Election roundup: Southie state rep to endorse Connolly; Ross wants Everett casino to pay Boston

It is definitely the latter (i.e., she did not certify it). This is definitely less shady than "not allowing" it.

The reasoning is interesting though - I can't remember an instance where the Commonwealth took the position that an "implied" contract was subject to the takings clause (this doesn't mean that it hasn't happened, or that it's not already settled law, but I just can't remember an instance of it).

If this is not settled law, I am not sure that the Commonwealth (or the AG's office) would want that position to stand as a precedent - it could prove very costly down the road (e.g., lots of people could argue that they have/had implied contracts with the state and that any law that impugns it is a taking).

Cadging from that article - the reason the attorney general’s office rejected the ballot initiative is because it violated a rule in the state constitution that such proposals cannot interfere with someone’s “right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use.” Ok, that sounds like a legitimate restriction.

The part that confuses me is where the state solicitor said that the proposed law would “impair the implied contracts” between casino proponents who have paid millions of dollars in application fees and the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which is considering their applications. Ie, it would “take” without compensation the casino proponents’ contract rights.

Huh?

I could understand if it said that the fees already collected by the commonwealth would be an extra-legal taking if the proposed law were enacted - but wouldn't that simply mean that the state had to return the fees? How can the contracts themselves be considered pieces of property?

Could the initiative proponents rewrite the proposal to make this repayment explicit and make this invalidation moot?

If not, then couldn't the state govt make any development deal "initiative-proof" by allowing some private-property owner involved to immediately pay a negligible 'certification' fee in anticipation of the future work? Then any attempt to reverse/invalidate the deal by the electorate would be an "illegal taking".

No backsies!

You were making the point in your original post that people in state government do not understand the simplest business concepts. You then suggested Bob Kraft and Ernie Boch do, and so you would vote for either to be governor. That's fine, and I make no statement as to whether either would be a good or bad governor.

My comment was directed to the fact that it is business people just like Boch and Kraft (recall that Mr. Kraft himself was looking to get into the gaming business with one of the casino magnates who is looking to capitalize on the Commonwealth's law) who brought us this license limitation. The legislators who voted on the law (you'll notice that I did not say "wrote" the law - hint - see previous sentence as to whose people did) were acting at the behest of the people who understand the simplest business concepts quite well.

Again, I make no statement as to whether or not this is a good thing - I said it only to indicate that it was in fact people who understand the simplest business concepts who brought us the license limitation situation about which you originally complained, so I am not sure why a Governor Kraft or Boch would be expected to do anything different.

Both you and Stevil misconstrued the purpose of my analogy to Subaru and the NFL. Neither was cited for the purpose of commenting on the merits of whether market limitations/monopolies should or should not exist (which is what both of you went on to do), but rather, were offered as examples to stand only for the proposition that both Boch and Kraft understand that monopolies are great for monopolists. Of course Subaru and the NFL have the right to do that (subject to the Sherman Act, amongst other laws).

Lastly, there seemed to be a whiff of a suggestion that the state does not have the right to set up a monopoly. Any such suggestion flies in the face of centuries of Anglo-American tradition and jurisprudence, but yet again, I make no comment as to the merits of whether or not that is a good thing.

Please explain