Hey, there! Log in / Register
Should entire city get to vote on casino in East Boston?
By adamg on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 6:38am
State Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz wants to extend a referendum provision of the proposed state gambling bill from the area immediately around a casino to an entire municipality. The Dorchester Reporter explains why everybody in Boston should have a say in whether Suffolk Downs becomes a casino.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
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.
Comments
We have to live with it
Let's not kid anybody here. With all due respect to Senator Chang-Diaz, she doesn't really care about whether the entire city gets a say on a casino - she is a staunch opponent regardless. There is no way she is going to convince EASTIE Residents that the rest of the City knows what's best for Ward 1's fourteen precincts. With that said, let's consider the facts: Suffolk Downs lies in the most remote portion of the City. Heck, half of it is not even in the city of Boston. Most people who live in the City of Boston would never even have a reason to drive by Suffolk Downs let alone experience any of the impacts - positive or negative - that a resort Casino may bring. Of course the same can not be said for the unique situation that the residents of East Boston endure. East Boston is an island - literally isolated from the rest of the City. In addition to serving as host to the nation's 13th busiest airport, three tunnels, and all the traffic that goes along with that, why shouldn't just East Boston residents have a say on whether they welcome a casino? While my family is split on the idea of a Casino, we do agree that any proposal will need to address many of the traffic comcerns that seemed to have been otherwise ignored in the community over the years by the state and city's transportation honchos. So whether you support or oppose a Casino at Suffolk Downs, you can't argue with the fact that those living on Centre Street in JP are in the same boat as us living here on Bennington Street. We should get to decide - since we are the ones who will have to live with it.
Ok, I get that Eastie has a
Ok, I get that Eastie has a bigger stake in this than someone living in West Rox for example.
But, my tax dollars go into the same city coffers that will most certainly benefit and/or get drained for whatever side projects (think infrastructure improvements etc.) that will inevitably come up with such a major development at Suffolk Downs. Not to mention police, social services related to addiction and its collateral damage — reversing foreclosures, etc— that will also burden the city government. Are the 14 precincts of East Boston going to pay for all of that themselves?? Course not. It's a burden — and through tax revenues, a profit— that will go to the city government, not East Boston alone.
It's true I'm not sold on a resort casino in Boston — whether its on the outskirts or downtown. But, you can't tell me that my municipality as a whole won't be impacted by a decision like this— and I want a chance to weigh in.
And, yes, Revere voters should too.
Ironically while East Boston
Ironically while East Boston will bear the brunt of any impact, I understand the entire city gets the benefit under the legislation as a host community by way of a percentage of gaming revenue. As an East Boston resident, if we have to host a casino not only should we be the only ones who vote on it but we should receive the lions share of any additional resources (I.e. Fire, police etc). Allston-Brighton or Hyde Park will not have a hint of theimpacts but will get to share in the revenue benefits? Can't see how that is even reasonable. As for infrastructure, I believe that private dollars from the casino developer will pay for needed improvements - not our tax dollars. By the way, the traffic problems that exist now are not getting any better and we can't count on the state to make any substantial investment with the current economic conditions. Without some type of private development/investment I don't see it happening any other way for us. Will Sonia be advocating to put resources into our problem as opposed to some of her other priorities? Doubtful.
Don't worry about Revere- they will have a say as well. They are also a host community.
I don't see why I should have a say in the matter, Senator
How does a Casino in Eastie impact my life that revolves around Rozzie for home and the Back Bay for work? Should I be allowed to determine that a Casino belongs there, just because I might occasionally want to patronize it? To me this idea is very reminiscent of the statewide vote to ban rent control against the actual wishes of the three communities that had rent control. Why did somebody in Pittsfield get to determine that Boston, Cambridge, and Brookline should not have rent control? How was that relevant to voters elsewhere in the state? This is the same concept -- create a majority that has no personal stake in the matter but can be used to overrule the minority that does. That is anti-democratic.
I agree with the above.
N/t.
Because they might put it in Rozzie Square next?
You might actually be able to convince a private company to put it in forsest hills and remove the overpass in the process!
There really isn't room for a casino at Forest Hills,
but if they'd extend the Orange Line to Rozzie Square as part of the bargain, then by all means, let's do it!
I think if you redesigned all the MBTA and city property there
it could be done.
But in all seriousness the roads coming in and out of there (203, parkways, Washington St, Columbia Rd,) just wouldn't be able to handle the amount of traffic.
Mabye the MBTA can runs its own slot machines like the Vegas airports do?
Regarding the traffic
this is exactly why somebody in Rozzie shouldn't have a say in the matter. I have no clue what traffic is like around Suffolk Downs, don't care. Just give me my black jack table!
So no, I shouldn't have a vote. But this brings up another issue, why give anybody a vote? If there is a legally licensed business setting up shop in a legally zoned location for said business, should anybody get a vote on the matter? I realize that mega-projects can be disruptive, but did I miss the referendum on the Big Dig? How did Southie manage to vote in favor of the convention center?
Do Revere residents get a say?
?
I wish
I wish they did, Its Revere that is going to face the brunt of the traffic from this, not East Boston.
Revere will get to vote
Revere will get to vote because half of Suffolk Downs is in Revere. The bigger question is why should West Roxbury get to vote if Winthrop can't?
