Casinos: Round 2 | Central Mass. weighs potential risks, rewards of state's latest gambling legislation
The latest state legislation that would allow casinos in Massachusetts does not sit well with David Lavalley, executive director of the Center for Arts in Natick.
"Massachusetts has a national identity as being a cultural mecca," he said. "That identity is because of all of these great small arts institutions. It's difficult to see how a string of casinos would help sustain that reputation."
On the other hand, Barry Feingold, president of the local chamber of commerce in Milford — which is where a Colorado developer wants to construct one of the three resort casinos that could be allowed in the state — sees the issue a bit differently. In his mind, casinos equal jobs.
"When you look at some of the figures, there is an incredible amount of money leaving the state because of casinos," he said. "If these people are going to go and gamble — which they will — let's keep the money in Massachusetts."
These are just some of the views across Central Massachusetts, and they highlight the potentially confrontational debate that's likely to play out in the coming weeks in Boston.
The issue of allowing gaming in the Bay State is back on the front burner, and local officials in this region are mulling what it means for them.
Ideal Location?
For proponents, MetroWest offers an attractive locale because of its central location in the state, which would allow a resort-style casino to attract residents from across New England.
But opponents are worried about the impact a casino, complete with a performing arts center, restaurants, a hotel and shopping plazas, could mean for their local businesses.
Now, officials on both sides of the debate are lining up their ammunition for what's sure to be a Beacon Hill showdown on gaming.
Rolling The Dice
Last year, the casino debate dominated the political discourse for much of the tail end of the legislative session. Just when it seemed a deal might be struck, the three major parties involved — Gov. Deval Patrick, House Speaker Robert DeLeo and Senate President Therese Murray — were unable to come to a consensus.
This year, the process has gone much smoother — so far.
The three leaders hammered out a 155-page draft bill that's expected to go before the Legislature sometime this fall.
The bill calls for three resort-style casinos in Massachusetts and at least one license to operate a slot machine parlor.
Casino developers are required to invest at least $500 million in construction of a resort casino on top of paying an $85-million fee for the rights to a license.
The bill divides the state into three regions: Western, Southeastern and Eastern, with Worcester and MetroWest lumped into the Eastern region. That means any proposal in Central Massachusetts would have to compete against another in Boston.
One of the people vying for a coveted license is David Nunes, a Colorado-based developer who, for more than two years, has been seeking approval for his Crossroads casino just off Route 495, a few miles south of the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Nunes said he's ready to put his casino proposal up against all others in the state.
But Nunes was also hoping Central Massachusetts would be included in the same region as Boston. Milford has much easier transportation access, more land and is more centrally located in order to attract gamblers from all over New England.
"It's the best location in the entire state," said Nunes, who wants to construct an $850- million complex, complete with a 350-room hotel, 176,000 square feet of gaming floor space, 60,000 square feet of ancillary retail space and a five-story parking garage.
A second phase of the project would add 120,000 square feet to the development and another 350 hotel rooms. Nunes said he has financing agreements in place with Credit Suisse and is working with Las Vegas-based casino developer Bill Warner — a former COO of Station Casinos, a Las Vegas gaming company — and owner of a Hard Rock Café franchise in Nevada.
Local officials, including State Rep. John Fernandes, D-Milford, also support the plan. Last year, Nunes signed a memorandum of understanding with town officials, seen as an initial act of mutual willingness to work together.
Nunes isn't the only one looking to site a gaming facility in Central Massachusetts.
Vincent Iuliano, who owns 205 acres of land on the south side of the Massachusetts Turnpike in Charlton, had an agreement in place to lease his land to a partnership of three casino developers earlier this year, he said. But when the "three zone" legislation came out and pitted a Central Massachusetts locale against a Boston site, the partnership backed out.
Then there's a third plan in Palmer backed by officials from the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, owners of the Mohegan Sun resort casino in Uncasville, Conn. But that $600 million casino and hotel would fall within the Western zone, even though it borders the southwestern corner of Worcester County. Another proposal in Holyoke, dubbed Paper City, could compete with the Palmer plan.
Still, some local officials are not too excited about having a casino in their backyard, be it in Palmer, Charlton, Milford, Holyoke or Boston.
One of the biggest worries on the mind of Troy Siebels, executive director of The Hanover Theatre in Worcester, is the impact a performing arts center within a casino complex would have on the Worcester theatre. A casino's performance venue would likely compete for the same acts as the Hanover, he said. But casino owners would be able to pay the performers more and offer cheaper tickets to patrons.
The legislation on Beacon Hill does call for mitigation resources to offset impacts on the local community and arts institutions, as well as to pay for initiatives to curb compulsive gambling. But Siebels said money is not the problem. Losing acts, and therefore the ability to draw patrons to the theatre, is the real problem. That, he said, is an issue money alone won't be able to fix.
Hartford Business Journal staff writer Brad Kane contributed to this report.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments