street.

We are already trapped in Everett with horrible traffic problems. Imagine the busloads of people coming into the city.

Q. Are you worried a gambling operation would attract crime?

A. I am very worried about increased crime. There are comprehensive studies on how crime will increase; larceny, car theft, burglary, aggravated assault, and rape. Domestic abuse also increases. We already have problems with that in Everett. The mere nature of a casino, a place where you gamble and lose your money, is a magnet attracting criminals to exploit customers and allowing easy access to our children and property. And you don’t need to read studies, just talk to people who live near a casino and find out the truth.

Q. Does the language in the host agreement ensure that jobs would go to Everett residents?

A. No it does not. The contract says it will “give preferential treatment to qualified Everett residents for contracting.”. . . First of all, construction jobs are not forever. This is short-sighted for long-term employment. The same words apply to all the jobs, “reasonable preference to properly qualified residents of the city. . . . ” What does that really mean? I see most of the jobs being low-paying service jobs. Steve Wynn has left us with far too many unanswered questions, questions that Mayor Carlo DeMaria neglected to answer in his rush to sign a casino agreement.

The host agreement as it stands is a great deal for Wynn, but it’s an incredibly bad deal for Everett, its residents, its businesses, and its schools.
Q. How would the presence of a casino change the quality of life for people who live in Everett?

A. The quality of life for Everett residents would decline. Our property would decrease in value. Even just the talk that there could be a casino in Everett has compromised our property value. What family or professionals decide to move into a city that is 3.5 square miles and has a casino? It is common sense and we don’t need studies, statistics, etc. to see how traffic will be overwhelming. Where’s the community business plan? Doesn’t it make sense that when a casino titan like Wynn pledges that guests will be able to satisfy all of their gambling, entertainment, and shopping needs within his casino walls, that Everett’s local restaurants, pubs, stores, and other retail outlets will likely be cannibalized?

What will the rest of Everett look like? Having a casino open 24/7 has a direct impact on the drinking and driving problem. Light and noise pollution is a concern. What happens to all the residents who live in the immediate area? Does this mean all of the many bars in Everett will also be open 24/7?

This is not Milford, a town with about 25,000 people in an area of 25 square miles. There are more than half a million people within a 5-mile radius of this site in Everett. We need a better vision for our city to create real jobs without all the risks and negatives a casino will bring. For the silent minority or majority who are against this casino: Vote on June 22. Let our voice be heard!

Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @GlobeKMcCabe

Pro casino: Everett Ward 6 Common Councilor Michael McLaughlin
JUNE 20, 2013

Q. What would be the most significant impact a casino would have on the residents of Everett?

A. This resort would put Everett back on the map. Over the last several decades, we’ve lost major employers and taxpayers like GE Aviation, Charlestown Chew, and Monsanto, to name a few. This one facility would bring over 4,000 careers to the community, place the state’s finest hotel on our shores, clean a severely blighted site, and make Everett once again a community of choice. The taxes alone add well over 25 percent to our city coffers in addition to the $30 million city beautification fund and the opportunity to raise revenue from tourists through a hotel tax.

Q. Can concerns over traffic caused by the casino be addressed?

A. Yes. the Wynn proposal is comprehensive and ongoing. It includes major reconstruction and modernizations of the major traffic circles, routes 99 and 16. If the city of Boston wins this license we will be saddled with heavy traffic through the Route 16 corridor. Boston, as is typical, is not even considering us an affected community or seeking our opinion. Boston will stick us with the traffic as they did by doubling the inbound tolls on the Tobin, making us a cut-through city. I am sick of being a dumping ground for Boston. They placed a sewage plant on our doorstep, move excruciatingly slow on the Alford Street Bridge, and use our lands to stage all their construction. It’s our time!

