| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Cheryl
Member
4 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2013 : 10:49:06 AM
|
Alderman Van Campen states Mayor gambles Everett’s future on Casino Host Agreement
Referring to Everett’s recently announced casino host agreement as a “sweetheart deal that amounts to a taxpayer giveaway,” Alderman Robert Van Campen, a candidate for Mayor, said today that Mayor Carlo DeMaria’s “ haste in rushing to an agreement will cost local residents and business millions of dollars in lost revenues for years to come.
Van Campen – Who fully supports Wynn’s proposed resort development on Lower Broadway – said that DeMaria “should have negotiated a thorough and substantive host community agreement that made fiscal and economic sense for Everett. Instead, this host agreement offers so little detail that it could have been written on a napkin.
He said that the host community agreement was penned through a “closed door process that locked out the public and resulted in a 20-page document that’s long on rhetoric and short on substance."
Van Campen said the agreement is short on “transportation or traffic plans to deal with the community disruption and increased traffic congestion. It does not include economic development plans that spell out how local business owners will deal with the casino cannibalizing their own businesses and revenues. It does not offer insight into just how much or how little will be paid to the city in unanticipated costs.
And, it clearly avoids telling residents and business owners just how much their personal and property taxes may increase when they’re in the crosshairs of having to underwrite and subsidize many of the casino’s costs.
This may well be the fist casino agreement in the nation in which a mayor is committing public tax dollars to subsidize a multi-billon dollar casino.
Van Campen also said that Everett’s agreement pales in comparison to almost all other casino host agreements that have or are being negotiated in several cities and towns in the state.
“ We’ve seen in western Massachusetts, southwestern Massachusetts and in East Boston and Revere, negotiations or agreements between casino developers and host communities that welcome public participation, that are collaborative in scope, and which result in public meetings and presentations that spell out a wide range of issues and concerns, “ Van Campen said. “But that appears to only have happened superficially in Everett.
Everett’s host community agreement is particularly threatening, Van Campen added, because we see dollars promised without any evidence that such an amount will be enough to pay for the unanticipated costs.
He also said “there is no indication in the hoist community agreement as to the demands placed on fire, police, emergency services and other public safety needs that should be paid, in large part, by the developer.
Van Campen also pointed to the lack of any studies completed on transportation and traffic impacts, economic impacts it social services within the community that will demand more from an already stressed public service sector.
“How does the mayor put a price tag on any of these measures when the host agreement is written without benefit of a single completed study examining such costs? Van Campen asked.
This is a perfect example of why Everett has gone nearly a decade under DeMaria without any real economic development growth or any vision as to enhancing Everett’s quality of life.
Van Campen said he was “troubled” by DeMaria’s rush to conclude a host community agreement with Wynn Resort’s Ltd.
“DeMaria should have put the city, its residents and the businesses above politics,” Van Campen said, but instead, he rushed this agreement so that he could claim “mission accomplished” heading into a mayoral election.
Well, it’s no accomplishment to make Everett residents and businesses subsidize a multi-billion dollar casino. Unfortunately, that is exactly what DeMaria has accomplished.
Van Campen said that “casino host agreements are supposed to be comprehensive, significant and equitable, but DeMaria has stuck our community with a “sucker’s bet” a host agreement that is unfair to Everett taxpayers and businesses and simply does not make sense.
The people of Everett deserve better.
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2013 : 9:09:21 PM
|
Sounds like our donut maker was so busy trying to impress Wynn, he let his stupidity show........... which allowed Wynn to jump right in & take advantage of all of us!
It's definitely time to dump him. But it's probably too late to fix the mess he's made of the casino deal. It's too bad. There was an opportunity to bring jobs & revenue into the city but the clown in the corner office is giving the city away & is so busy trying to impress Wynn he doesn't even realize Wynn is laughing at him! |
 |
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2013 : 09:11:57 AM
|
$25 million plus 2.5% percent a year seems like a lot of money. But without access to any financial analysis to see how they arrived at those figures, it's really hard to tell. Don't care if Springfield has been promised a similar amount of money; I just want to know how Everett's figures were arrived at.
The biggest problem with RVC's piece is that it will be spun to label him as "anti-casino"; that's not how I read it. And people will just believe that label without having even bothered to take the time to read the piece for themselves.
