WGBH reports the state gaming commission is looking into two allegations - and how executives at the company, still named for Wynn, that owns the casino handled them as it gets ready to make the final determination on whether the place can open.
all this corruption and misconduct is really surprising. it'll be nice when the place finally opens and all these sleazy problems go away.
If the state let's this move forward and still let's sums company keep the license, this will tell company's always to lie lie lie when dealing with regulators in mass. Obviously another company would have won the license if the head of any company had raped an employee and sexually harassed others and the company covered it up. Hopefully the gambling board and baker grow a backbone. But, unlikely.
in a court?
Obviously, this casino is a big, fat target for false charges.
Will Everett allow the structure to become the new homeless shelter ?(with job training in the new industry?) Maybe allow the Commonwealth to keep the license and reap the rewards ? Sheldon Anderson has made many Billions of Dollars off of gaming. In Monte Carlo there are no taxes and all the government's needs are met from profits from their Casino.
That have no connection whatsoever.
All these incoherent non sequiturs are why our public discourse sucks. Arguing with anyone these days they do whataboutisms and false equivalencies.
Defend government to me in this forum ever again.
Honestly, this casino business is so fucked up I can't even predict which angle of anti-government action you're more likely to take here:
* That Wynn is so obviously corrupt that we should dispense with the hearings and run them out of the harbor like Howe
* That denying a license to an obviously corrupt company like Wynn on something as specious as sexual harassment complaints is a colossal government overreach.
Which is it, boss? I can't hit what I can't see.
I don't need for government to take my money to tell me that a Wynn casino isn't worth patronizing. I can decide for myself whether or not I want to patronize that business based on my moral code.
... is that it is not at all a morality issue. Internal company policies, and their ability to be followed, aren't the purview of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. I think the investigation and hearing are entirely relevant to the concept that a company that is willing to publicly lie to investigators about something small is likely enough to lie about something big, like the payouts on their slots, or the rake on the blackjack table, both of which are regulated. I happen to agree with that stance. In order to have trust in a company, particularly in an industry as inherently shady as Gaming, there cannot be lapses in judgement, policy, or ethics, even about issues not consequential to the core industry: taking money from rubes.
So. I defend the government. Have at me.
For people to be responsible for themselves? Why do you want for adults to be babysat at the expense of the public?
You want for government to force casinos to post giant signs listing slot machine rakes? That's fine by me. You want for government to tell them that they can't operate at all? No bueno.
I don't want a bunch of lowlifes, layabouts, and morons who are completely unemployable in the private sector deciding which people and businesses are winners, and which are losers.
The commission isn't deciding the casino's fate. It put out rules and said follow them or get out of our state. The casino chose not to follow them. If the casino followed the rules, then this wouldn't be an issue. If the casino still gets to operate in this state, then you should be happy that even though there were rules allowing us to throw them out, we yielded a bit in the hopes that they truly are reformed and apologetic for their inability to follow the rules.
The only thing the commission did was setup the rules and then enforce them. If we don't have rules, then we have chaos.
I think the government can and should be able to decide whether a gaming company that is caught lying is allowed to do business in the state. The same goes for an auto body shop, a grocery or a doctor's office. If you lie to the public in your business then there should be repercussions. Because they are a gaming facility, that only magnifies the importance that the public trust has to the business and the licensing commission. If the public thought the board allowed a company that was shady to operate, even though the bad deeds were public, then it calls into question the entire ability of the businesses themselves to operate in a regulatory environment. If the regulatory environment is called into question, than the public trust is eroded and that, of course, affects the market. Regulation is good for business when it instills trust in the companies that are operating.
and why was he run out of the harbor?
General Howe, of the Royal British Army, c. March 17 1776.
You want for government to force casinos to post giant signs listing slot machine rakes? That's fine by me.
- Will LaTulippe on Wed, 04/03/2019 - 10:41am
See, even people who think that adults should be responsible for themselves and not be babysat are ok with some level of governmental regulation to ensure fair and honest dealings for their gambling establishments. Seems like a good defense of government to me!
So, you're okay to force them to post giant signs.
...what if they don't?
...what if the sign they use is a lie?
See, your implicit assumption is that the casino is a good actor and if you have the most laissez-faire approach that still gives the consumer all the information they need to know, then the market will provide the proper outcome.
Except, how do you "force" them to put up signs...and determine that they're accurate? And if you do find they didn't post the signs or lied on them, is your only recourse to post a new sign? Where is that one? Just in the paper that not everyone will see? Or do you expect them to post another sign next the rakes that says "we got caught without the first sign"...because I have a guess as to whether they'd willingly post the second sign either.
Or is there a point where you get to shut them down for not being a good actor in your laissez-faire ideal situation? Because...that's where we're at here. They weren't a good actor. There were rules and they broke them. All we're doing now is enforcing the penalty for that.
There's no other casino open or being built in Greater Boston. We could have more. The people of Revere openly endorsed as such at the polls.
But government only said we could have one. None of this was a problem until government made it one. That Suffolk Downs is not a casino is the answer to a question that was not asked by the majority of Revere voters.
It doesn't address my point that you want rules like they have to inform the consumer, but that only happens if there's enforcement...at which point, that's where we're at right now.
The Wynn people couldn't have timed this any better after the NY Times called the same behavior by the Democrat presidential frontrunner merely some, "unwanted affectionate touches." Nothing to see here folks, approve the license.
How can you possibly criticize anyone for such actions and still support Trump who outright admitted to grabbing women?
but given what we know so far, i wouldn't put him in the same category as steve wynn.
The state should tell Wynn Resorts this: you can keep your license, but only if you fully pay for the construction of the pedestrian/bike bridge to Assembly station, as well as the modifications needed to make that station accessible from the east side.
This is something the state and the cities of Everett and Somerville need in order to mitigate the traffic impact from the casino.
Once the place opens their willingness to support such thing will diminish. Get it now.
this reeks of NIMBY. From the state that brought you the Big Dig disaster.
Yes please undo the Big Dig. I hate not having a giant freeway flying over the city, closing the waterfront off from downtown. I also hate the awesome tunnel that supplements the other tunnels going to East Boston. I would much prefer to sit in traffic and then swim to the airport.
Because I might have been unclear, this is a dumb take.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Copyright 2019 by Adam Gaffin and by content posters.Advertise | About Universal Hub | Contact | Privacy