No on Question 1
This past week the people of Revere spoke loud and clear about not wanting a slots parlor in their city. Come Nov. 8 the rest of Massachusetts should back them up with a “No” vote on Question 1.
The statewide ballot question is a rather unsavory effort to get around the entirely well crafted — and well balanced — Massachusetts gaming law. That 2011 law allowed the state Gaming Commission, in addition to awarding up to three resort casino licenses, to award one license for a more modest racino. That license went to the Plainridge Park Casino which opened in 2015.
But that wasn’t good enough for Eugene McCain, the driving proponent behind Question 1 and the unsuccessful effort to get the people of Revere to buy into his project.
The Revere vote was nonbinding, but still nearly 3,000 voters (about 66 percent of those voting) turned the idea down.
“We sent a message to the commonwealth tonight that no amount of dark money or misleading advertising can sway us from the high standards that we hold as a community,” said Revere Mayor Richard Arrigo. “Revere residents know how to separate a good idea from a bad idea, and they will not be taken advantage of by dark money and false promises.”
The proposal is, of course, crafted in such a way that likely only a site adjacent to Suffolk Downs would fill the requirements — “located on property that is (i) at least four acres in size; (ii) adjacent to and within 1,500 feet of a race track, including the track’s additional facilities, such as the track, grounds, paddocks, barns...” etc. You get the picture. Not exactly subtle.
The original gaming law was intended to keep the market from getting over-saturated and thus maximize revenue to the state from its mandated share of the proceeds. It also provides for community benefits packages for adjacent communities — so Revere will indeed benefit from its proximity to the Wynn Casino rising in Everett. Clearly the people of Revere were smart enough to realize that, and their fellow citizens around the state should back them up on this.
The Herald supports a “No” vote on Question 1.