A gambling oasis in the woods, luring visitors willing to drive for the resort experience? Or a new addition to the urban landscape, expanding the tourist experience with slot machines and blackjack tables?
In awarding development rights for casino projects, the state gambling commission has a mind-boggling number of decisions to make over the next 12 months, but perhaps none as fundamental as this: Rural or urban?
Comments
There is no upside to a casino, rural or urban. They are a blight on the landscape. I agree they should be legal, but at the very least make them difficult to get to.
If you thought the big dig took a long time then wait around for these clowns to make up their mind. The big dig took 14 years. i believe that the first casino to open will be at least 20 years from now.
This comment has been removed.
Who's kidding who? In the end it will come down to who pays the biggest bribe to the most influential hack. This is Massachusetts, after all.
"I'm not going to do anything to change the character of rural towns or do anything without local community involvement." - Gov. Deval Patrick on his plans to bring casinos to Massachusetts, September 21, 2007 in Orange (The Greenfield Recorder, 9/22/07). What a crock!
Why is that a crock? A town has to vote in a referendum before a casino can be approved. Foxborough shows that even a referendum isn't necessary.
Your comment is what's a crock.
How Milford and Boston ended up in the same region I'll never know. Oh, strike that, this is Massachusetts.
Instead of sounding like an idiot, why don't you propose a different way to divide the state into 3 regions.
We live about 4 miles from the proposed casino site in Milford, but as we are not actually IN Milford, we don't have much say about something that will effect us greatly, and not for the better. My relatives live near the casinos in Connecticut. I asked them yesterday what it's like, how things have changed since the casinos opened, and this is what my sister (her husband is a reporter) said: Casinos are awful. They cause addiction, and so theft, embezzlement, and corruption follow...drugs, drunk driving, prostitution, and all sorts of vice and crime increase dramatically. Immigrants come for the low-income jobs and flood the schools with kids who need a lot of services and don't speak English. She said the jobs aren't well-paid and don't benefit the local community. She said that the casinos become powerful players in the local economy, and lead to boom and then big busts and instability. She suggested that I look through newspaper articles from The Day, and especially look at the crime reports, to get a sense of how bad it has been. So I don't like these breezy articles in the Globe talking about revenue, exciting location choices, and development as if it is a good idea for the state or the towns of this state. Casinos are NOT good ideas. They will cost more than they bring in. I'm very angry with the Patrick administration and the state legislature for this terrible decision that will prove corrosive to our communities. Stupid. Stupid. Don't believe what the developers are saying. They lie.
No need to worry. Not in a million years are they going to pick Milford over Boston.
I agree with richstan. Milford is too far away from Boston, and the gaming commission won't let the biggest potential cut of Massachusetts tax revenue be diluted by a New Hampshire casino. Conversely, Milford is too close to wherever the southern casino site will be.
Nunes' strategy seems to be that he would be adding to, and capitalizing on, the Route 495 corridor, by developing north of the Comcast Center, Patriot Place, and the Wrentham Outlets. He better not be thinking he'll lure high rollers who are visiting EMC on business in Hopkinton, who presently stay at the hotels along Fortune Boulevard in Milford. He would be badly misjudging EMC's customers and partners.
Despite the apparent folly of having the eastern casino located in Milford, the proposal is going to be under consideration by the gaming commission, so opposition must remain in place and be heard.
"With the late addition of Foxwoods as a partner in a Milford casino project, the commission has a viable suburban entry..." Who says it's viable, other than the developer(s)? You have stated an opinion as fact. The correct statement would be, "With the late addition of Foxwoods as a partner in a Milford casino project, the commission may consider the suburban entry viable."
In determining the best locations for Massachusetts' casino gaming locations, the MA Gaming Commission has several cities that can provide meaningful data. St. Louis, Kansas City, Philadelphia and New Orleans all have downtown casinos as well as some in the suburbs. Downtown locations usually have poor interstate access, insufficient parking and share the area with lower income residents. Suburban or rural locations are where employees, who work downtown, return to in the evenings. Convenience, picking up the spouse and highway access are all critical for enjoying a night of entertainment, which is more likely at a casino in the suburbs or a nearby rural location. Of the cities mentioned, only in New Orleans does the downtown casino out perform the suburban casinos. But the comparison has some inconsistencies. One, downtown is land based where the others are riverboats. Two, the riverboats are limited in casino square footage, and finally, none have good interstate access. The best example is in St. Louis, where the downtown casino, Lumiere Place, included a substantial investment, including two hotels (one a 294 suite, 5 Diamond Four SeasonsResort). The property generated only $12 million in casino win, compared to $15.9 Million at its sister property in Lemay, the River City Casino. River City has no hotel, but is away from downtown. Two other greater St. Louis casinos are in North East communities, Ameristar in St. Charles and the Horseshoe in Maryland Heights. Ameristar won $20.8 million in January and Horseshoe $19.4 million, 60% to 70% more than Lumiere Place, downtown. The only St. Louis casinos doing worse, were across the river in Illinois where severe limitations affect the number of tables and slots permitted and the State does not allow smoking.
I agree with Miklojcik. The idea of "destination" casinos is a fantasy. That might have worked for Las Vegas or Atlantic City while they were unique, and even Foxwoods. Tourists from out of state coming to Massachusetts to gamble is a fantasy. There are already casinos in Connecticut, Rhode Island and Maine. There will soon be one in New Hampshire. Everybody in Mass will be within 1-2 hours of a casino.
If Massachusetts follows the examples of other states, there will more than 3 casinos soon enough, along with multiple slot machine venues.
Forget the big hotels. They're waste of money.