Haven't seen any of the promised studies yet either. And that whole process seems to be a little screwy too. The casino applicant has to pay their own studies plus the municipality's. How are those studies likely going to turn-out?
And the MassDOT is going to be the savior on traffic issues? Aren't they the ones responsible for the current design of Santilli Circle and the huge delay on the Alford Street Bridge project? Doesn't make me feel very comfortable.
And while I'm on a slight rant, Everett United bugs me too. A grass-roots organization that doesn't need any money? How is that possible? How stupid do they think that we all are? Please just admit that it is bankrolled by Wynn; I'd have no problem with that. Even though he's not a citizen of the city, he has the right to advocate for the project. But for them to complain on their Facebook page about anti-casino outsiders coming into the city is beyond absurd.
Even though the boards have been pretty much dead lately and likely flying under the radar, it wouldn't surprise me if I draw some heat for my comments. So just to be clear, I have still not made up my mind on the casino issue. It will all depend on whatever additional information we receive between now and the special election and whether or not both sides of the issue are allowed to be heard. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2013 : 08:50:12 AM
|
Selectmen in four area towns have formed a coalition aimed at launching an organized, well-financed fight against plans for a resort casino off Interstate 495 in Milford that they say would undermine the quality of life in their communities.
The MetroWest Anti-Casino Coalition is made up of officials from Ashland, Holliston, Hopkinton, and Medway, according to its chairman, Hopkinton Selectman Brian J. Herr, who said other towns, including Southborough, may join the group.
“We need to respect the residents of Milford who will be considering this proposal,” Herr said. “But we also need to help them understand that just because Foxwoods says it’s so, it doesn’t mean it’s so.”
Representatives from Foxwoods Resort Casino, a well-established operation in Mashantucket, Conn., that is leading the Milford proposal, are expected to publicly present detailed plans for the complex slated for a 200-acre site off I-495 and Route 16, and near the town’s borders with Holliston and Hopkinton, for the first time Monday. Their meeting with Milford selectmen starts at 7 p.m. in the Milford High School auditorium.
“We have and will continue to work with the communities surrounding Milford as we seek to collaboratively bring a world-class resort to the area that reflects the history and culture of the community,” said Scott Butera, Foxwoods president and chief executive, in an e-mail to the Globe.
“Our vision from the start has been to minimize impacts on traffic, water use, and other issues, and our plans are to create a destination that will enhance the region, integrating with Milford and the surrounding area,” Butera said. “Our doors are open to the selectmen in Holliston, Hopkinton, Medway, and Ashland so that we may work together and solve any concerns.”
Also this week, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission has scheduled a forum at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the senior center in Plainville to discuss plans for a slot machine parlor at the Plainfield Racecourse in that community.
Holliston’s selectmen were the first to formally sign the anticasino coalition agreement last week, and Herr said he expects selectmen in the other three towns to match the board’s unanimous support at their next scheduled meetings.
Each town has already committed $25,000 to the coalition toward opposing the $1 billion proposed casino, to be called Foxwoods Massachusetts Resort, according to Holliston Selectman Jay Marsden, vice chairman of the coalition. He said the pooled money already appropriated by Town Meeting in each community provides the group with the ability to counter assertions made by Foxwoods, if necessary.
For example, he said, if Foxwoods provides a study showing there is an ample water supply at the site to support the development, neighboring towns may want to verify the findings with their own study.
But tight town budgets would make paying for such a study difficult, even if there were enough time to call a special town meeting to authorize the expenditure, Marsden said.
“We wanted to be able to deal with that, so having the money available is essential,” he said.
Town Meeting voters in Holliston and Hopkinton approved up to $100,000 to oppose the proposal, while Medway approved $40,000, and Ashland set aside $25,000, according to Marsden.
Some of the expenditures could be reimbursed by the state or the developer as part of a mitigation agreement, Marsden noted, but added, “Why not have the money available now in case we need it?”
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission will consider the Milford project against competition from Suffolk Downs, which has proposed a casino at the East Boston racetrack with partner Caesars Entertainment, and Wynn Resorts, which is pitching a hotel casino resort on the Mystic River waterfront in Everett, for the lone license to be granted in Greater Boston. The commission is expected to award the license early next year.
