State says casino referendum remains on

By adamg on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 2:33pm

The Globe reports Secretary of State William Galvin says East Boston and Revere residents will vote Nov. 5 on whether to approve a Suffolk Downs casino even if Suffolk Downs doesn't have a new manager for the facility in place by then.

On Friday, Suffolk Downs said it was booting Caesars because of concerns raised in a state report due out on Wednesday.

Over the weekend, Mayor Menino had said he would look at possible ways to postpone the vote if a new operator were not named by then; the ruling today by the state's highest elections official, however, makes that moot.

Sample East Boston ballot.

Neighborhoods:

Topics:

Free tagging:

Ad:

Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

Too bad the vote is for Caesars

By Mateo on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 4:41pm.

Galvin also mentions that even if East Boston votes in favor of this development, it may not be valid since the ballot question specificies the Host Community Agreement as being with Sterling Suffolk and Caesars.

In light of the chaos surrounding this application, No Eastie Casino just asked Suffolk Downs to withdraw their application with this letter.

I dunno

By Waquiot on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 5:45pm.

Reading the ballot, it would seem like the agreement is with Sterling Suffolk with Caesars along for the ride. Anyone who has been following this should know that Suffolk have wanted a casino since at least the new ownership coming in.

That said, Suffolk better get another partner quick, and that partner better be on board with the agreement. I may support this, but even I would have trouble with changes at the last minute.

As for the legality of the vote, I do hope whichever side loses (and yes, I do hope my side wins) doesn't try to use some loophole to block the will of the voters.

Great letter!

By John-W on Mon, 10/21/2013 - 9:09pm.

That's a great letter! But I think that version is missing the second to the last page. The footnote doesn't pick up on the last page and the body of the letter doesn't make sense either. But up to that point it was really good! Especially the part in that broken footnote. There were complaints about the proponent screwing up the process and the City and Commission letting it slide. In particular I think it was that the background checks had to be done BEFORE the date for the vote was set. Now we see why. Whadda ya know, an intelligently written law (albeit a pretty dumb law, imo).

Fixed it!

By Matt Cameron on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 11:10pm.

Thanks John! I just wanted to post the final version of No Eastie Casino's letter mentioned above... as you noted, that PDF was incomplete due a scanning error. This is fixed and much easier to read...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/178072960/boston-casino-opponents-demand-immed...

And I'm sure that the majority of voters

By roadman on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 3:33pm.

will make their decision on the casino question based on "Oh no, it's Caesars, I don't want them. Now if it were The MGM Grand, well ....."

voters' intent

By John-W on Tue, 10/22/2013 - 11:42pm.

That doesn't really matter. The issue is that when it comes to ballots, things get persnickety. Meaning whoever loses is going to contest it and will win as what is written in the ballot (and have you seen them? they're longer than hell!) is what the people voted on and what the reality is, is slightly different. Of course the real reality of the Host Community Agreement will be different than what's written here anyways, but that's a different issue...