Mass. High Court: Casino Repeal Will Go To A Vote
Jun 24, 2014 20:33:55 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2014 20:33:55 GMT -5
This isn't good for Massachusetts in general, and Suffolk Downs specifically. If this referendum is passed there will be no casino in Springfield (already approved) or the Boston area, where Suffolk Downs was the leading candidate.
One thing is for sure, there will be MILLIONS spent in the state promoting both sides.
Something to keep in mind, about five years ago a similar referendum was on the ballot regarding dog racing. It got ugly, and the anti-racing people blatantly lied and published damning (and false) information about the racing industry.
This one won't be as emotional, but it'll get nasty - there's lots of money at stake.
www.courant.com/business/hc-mgm-massachusetts-casino-referendum-decision-06-20140624,0,4922917.story?page=1
Mass. High Court: Casino Repeal Will Go To A Vote
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT, msturdevant@courant.com
The Hartford Courant
6:52 p.m. EDT, June 24, 2014
The high court in Massachusetts ruled Tuesday that a petition to effectively ban casinos will go to a vote in November, potentially erasing plans for destination resorts in Springfield and Greater Boston.
At the least, the decision delays the start of construction on the $800 million MGM Resorts International casino in Springfield by five months or more. If voters repeal the law, it could upend the project and other proposals for casinos in Greater Boston and in southeastern Massachusetts. The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority is vying for the Greater Boston license, as is Wynn Resorts.
A repeal, however, would mean fewer gambling outlets popping up in the Northeast and sapping slot revenue from both Connecticut casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino.
Petitioners gathered more than the required 68,911 signatures last fall to put the issue on the ballot, but Attorney General Martha Coakley declined to certify the petition. She said that it was unconstitutional because it resulted in the taking of property in the form of contract rights.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in its decision , wrote, "We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election."
The repeal effort gained supporters throughout the state as a confederacy of small anti-gambling groups fought and won municipal elections, defeating casino proposals in West Springfield, East Boston, Palmer and Milford.
A group called Repeal the Casino Deal sprung up after legislation allowing casinos was passed in 2011. Its statewide campaign manager, Darek Barcikowski, said Tuesday that the group had gathered about 90,000 signatures last fall and an additional batch of nearly 27,000 signatures this spring, as required.
"The casino issue started playing out in people's own backyards," Barcikowski said. "When the law was passed, people were inclined to think this was a good idea in theory."
Barcikowski said he was confident that voters will repeal the legislation. A repeal would end the yearslong vetting process that involved glitzy campaigns by casino operators to woo the public with promises of economic development and entertaining revitalization of beleaguered towns and cities.
"We will not be able to compete with multimillion-dollar media buys [for advertising], but I think the casinos will not be able to compete with our ground game," Barcikowski said. "Some of these other local votes have shown that the sentiment is on our side, and we will bring our message to the neighborhoods and ultimately win in November."
Casino supporters will be rallying, too.
"The keys to knocking down poverty and public safety issues in urban America are, #1 education and #1A jobs, people are hungry to work," Springfield Mayor Domenic J. Sarno said in a statement Tuesday. "MGM Springfield is a massive jobs generation project. It also means $50 million in local vendor procurement opportunities and the redevelopment of the downtown area heavily affected by the June 1, 2011 tornado."
MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis said that his company spent three years collaborating with and talking to people in western Massachusetts about the value of a casino resort as a catalyst for economic development.
"We are confident that our urban revitalization project in Springfield, one of the Commonwealth's most prominent Gateway Cities, is something to which all Massachusetts voters can relate," Mathis said in a statement. "It is a comeback story in progress with hard-working people eager to grow jobs and get back to work. We are fully prepared to extend this message to a larger audience through a statewide campaign to educate the voters on the enormous economic benefits that would be lost to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth in a repeal."
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission chose MGM Springfield for the western Massachusetts license on June 13 but granted a request to delay construction until after the referendum issue was resolved. That way, MGM could avoid paying millions of dollars in fees and construction obligations triggered by the state's license award until after the repeal was resolved.
The commission is proceeding with its review of two casino plans for Greater Boston, from Mohegan Sun and Wynn. It is scheduled to designate a winner in September.
Mohegan Sun said in a statement: "We believe we have the best plan to bring thousands of jobs, world class entertainment, local economic development, and increased tourism to the region and that is our focus right now. We will also join the chorus of others making the case to voters on why this law is good for workers, good for the economy, and good for the Commonwealth."
Wynn Resorts declined to comment.
Kansas Brewers, Greyhound Racing
At the heart of the legal debate over the referendum effort was the concept of contract rights versus the state's right to "police power," meaning the ability to regulate activities such as gambling.