Many residents in the towns surrounding Milford have been fighting the proposed casino for more than a year, with approximately 100 members of the group Casino-Free Milford holding signs and attending a Milford selectmen’s meeting in April where Foxwoods representatives appeared.
At that meeting, the selectmen voiced frustration that they had not yet seen more detailed plans nor received answers to concerns on a number of issues, including traffic, sewage, a shortage of available water, Conservation Commission questions about wetlands and endangered species on the site, Historical Commission worries about ancient artifacts on the land, and any required zoning changes.
Butera is expected to address those concerns when he details plans at Monday night’s meeting.
After the meeting, Milford selectmen will have to decide whether to enter into formal negotiations with Foxwoods on a host-community agreement, as part of the state’s gambling-license application process. The agreement would need to be approved by the town’s voters for the Foxwoods proposal to be considered by the state Gaming Commission.
Whatever Butera has to say, however, opponents say the site is simply the wrong place for a casino.
“It’s very troubling to residents, homeowners, and taxpayers that this kind of gambling resort would be built in the very suburbs where they moved to raise their families,” Herr said.
Marsden also questioned the location, saying it is too small for future expansion, and noted that the Twin River Casino in Lincoln, R.I., which has plans to expand to full table games this summer, is less than a 30-minute drive from Milford.
In addition, the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen last week sent a letter to the state Gaming Commission questioning the financial stability of the applicant.
“Placing a casino in MetroWest will certainly damage the entire region beyond any level that your proposed mitigation can address,” the board's letter to the commission stated.
Ellen Ishkanian can be reached at eishkanian@gmail.com.
You must be logged in to see this link. |
|
|
|
turk182
Member
88 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2013 : 10:20:50 AM
|
Maybe VanCampen is right I do not know, but maybe we should think hard about this, I do not think Wynn is giving enough back to the city.
Last night right after I got home from work there was a knock on my door; it was a person with a Wynn hat on showing me all the good things that the Resort/Casino will do for Everett. Jobs, Tax revenue and other stuff OK I am looking at this and wondering is this really the Golden Ticket that it appears to be? Or is it really not as good as it seems. All of those good reasons listed on the sales brochure are just promises; we need something more material for us the people of Everett that will reward us for allowing this resort/casino into Everett.
This morning on the way to work it came to me. For my (our) vote to allow the resort to happen I think that Wynn should give back 3% of the profit to the citizens of Everett in the form of an annual check to each citizen that is on the voter’s list at the time of the vote to allow the resort into the city. No one can be added to the voters list after the fact. That 3% profit will be split equally amongst the voters and it will never stop, parents can pass it on to their children, and their children can pass it on to their children.
I do not know what the projected profit from the resort will be but hypothetically 1% of a billion dollars is 10 million dollars, so 3% would be 30 Million Dollars split between say 30 thousand members on the voters list would be an annual payment of $1000 per voter on the voter’s list.
This Casino is going to make a lot of money that is why Wynn is here and I do not think the deal that has been negotiated has us the people’s best interest at heart. Call the Mayor’s office and demand that he re-negotiate the deal to add profit sharing for us the voters of Everett. Otherwise vote no on the resort.
''Life's tough......it's even tougher if you're stupid.''
-- John Wayne |
Edited by - turk182 on 06/05/2013 10:30:26 AM |
|
|
|
snoopy1
Member
64 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2013 : 11:16:42 AM
|
I'm not against the casino, I'm against the rush and not giving people a fair chance to show both sides. If it's so great then why not let people have a fair playing field?
That's a really good idea Turk, but it may be too late and that's why I hate the fact it's so rushed. The license will not be granted until 2014 ANYWAY so there's no need for this big rush. Turk, your idea would have been a wonderful thing to do, and I'm sure welcomed by all residents.
What irked me this week is the fact that the absentee ballots came out and there are supposed to be 3 arguments for - and 3 arguments against (for the Casino) and it's all FOR the casino, and on the ballot the YES comes before NO. Questions are ALWAYS alphabetical.
I also do not like the meetings that have been held and all the long winded speeches from the mayor, but he gives no one else the opportunity to speak, if he feels they are being negative.