Q. Are you worried a gambling operation would attract crime?

A. I am not worried at all. Wynn Resorts plans to have a great deal of security on site, ensuring the safety of its patrons and grounds. I have gone to both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun and have always felt safe, whether it was 2 in the afternoon or 2 in the morning. In addition to the folks they will have assigned to security, the city of Everett will receive a $5 million impact fee each year. This fee is approximately 25 percent of our current public safety budget. Also, our chief of police was diligent in contacting other chiefs in other cities that have seen this kind of development, and they all said there was no significant impact, and in several cases [crime] decreased. I feel certain that this facility will help us secure our city and clean up our streets.

Q. Does the language in the host agreement ensure that jobs would go to Everett residents?

A. With 4,000 full-time careers, even if that language was not in the agreement, it would be a no-brainer that Everett residents would receive the lion’s share of the jobs. With that being said, two of the first questions I asked the mayor back in November, when we first heard about the development, were: Will this put my neighbors to work, and understanding the issue of traffic in that area, how will it be fixed? Again, I think both sides worked well on the traffic plan and I believe the mayor did a good job ensuring that the jobs would be given to Everett residents first. That is not to say that someone from another city can’t and won’t get a job at the resort because — make no mistake — they will. This language reads that Everett residents will be given first chance at hiring. This development will be a job creator, [and] not only within the boundaries of the resort.

Q. How would the presence of a casino change the quality of life for people who live in Everett?

A. If and when successful, this development will be a shot in the arm to the city. It puts us back on the map, brings new industry and good-paying jobs to the city, and ties us back into the Metro Boston area. What is the difference between Cambridge and the Charles River and Everett and the Mystic? We are actually closer to the tourist center of Boston. It’s our time to redevelop and modernize our city. I can only see this as being a Win “Wynn” for Everett and the people.

Kathy McCabe can be reached at Kmccabe@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @GlobeKMcCabe.
Go to Top of Page


2682 Posts

Posted - 06/20/2013 :  3:28:03 PM  Show Profile Send Tails a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Steve Wynn has spent a lot of money on Everett United. I guess they can stop calling themselves "grassroots" because they certainly are not. I'm not totally against the casino itself, I'm against the phonies that should have come forward right from the beginning that they were being funded by Wynn.

That's NOT what was said. They were just local businesses. Local Business who are not too bright. In the host agreement it says Wynn will purchase $50,000.00 per year in gift cards to local businesses. Does not specify who is getting how much.

Here's the thing.....lets say there are 50 businesses in the city. If he was to play fair and make it even (although that was NOT negotiated on) the businesses would get $1,000.00 a year. That is an insignificant amount of money compared to what our local businesses will be losing. The only business to gain will be the ones inside the casino.

Wynn spends on casino referendum in Everett; records show no activity by opponents

By BOB SALSBERG Associated Press
June 19, 2013 - 7:22 pm EDT

BOSTON — Las Vegas casino operator Steve Wynn is bankrolling an effort to convince Everett voters to support a proposed casino in the city, while nothing has been spent in opposition to the plan, according to campaign finance records.

A referendum is scheduled for Saturday on a host community agreement Wynn signed with city officials that calls for $30 million in advance payments to Everett and more than $25 million in annual payments if the casino was to open for business.

Supporters and critics of the plan say they anticipate voter approval of the agreement, marking a key step forward for Wynn in a casino selection process that will ultimately be decided by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

Wynn has proposed a $1.2 billion casino on a 37-acre site along the Mystic River that once housed a chemical plant.

In a report posted by the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance, the pro-casino group Everett United, which is pushing for a yes vote on the referendum, reported $85,455 in contributions through June 4, all but $455 of which had come from Wynn Resorts. The group reported about $25,000 in expenditures through that date.

The group additionally received more than $150,000 "in-kind" contributions from Wynn Resorts for specific purposes, largely consulting services, according to the report.

In a separate report, a subsidiary called Wynn MA, LLC, reported about $230,000 in expenditures or liabilities related to the ballot question.

There is no law preventing corporations from spending on municipal referenda in Massachusetts.

Casino supporters have not purchased any radio or television ads, focusing instead on neighborhood canvassing and meetings with small groups of residents to explain the casino plan, said Sandy Guliano, president of Everett United.