Coakley had said that a petition was unconstitutional because it, in effect, took property in the form of contract rights without compensating the casino companies. Mohegan Sun, MGM, Wynn and others had to pay a fee to be vetted by the state's gaming commission, which Coakley argued gave the companies an implied contractual right to a final decision regarding the license.
The Supreme Judicial Court, however, wrote in its decision, "substantial economic loss arising from a change in law under the core police power does not constitute a taking of private property that triggers an entitlement to fair compensation."
In other words, the state retains the right to change laws, which amounts to "one of the many foreseeable risks that casinos, slots parlors, and their investors take when they choose to apply for a license and invest in a casino or slots parlor."
Coakley said Tuesday: "My office had conducted a legal review of this ballot question, but knew it would ultimately be decided by the Court. My office worked cooperatively with both parties to put this issue before the Court. Now, with today's decision, voters will have the final say."
To back up its decision, the court referred to an 1887 case in Kansas in which breweries sued the state for outlawing the sale of alcohol except for medical or scientific use. The brewers said the state's decision amounted to the taking of property, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the claim, saying that the state had the legislative power to protect "the health, the morals, or the safety of the public," and that brewers weren't guaranteed that the state would allow alcohol forever.
The court also brought up a case of the Mississippi legislature granting a 25-year charter in 1867 to a private company to conduct a lottery, and then reversing course by forbidding a lottery the next year. The lottery company sued the state, but the U.S. Supreme Court "declared that a 'legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State,'" the Massachusetts court wrote in its decision.
Even Massachusetts has had a similar case when it banned greyhound racing through a petition process in 2008, said Sean J. Kealy, clinical associate professor law at the Boston University School of Law.
Kealy was an assistant attorney general from 1995 to 1999, and he helped review petitions during that time. He said he does not believe that MGM, Mohegan Sun or other casino companies would be able to successfully sue the state to recoup the tens of millions of dollars they spent campaigning to get casino licenses.
"They're taking kind of a risk to begin with," Kealy said. "MGM is a pretty sophisticated operation. They knew that the Initiative Petition and Referendum was available out there, and that there was significant opposition to gambling within Massachusetts both inside and outside of the legislature. So, there is a risk there."
"Put the petition issue aside," he said. "It could be in four years after two sets of election cycles, the legislature itself says, 'You know what, we made a mistake, and we're going to make it illegal again.' At that point, MGM would have built a casino, it would have hired all these people, they'd have sunk all that money in and the legislature would have pulled the rug out from under them."
Copyright © 2014, The Hartford Courant
One thing is for sure, there will be MILLIONS spent in the state promoting both sides.
Something to keep in mind, about five years ago a similar referendum was on the ballot regarding dog racing. It got ugly, and the anti-racing people blatantly lied and published damning (and false) information about the racing industry.
This one won't be as emotional, but it'll get nasty - there's lots of money at stake.
www.courant.com/business/hc-mgm-massachusetts-casino-referendum-decision-06-20140624,0,4922917.story?page=1
Mass. High Court: Casino Repeal Will Go To A Vote
By MATTHEW STURDEVANT, msturdevant@courant.com
The Hartford Courant
6:52 p.m. EDT, June 24, 2014
The high court in Massachusetts ruled Tuesday that a petition to effectively ban casinos will go to a vote in November, potentially erasing plans for destination resorts in Springfield and Greater Boston.
At the least, the decision delays the start of construction on the $800 million MGM Resorts International casino in Springfield by five months or more. If voters repeal the law, it could upend the project and other proposals for casinos in Greater Boston and in southeastern Massachusetts. The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority is vying for the Greater Boston license, as is Wynn Resorts.
A repeal, however, would mean fewer gambling outlets popping up in the Northeast and sapping slot revenue from both Connecticut casinos, Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods Resort Casino.
Petitioners gathered more than the required 68,911 signatures last fall to put the issue on the ballot, but Attorney General Martha Coakley declined to certify the petition. She said that it was unconstitutional because it resulted in the taking of property in the form of contract rights.
The Supreme Judicial Court, in its decision , wrote, "We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election."
The repeal effort gained supporters throughout the state as a confederacy of small anti-gambling groups fought and won municipal elections, defeating casino proposals in West Springfield, East Boston, Palmer and Milford.
A group called Repeal the Casino Deal sprung up after legislation allowing casinos was passed in 2011. Its statewide campaign manager, Darek Barcikowski, said Tuesday that the group had gathered about 90,000 signatures last fall and an additional batch of nearly 27,000 signatures this spring, as required.
"The casino issue started playing out in people's own backyards," Barcikowski said. "When the law was passed, people were inclined to think this was a good idea in theory."
Barcikowski said he was confident that voters will repeal the legislation. A repeal would end the yearslong vetting process that involved glitzy campaigns by casino operators to woo the public with promises of economic development and entertaining revitalization of beleaguered towns and cities.