I read yesterday that casinos do not have to hire local residents (which has been part of this theme) so I looked it up for myself, and it's true. All these "jobs" for "everett residents" are a bunch of hogwash. Maybe the people helping out Everett United might get thrown a bone, and I have an issue with Everett United. We all know where their money is coming from and they were not honest about it. It makes me wonder what else are they not being honest about.
Everett United has THREATENED on facebook to take snapshots of people who speak out against the development and they will post their pictures and make fun of them. Are those people 5 years old?? You want to intrust a development to people that act like that...not me. That said, I don't think Mr. Wynn would appreciate that either.
I did an inquiry to the city concerning the "flyover" (that is supposedly supposed to cure all our traffic jams) and my inquiry was never returned. If this flyover will go directly into the casino, how will that help our current traffic woes now? It wont, and that's why my inquiry was never returned.
Now we have Wynn's ex-wife issue - where she threatens his entire empire - You must be logged in to see this link.
Then, the alleged bribery issue -
The Boston Herald from yesterday:
You must be logged in to see this link.
You must be logged in to see this link.
I think Van Campen is right too. He wants the development, but Everett is getting a crappy deal compared to other Wynn Casinos. Van Campen would have held out for a better deal both financially and the best interest of the city as a whole....and we still would have voted on it by 2014.
The money we are getting from Wynn per the host agreement (which is like 2 paragraphs long) is PEANUTS compared to Wynn's billion dollar cash cow casinos (and nothing is earmarked) so the mayor (who spends like a sieve) can spend that money how ever HE wants! This is the same mayor who came to the budget hearings with a bogus document stating that the council cannot cut his budget. NOT TRUE. Call the Department of Revenue yourselves. The Feds should be checking banking records of certain people of the administration with all these casino deals after reading the alleged bribery deal.
Wynn wants a 19 Story Buliding. There goes our view of Boston. Wynn just duplicated what he designed for Pennsylvania and did not develop a site for OUR needs. Again, I'm not totally against it, but I have issues with it and would have liked more time before a bunch of nonsense gets crammed down our throats. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2013 : 11:23:27 AM
|
$20 million + 2.5% a year seems like a lot of money. But without having been given anything to use as a basis for comparison, how do we know if they will be paying more or less than their fair share?
I look at the $5 million payment + 2.5% a year as an offset to costs that the city will incur solely because the casino is located here. Again, seems like a lot of money; but never having been given an estimate of what those costs will be, how do we know if we got a good deal or not. I think that we would but I have no basis to support that claim.
Unfortunately, the end of the last casino meeting made it abundantly clear that intelligent questions on the casino issue are not really welcomed by some. That's sad.
You've got a really good idea there turk. Not sure if it would have been something that would have be allowed under the state casino laws though. There's actually only somewhere around 17K - 18K voters on the current list; so it would only cost a little more than half of what you proposed. Of course, people would have come out of the woodwork to register to vote if that proposal were part of the host agreement
But, unfortunately, nothing is going to derail the casino vote on June 22. |
|
|
|
tetris
Moderator
2040 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2013 : 11:43:35 AM
|
| The flyover won't be going anywhere near the casino Snoopy, It's just over Route 16. Won't be of much help in the morning. Until some improvements are made on Route 38 and Wellington Circle, it'll just be another place for westbound cars to sit in traffic. Coming the other way from Wellington Circle, it'll probably help so that Route 16 traffic won't become gridlocked by the traffic heading up towards Sweetser Circle to go to the casino. But you have to think that there will be certain times of the day that the casino traffic may make it even harder than it is today to get to the mall. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2013 : 09:51:44 AM
|
Really? There's no room to have these indoors anywhere? I'm not going, because the mayor will give his usual rah-rah speech and not allow anyone else to talk, unless they are for the casino. Someone needs to speak up right in the beginning and tell him if these meetings are for RESIDENTS then let the RESIDENTS speak. All Carlo needs to do is answer questions that are asked. How many times can this guy repeat himself..
June 3, 2013
Office of the Mayor
Carlo DeMaria, Jr.