Winthrop isn't in Chang-Diaz' district
so that's a very foolish notion!
Maybe because all Bostonians would expect to be providing our:
Maybe because all Bostonians would expect to be providing our:
- police,
- firefighters,
- EMTs,
- taxis,
- jailcells,
- garbage collection,
- etc, ad nauseum,
if the casino was located within city limits?
But actually, I also agree with you re: Winthrop et al - I think it might be much fairer to make a referendum-approval rule something like "all municipalities with wards located within a 10 mile radius of the proposed location."
if i'm not mistaken...
You are correct! The 10 mile radius is one rule. Communities within a 10 mile radius are entitled to having a referendum on the proposed location.
Another rule is that communities with over 150,000 residents do not have the right to have a local referendum on the proposed location for a resort casino. This was deliberate so Menino didn't have to convince Bostonians to vote yes for a casino in East Boston.
Well, the entire state got to
Well, the entire state got to vote on whether we can buy wine at supermarkets, even the cities that are dry and dont sell wine anywhere. The entire state got to vote to end rent control, even though it was only in operation in a few cities (Cambridge and Boston).
My point is that the politicians will change the rules about who gets to vote on issues depending on what outcome they want. Its like gerrymandering, sure, we get to vote on our representatives, but if they don't like how a certain area of their constituency is voting, they will move that area to another politician. I'd rather it be honest and say we don't have a direct vote.
Of Course the entire City
Of Course the entire City should have a vote. Everyone is assuming the Casino will go to East Boston (which happens to be isolated). What if a Casino developer wants to put a Casino on the Waterfront that means the residents of South Boston who live in a different Ward would not get to vote. Or Chinatown, that means Back Bay Residents would not get to vote. Casino Gaming is a race to the bottom!
If a casino developer wants
If a casino developer wants to put a Casino on the SB waterfront then you can bet dollars to donuts that the people of Ward 6 would be the ones getting a vote and the only ones at that. That is precisely what the House Bill that passed provides.
As an aside, I am also pretty sure that the folks in Southie would not give a damn as to what the thoughts of the voters in East Boston or West Roxbury were on the topic of a Casino at the Seaport - and they would be well within their right to maintain such a position.
Even if I lived on the far side of the Neponset in Boston...
I would want a say in this - for the simple reason that the City as a single municipal unit will share any benefits (perhaps revenue, etc.) and suffer any detriments (increased police/fire/medical responses, etc.).
I would not feel so strongly if the development we were talking about here was going to be just another strip mall or big box store that was going to add a few hundred people at a given time during traditional retail hours, very few of whom would be visiting well into the night, drinking, etc. (and even then, I'd have a say in that development, to an extent, through the normal permitting process, etc.). However, because we (by we, I mean you, residents of Boston - I'm saved again by 300 yards!) could be talking about thousands of people, maybe tens of thousands at busy times (and depending on what got built), I think that at least a citywide referendum would be appropriate.
Combine it with the convention center
I get it, they are trying a race track...guys its a dying sport. Time to move on. If they can't save the Preakness, they can't save Suffolk (or Rockingham for that matter).
Build a casino at Suffolk and you'll get the scratch ticket fiends taking the blue line up like there's no tomorrow. Build it by the convention center, as part of the expansion plans, and you'll get tourists and coventionees spending money in Boston that they otherwise wouldn't. And it's still convenient for the scratch ticket fiends.
Casino
The planned casino certainly deserves attention and debate. As a local neighbor of Suffolk Downs, I have very mixed feelings about the casino. Will the oil tanks go away? Will a very secret oasis of wildlife disappear? Yes, there is an amazing piece of fresh water habitat hidden next to the oil tanks. Will the roads be upgraded? Will there be drunks puking in my garden? There will be hookers and drugs as surely as the sun rises over Belle Isle Marsh each morning. I firmly believe that we in East Boston and Revere ought to vote on this and no one else. It's our neighborhood that you fly over and your cars that drive through our streets and give us the highest car insurance rates in the state. It's my laundry drying on the line that smells of jet fuel. You don't care now and never have. Let us decide.
If I'm against it, I demand a
If I'm against it, I demand a referendum.
If I'm for it, the political process should work it out - that's why we vote for legislators.
Why should they get a vote? Here's why.
Because mass transit doesn't just move people around. It moves their problems with them. Property crimes go up around casinos because criminals will steal from the better neighborhoods and then go spend the proceeds from their activities at the casino hoping to win a bigger payday. Just because they put it in East Boston doesn't mean its impacts won't reach further than the Harbor.
Yea but how far does the casino have to be though?
If Boston/Revere says no but Lynn says yes, the crime is going to be the same in Boston either way, but Lynn will get all the extra revenue. (I'm using basic casino/tax logistics here I know).
But how far does the casino have to be to effect the crime rate? 10 miles? 30? New Hampshire? Conn?
I have to agree Kaz
The casino bill contained two provisions. One said everyone within a 10 mile radius of a proposed location could vote on the location, majority rules. This gives the people who would be most affected the right (collectively) to say no, thank you.
The second provision said that any town or city greater than 150,000 population COULD NOT vote on it. The purpose of the second provision was to keep residents in large city like Boston from having a say about a casino sighted in East Boston ...despite the undeniable effects it would have on many issues of common interest not the least of which is demands on government resources.