"We will not be able to compete with multimillion-dollar media buys [for advertising], but I think the casinos will not be able to compete with our ground game," Barcikowski said. "Some of these other local votes have shown that the sentiment is on our side, and we will bring our message to the neighborhoods and ultimately win in November."
Casino supporters will be rallying, too.
"The keys to knocking down poverty and public safety issues in urban America are, #1 education and #1A jobs, people are hungry to work," Springfield Mayor Domenic J. Sarno said in a statement Tuesday. "MGM Springfield is a massive jobs generation project. It also means $50 million in local vendor procurement opportunities and the redevelopment of the downtown area heavily affected by the June 1, 2011 tornado."
MGM Springfield President Michael Mathis said that his company spent three years collaborating with and talking to people in western Massachusetts about the value of a casino resort as a catalyst for economic development.
"We are confident that our urban revitalization project in Springfield, one of the Commonwealth's most prominent Gateway Cities, is something to which all Massachusetts voters can relate," Mathis said in a statement. "It is a comeback story in progress with hard-working people eager to grow jobs and get back to work. We are fully prepared to extend this message to a larger audience through a statewide campaign to educate the voters on the enormous economic benefits that would be lost to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth in a repeal."
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission chose MGM Springfield for the western Massachusetts license on June 13 but granted a request to delay construction until after the referendum issue was resolved. That way, MGM could avoid paying millions of dollars in fees and construction obligations triggered by the state's license award until after the repeal was resolved.
The commission is proceeding with its review of two casino plans for Greater Boston, from Mohegan Sun and Wynn. It is scheduled to designate a winner in September.
Mohegan Sun said in a statement: "We believe we have the best plan to bring thousands of jobs, world class entertainment, local economic development, and increased tourism to the region and that is our focus right now. We will also join the chorus of others making the case to voters on why this law is good for workers, good for the economy, and good for the Commonwealth."
Wynn Resorts declined to comment.
Kansas Brewers, Greyhound Racing
At the heart of the legal debate over the referendum effort was the concept of contract rights versus the state's right to "police power," meaning the ability to regulate activities such as gambling.
Coakley had said that a petition was unconstitutional because it, in effect, took property in the form of contract rights without compensating the casino companies. Mohegan Sun, MGM, Wynn and others had to pay a fee to be vetted by the state's gaming commission, which Coakley argued gave the companies an implied contractual right to a final decision regarding the license.
The Supreme Judicial Court, however, wrote in its decision, "substantial economic loss arising from a change in law under the core police power does not constitute a taking of private property that triggers an entitlement to fair compensation."
In other words, the state retains the right to change laws, which amounts to "one of the many foreseeable risks that casinos, slots parlors, and their investors take when they choose to apply for a license and invest in a casino or slots parlor."
Coakley said Tuesday: "My office had conducted a legal review of this ballot question, but knew it would ultimately be decided by the Court. My office worked cooperatively with both parties to put this issue before the Court. Now, with today's decision, voters will have the final say."
To back up its decision, the court referred to an 1887 case in Kansas in which breweries sued the state for outlawing the sale of alcohol except for medical or scientific use. The brewers said the state's decision amounted to the taking of property, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the claim, saying that the state had the legislative power to protect "the health, the morals, or the safety of the public," and that brewers weren't guaranteed that the state would allow alcohol forever.
The court also brought up a case of the Mississippi legislature granting a 25-year charter in 1867 to a private company to conduct a lottery, and then reversing course by forbidding a lottery the next year. The lottery company sued the state, but the U.S. Supreme Court "declared that a 'legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State,'" the Massachusetts court wrote in its decision.
Even Massachusetts has had a similar case when it banned greyhound racing through a petition process in 2008, said Sean J. Kealy, clinical associate professor law at the Boston University School of Law.
Kealy was an assistant attorney general from 1995 to 1999, and he helped review petitions during that time. He said he does not believe that MGM, Mohegan Sun or other casino companies would be able to successfully sue the state to recoup the tens of millions of dollars they spent campaigning to get casino licenses.
"They're taking kind of a risk to begin with," Kealy said. "MGM is a pretty sophisticated operation. They knew that the Initiative Petition and Referendum was available out there, and that there was significant opposition to gambling within Massachusetts both inside and outside of the legislature. So, there is a risk there."
"Put the petition issue aside," he said. "It could be in four years after two sets of election cycles, the legislature itself says, 'You know what, we made a mistake, and we're going to make it illegal again.' At that point, MGM would have built a casino, it would have hired all these people, they'd have sunk all that money in and the legislature would have pulled the rug out from under them."
Copyright © 2014, The Hartford Courant