484 Broadway
EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS 02149 PHONE 617-394-2270 Fax 617-381-1150
Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAYOR TO HOLD NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETINGS
Mayor Carlo DeMaria has scheduled a series of informal neighborhood meetings throughout the City regarding the potential Wynn Development. The Mayor will visit across the City’s six wards in an effort to answer questions and provide as much information to residents as possible, including details of the host agreement and recent studies involving the project. The schedule will be as follows:
Monday June 17 at 6:00 PM- Everett Stadium: stadium bleachers Monday June 17 at 7:30 PM- Seven Acre Park
Tuesday June 18 at 6:00 PM – Florence St Park Tuesday June 18 at 7:30 PM – Everett High School Main Entrance Stairs
Wednesday June 19 at 6 PM- Fuller Street Park Wednesday June 19 at 7:30 PM- Baldwin Ave Park
Thursday June 20 at 5:30 PM- Cherry Street Park Thursday June 20 at 8:00 PM- Parlin Library Main Entrance Staircase
Friday June 21 at 6:00 PM- Central Ave Park Friday June 21 at 7:30 PM- Swan Street Park
All residents are encouraged to attend. Meetings will occur rain or shine. For questions contact the Mayor’s Office at 617-394-2270. |
|
|
|
cozulady
Senior Member
165 Posts |
Posted - 06/06/2013 : 3:58:47 PM
|
Not only does he try to control all the comments, but he acts like this was his idea. If he had his way, Wood Waste would be there. Wynn came to the city, not the other way around.
While I am in favor of the casino, I do not approve Carlo's behavior when someone expresses doubt or concern about the casino coming to Everett.
Carlo is attempting to use this to get reelected. He encourages people to believe that without him in the corner office the casino won't fly. My concern is that with him in that office, his wild spending will really get out of control.
Just my concern, but I'm sure there are others that feel that way. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2013 : 08:43:20 AM
|
The State is accepting public comments on the contamination/clean-up of the Monsanto site. Although it sounds to good to be true, I have to wonder the truth about stirring up chemicals on such a contaminated site that has been capped for many years.
EVERETT
Extensive cleanup indicated for casino site
By Kathy McCabe | GLOBE STAFF JUNE 30, 2013
YOON S. BYUN/GLOBE STAFF
Crushed brick, rocks, and thick weeds cover much of the 32.4 acres of industrial land on the Mystic River where Las Vegas developer Steve Wynn proposes to build a glamorous $1.2 billion resort casino.
But before any work could begin at the site, chemicals buried in the soil, ground water, and river sediment must be remediated to comply with the state’s strict environmental regulations.
Ash, arsenic, and lead are among the remnants of toxic materials tainting the land, according to an environmental consultant hired by the Wynn group. Monsanto Chemical Co. operated a processing plant on the land for decades until closing it in 1992.
“The site is quite contaminated,” said Chris Gordon, the project manager for Wynn, at a meeting with state environmental officials Wednesday in Everett that included a tour of the site. “It’s predictable for this type of site . . . We want to make sure the site is cleaned to a very high standard.”
Remediation of the site is an essential component of Wynn’s application for a casino license filed with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. The panel is expected to award the one license for Greater Boston early next year.
Everett voters on June 22 overwhelmingly approved a ballot question to allow the casino to be built in the small industrial city. Still, Wynn faces competition from two other proposals, including one at the Suffolk Downs racetrack on the Revere-East Boston line.
Wynn has an option to buy the Everett site from the property’s owner, FBT Everett Realty. Under state law, as the property owner, FBT is required to remediate the land to a standard acceptable for redevelopment.
FBT, an affiliate of DeNunzio Realty of Cambridge, has set up monitoring wells around the site to measure the level of contaminants. Dustin DeNunzio, a principal with DeNunzio Realty, did not respond to a call seeking comment.
The Wynn group said it will clean the land to a higher standard, because it plans extensive landscaping and an underground parking garage. “We’ll be excavating land for the garages that otherwise wouldn’t be disturbed,” Gordon said.
The cleanup likely will involve both removing soil from the site, and treating some soil that will be left in place. “It’s probably going to be a combination,” Gordon said.
Although still in the planning stages, the cleanup has drawn the scrutiny of local officials.
Somerville Mayor Joseph Curtatone on June 13 submitted a petition to FBT to designate the land a “public involvement plan site, ’’ so that residents of neighboring communities would have the right to voice their opinions on how the site is remediated.
The designation, which is allowed by state law, aims to ensure the public has a say in a private redevelopment. FBT must draft a plan that includes a public comment period and public access to information regarding its cleanup initiative, a state spokesman said.
“They have to come up with a plan so that the public can get involved in the entire process,” said Ed Coletta, a state Department of Environmental Protection spokesman.
Wynn’s project would involve building a 19-story hotel tower with 551 rooms, a 24-hour casino, a spa, conference meeting space, shops, and restaurants. Public amenities include a winter garden to be built in a greenhouse, a harbor walk, biking paths, and a dock for water shuttle service.
According to Wynn’s environmental notice filed with the state’s Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the hotel tower would reach about 300 feet. The building would include 2.8 million square feet of space. The casino will occupy 7.5 percent of the space, Gordon said. An estimated 392,700 gallons of water would be used each day on the site, the filing states.
Copies of the filing are available at the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, the Everett Public Library, the mayor’s office, and the community development office at City Hall.
The state will accept public comments on the project until July 12. “This is an opportunity for public input,” said Anne Canaday, a Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act analyst assigned to the project. “There will be environmental impacts associated with this project. Comments don’t have to be written in a formal letter. They could be sent in as bullet points,’’ she said, noting that the agency’s top official “is really interested in what people have to say about the project.”
Comments can be mailed to Richard K. Sullivan Jr., Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge St., Suite 900, Boston, MA 02114-2524, Attn: MEPA Office EEA#15060. They also can be faxed to 617-626-1181, or sent via e-mail to anne.canaday@state.ma.us.
Also at the meeting with the Wynn group and state environmental officials on Wednesday, Medford’s community development director questioned why the casino’s preliminary traffic plan has not addressed her city’s concerns, particularly regarding the area around the MBTA’s Wellington Station.
“I’m concerned about the distribution of traffic,” Lauren DiLorenzo said during the meeting at Everett City Hall, and asked why Wellington Circle was not in the traffic study.
Wellington Circle, less than a mile from the proposed casino, marks the intersection of routes 16 and 28. Wynn estimates the casino will generate more than 29,384 vehicle trips on a weekday, and more than 35,754 trips on a Saturday.
Gordon said traffic engineers still are studying a number of area intersections.
“We know [Wellington] is a critical area,” he said.
“There is no question it will be part of our traffic analysis.”
Kathy McCabe can be reached at kmccabe@globe.com. Follow her on Twitter @GlobeKMcCabe. |
|
|
|
Cheryl
Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2013 : 3:21:28 PM
|
Call Anne Canaday from the Environmental Office. Since Mayor Demaria is neglecting to make this info public, people should be made aware that you can email, write a note since it does not have to be a formal letter and she promises that all your concerns will be addressed.
It can be about stress, traffic, gambling addictions, impact on children that casinos have, pollution and of course quality of life for us and our surrounding neighbors. She said the more details in your concerns the more the Wynn organization will be legally obligated to make what they are doing and planning on doing, public.
Deadline is midnight July 12th and put your name and address so you get confirmation your inquiry was received and info can be mailed to you.
Call Anne Canaday and email Environmental Analyst 617-626-1035 anne.canaday@state.ma.us attention: Richard Sullivan
The case is EEA# 15060, Wynn Everett
|
|
|
|
Cheryl
Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 07/17/2013 : 3:25:40 PM
|
Neighboring Charlestown Scrutinizes Everett Casino Proposal
Officials in Boston argue Charlestown, Somerville's neighbor, might be considered a "host community" for Everett's casino proposal.
Written by Becca Manning
Somerville's mayor has used strong words to oppose a casino proposal in Everett—a proposal that would sit at Somerville's doorstep, less than 1,000 feet from major redevelopment taking place in Assembly Square.
Meanwhile, officials in Boston are also scrutinizing the proposal to determine its impact on Charlestown. The proposal is so close to Charlestown, in fact, that part of the project may actually be in Charlestown.
That, one city of Boston attorney argued, could make Charlestown a "host community," possibly giving Charlestown residents a vote on whether to approve the casino.
At a meeting on the Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s licensing process held Monday night at the Charlestown Knights of Columbus Hall, commission secretary James McHugh outlined the rules and timeline for casino license applications but did not go into specifics about the three proposals in Boston’s Region A.