"The community has really embraced the project," she said.

Wynn's willingness to clean up the polluted site, formerly home to the Monsanto Chemical Co., was a key in convincing her and other residents to support the project, Guliano said, though she still had some concerns about traffic management.

The host community agreement would be both "fair and generous" to the city, she said.

While some in the city remain opposed to the casino, no organized group has formed to push for a no vote on Saturday's referendum.

"I'm kind of heartbroken by the whole thing," said Evmorphia Stratis, a local artist who has emerged as an unofficial spokeswoman against the casino.

Stratis said the plan, which is backed by Mayor Carlo DeMaria and other key city officials, was pushed through so quickly that opponents did not have time to organize against it.

Traffic is already a "nightmare," in the area, Stratis said, and she also worries about gambling addiction and the casino becoming a magnet for drugs, alcohol and prostitution.

Michael Weaver, a senior vice president for Wynn Resorts, said Wynn had directly communicated with Everett residents through a series of letters. He said the company was optimistic about the referendum.

Wynn unveiled the Everett plan after abandoning an earlier effort to develop a casino on land owned by New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft in Foxborough.

Approval of a host community agreement by voters is a requirement for developers seeking a regional casino license. The Wynn plan faces competition for the sole eastern Massachusetts license from Suffolk Downs in Boston and Foxwoods Resorts, which is backing a proposed casino in Milford.
Go to Top of Page


2682 Posts

Posted - 07/12/2013 :  2:31:17 PM  Show Profile Send Tails a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I disagree with Curtatone. Revere residents will pass the referendum vote. There was a meeting that was well attended with 100's of residents and they want this at Suffolk Downs. It's not the Wynn WIN we are lead to believe. I voted in favor to see what Wynn will do and now just waiting to see how he plans on cleaning up Chemical lane in a safe way.

Somerville mayor: Casino bill 'worst decision this Commonwealth ever made'
Posted by Jarret Bencks July 12, 2013 11:52 AM

Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone reiterated his stance against a casino near Somerville, but said Thursday the community needs to prepare for the possibility that a proposal across the Mystic River in Everett becomes a reality.

"I will do everything in my power, along with you and the public, to fight a casino near this community," Curtatone told aldermen Thursday night.

Curtatone said he believed legalizing casino gambling was "the worst decision this Commonwealth has ever made."

"There are going to be a lot of sad personal stories," he said. "I think we all understand what happens."

But Curtatone said he believed the Everett proposal has a leg up on Suffolk Downs, the other site vying for the greater Boston casino license, because the Everett proposal has received local approval.

"I don't know what is going to happen," Curtatone said Thursday. "I have a deep and grave concern."

Curtatone said he intended to take a "dual track" approach to the proposed casino, on the one hand trying to fight its development, and on the other trying to ensure that environmental impacts are addressed and Somerville receives maximum mitigation should the project become a reality.

In June, Curtatone submitted a petition to FBT Everett Realty, the company that owns the contaminated 35-acre plot along the Mystic River where Steve Wynn aims to build a casino, seeking to designate the land a Public Involvement Plan Site. Such a requirement could provide residents of neighboring communities an opportunity to voice their opinions on how the site is developed.

Thursday he announced he would begin holding regular meetings to discuss the latest developments of the casino proposal with city officials and representatives from Federal Realty Investment Trust -- the developer of Assembly Row, a large mixed-use development across the Mystic River from the proposed casino site that has received $130 million in public funds.

Curtatone has been a vocal opponent of casinos in the state, and previously said he would do everything in his power to prevent one from coming near Somerville.

Jarret Bencks can be reached at bencks.globe@gmail.com. Follow him on twitter @JarretBencks.
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Everett Average Citizen © 2000-05 ForumCo.com Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 1.78 seconds. Snitz Forums 2000
RSS Feed 1 RSS Feed 2
Powered by ForumCo 2000-2008
TOS - AUP - URA - Privacy Policy
ForumCo Free Blogs and Galleries
Signup for a free forum or Go Banner Free