During the Q&A portion of the meeting, Charlestown residents questioned how they would be represented in the conversation, particularly in the case of the Everett proposal, if Boston was not considered a host community—a designation that requires a citizens' vote on the proposal for the application to move forward.
That’s when Elizabeth Dello Russo, assistant corporation counsel for the City of Boston, spoke up.
She said the city last week received the first concrete plans for Wynn’s project—the environmental notification form that is a requirement of Phase 2 of the application process. Though she said the filing doesn’t include a lot of detail, it does indicate that a portion of the project would be located on Boston property and that the project as a whole would significantly impact Charlestown.
“When we saw this filing we said what we are reviewing shows us that, first of all, Charlestown is very impacted, and second of all, potentially a host community,” Dello Russo said.
In response, the city requested and received a two-week extension on the comment period for the environmental notification form to give residents and officials more time to review the plans and submit concerns.
To “open up that dialogue,” Dello Russo said, the city has placed a copy of the ENF at the Charlestown Branch Library for public viewing and has also posted the plans on the city website atcityofboston.gov/gaming. Information is also being distributed through the Mayor’s Office of Neighborhood Services.
A host community, as defined in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission rules, is the community in which the resort casino would be located. As part of the developer’s phase 2 application, they must submit a written contract between the developer and the host community, and the citizens of that community must pass a referendum on the issue, McHugh explained. In a city of more than 125,000 people, such as Boston, the vote can take place only in the ward in which the casino would be located.
In June, the City of Everett, which has already been declared a host community for the Wynn LLC casino project, passed the referendum by a margin of 86.5 percent, according to a Boston Globe article.
Now Boston officials are looking into whether their citizens should get a vote, too.
If not considered a host community, Boston could still be designated a surrounding community, which does not get a vote but does require a written agreement between the community and the developer, McHugh said.
In the case of another resort casino proposal in Region A, theSuffolk Downs project in East Boston, the city is considered a host community, and East Boston is expected to hold a referendum vote on the issue soon. Mayor Thomas Menino is in the process of negotiating an agreement on which East Boston citizens would vote, the Globe reported last week.
A third application has been filed in Region A for a Foxwoods casino in Milford.
Dello Russo did not go into detail Monday night about the potential impacts of the Wynn LLC casino on Charlestown, but a representative from District 1 Boston City Councilor Sal LaMattina's office distributed copies of a letter the councilor has submitted to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs regarding the plans.
In the letter, LaMattina writes: "Charlestown will be the single most impacted community effected by the existence of any casino located at the Monsanto parcel in the cities of Everett and Boston—since the initial traffic information submitted in the proponent's ENF study shows that at least 50 percent of all vehicles will utilize the Charlestown road system (more than for the Everett road system)."
LaMattina asked that the developer submit information about traffic impacts and mitigation, specifically through the Sullivan Square area.
"... Bringing that much traffic through Sullivan Square and down Rutherford Ave is inconsistent with the city's recently announced plans to remove traffic from Sullivan Square, downsize Rutherford Ave and return the street to the community," LaMattina wrote. "The plan was the result of a thorough and lengthy community process, it is strongly supporter by the mayor and the residents of Charlestown and yet it seems the Everett proposal will ignore it entirely and push more of its casino traffic into Charlestown than Everett."
LaMattina also expressed concerns about toxic and hazardous materials cleanup on the site, particularly along the waterfront area; the effects of the project's proposed marina on Charlestown's port area; and other issues.
In the letter, dated July 10, the city councilor requested that the comment period on the filing be extended 30 days to give Charlestown residents time to review the plans.
"Now that I am engaged in and aware of the process, I find it surprising that, as residents of the district in Boston that directly abuts the project site, we have not received a single notice related to the MEPA [Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency] or Municipal Harbor Plan project for this process ..." LaMattina concluded.
On a separate but related note, the Charlestown Waterfront Coalition has scheduled a meeting with representatives from Wynn LLC to present plans for the Everett casino on Wednesday, Aug. 7 at 7 p.m. The meeting, open to the community, will be held at Building 114 in the Navy Yard.
|
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2013 : 08:59:22 AM
|
23 Aug 2013 The Boston Globe
GLOBE STAFF By Mark Arsenault
Gambling panel chief urges end to border fight
Wants Menino, Wynn to settle claims to site
The fight between Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston and Las Vegas casino developer Steve Wynn is beginning to reflect poorly on theMassachusetts casino license competition, says the head of the state’s gambling commission, who says regulators may need to step in to settle the dispute.
“When you have two parties spatting in public, it makes everything look disorganized or suspect or political,” Stephen Crosby, chairman of the state gambling commission, said during the panel’s meeting Thursday.
Menino and Wynn are arguing over whether Boston qualifies, under the 2011 state casino law, as a “host community” for Wynn’s $1.3 billion casino resort proposal on the Mystic River waterfront in Everett, based on Boston’s contention that part of the project may be in the capital city.
The dispute is important because host communities have tremendous power over gambling projects, including the power to block them. Menino supports a competing casino project at Suffolk Downs in East Boston. If Boston is designated a host com--munity for the Wynn project, Menino could eliminate one rival to the Suffolk Downs proposal.
The commission will invite representatives from Menino’s office and from Wynn’s company, Wynn Resorts, to discuss the dispute at the commission’s next meeting in two weeks.
Both sides say they are eager to accept the invitation.
“We look forward to meeting soon with the Gaming Commission and resolving this issue,” Wynn Resorts said in a statement Thursday.
Said Menino’s spokeswoman, Dot Joyce: “We’ve been trying to get to the bottom of this murky situation for a while and welcome the opportunity to get more clarity on this proposal.”
Wynn Resorts insists that Everett is the only host community for the project and has suggested Boston falls under the lesser designation of “surrounding community,” which would enable the city to negotiate with Wynn for compensation but would not permit Boston to block the project by refusing to bargain or by demanding too much.
If the commissioners cannot nudge the sides to a resolution, the regulators may settle the matter with a formal hearing that would look a lot like a trial, with witnesses, cross-examinations, and documents entered into evidence.
“My predilection,” said Crosby, “is it is pretty near time for us to intercede.”
The dispute has simmered for months, since the early days after Wynn offered his plan to develop a gambling resort in Everett. The disagreement exploded two weeks ago, when Mayor Carlo DeMaria of Everett accused Menino of trying to “bully” the city of Everett and state officials to gain a political advantage for Suffolk Downs.
In response, Menino said he is trying to protect Boston residents, especially in Charlestown near the site of theWynn proposal, where additional traffic is amajor concern.
Boston’s claim to be a potential host community rests with the odd shape of the city line, which darts across the Mystic River into the edge of the former Monsanto chemical site where Wynn intends to build.
The 2011 state casino law defines a host community as “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located” or proposed. A “gaming establishment,” under the law, is “a gaming area and any other nongaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants, or other amenities.”
Boston officials point to Suffolk Downs, which is bisected by the Boston-Revere city line. Suffolk Downs has treated Revere as a host community for that project, even though the planned casino i s on the Boston side of the city line.
|
|
|
|
justme
Advanced Member
1428 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2013 : 09:22:46 AM
|
| This is the first time, in a VERY long time, that I actually agree with Carlo! Menino wants Suffolk Downs to get the casino & he'll do everything possible to eliminate the competition. |
|
|
|
Tails
Administrator
2682 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2013 : 11:04:55 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by justme
This is the first time, in a VERY long time, that I actually agree with Carlo! Menino wants Suffolk Downs to get the casino & he'll do everything possible to eliminate the competition.
I absolutely agree that Menino wants the casino at Suffolk Downs, and will do anything to ensure that will happen.
Suffolk Downs chose to make Revere a host community, even though the casino would be in Boston. Maybe if Carlo had kept the Boston Mayor in the loop, or had him involved in the process, maybe Mayor Menino would not be so adamant....after all..... he is stepping down. I think that Carlo is the one that actually hurt any chances of bringing the communities together with name calling (bully) and spatting in public....with that farce of a press conference on chemical lane a couple of weeks ago...where he - looked like a baby - was snapping at mayors from Somerville and Boston - and accusing Menino of "influencing" State Officials - and not saying "who" they are or "how" Menino is trying to "influence. " Is Carlo spewing off hearsay and false accusations? Does not sound to me like our Mayor is trying to find a resolution.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
CASINO
