the problem vennochi as usual is we have a blithering nitwit bagman for a mayor who plays at being lord of all he surveys, with not much if anything at home between the ears or for vision and a 13 person city council who besides being scared to death of upsetting and going against the wishes of mayor halfwit cpllect a salary of EIGHTY-SEVEN FIVE AND BENNIES PLUS STAFF for DOING AND SAYING SQUAT OTHER THAN YES,MR.MAYOR, NO MR. MAYOR , YOUR DARN STRAIGHT I WANNA KEEP THE BEST JOB I'VE EVER HAD AND EVER LIKELY TO GET WITH NO HEAVY LIFTING. the other AM, the HERALD had a comment from STEVE THE SCHMOO MURPHY saying anf i quote"that this matter will receive a THOROUGH PUBLIC VETTING unquote. this gutless hack like the human social moth ROSS, FEENEY AND FLAHERTY before him never ever has stood up for anything other than to go through the chow line or reelection never ever mind whats best for the residents and taxpayers which btw are not always one and the same. great piece vennochi and thanks for writing about whats right or wrong, not donkey or elephant. ma

I believe ALL OF MASSACHUSETTS should vote on casinos. I, for one, do not want ANY casinos. So far, when put before the voters, others seem to agree. *****It sounds good on the surface. Lots of jobs. But beneath the surface corruption oozes out from the edges(remember Stan McGee, almost Gaming Commissioner). Corruption and crime and nastiness. This is a BAD IDEA for Massachusetts and I WANT A VOTE.

What if, at Suffolk Downs, a proposal had been made to build a triple tiered tobacco farm, using the most advanced growing technologies, employing thousands in its construction with an underground nuclear waste processing facility, employing additional workers, paying significant taxes, and a couple of new roads to carry the additional traffic. Wow! Who could possibly object? And the decision-makers would be on their way to the next life while their children and grandchildren deal with the consequences...not that there would be any, of course. Urban casino gambling is the crystal meth of revenue generation.

Joanie babe... you sure do ask a singularly apt question. And the answer is very simple: the one-party state where a small group of political Demohacks named DeLeo and Menino and Patrick and Murray control government is the reason. These less than noble political creatures don't want their constituents to exercise what they claim their party stands for - small-d democracy. No, they are afraid their constituents might tell them to go fall in a sewer with the casino pipedream the Demohacks are struggling to impose on East Boston, Revere, Chelsea, Winthrop, Lynn, Nahant and other North Shore communities. This quartet of "leaders" are afraid that Boston voters might duplicate in far larger numbers the sentiments expressed by voters in Foxborough, Freetown and Lakeville: folks love the casino concept, but not in their communities. All this flash and glitter the Suffolk Downs poobahs came up with Tuesday is about as believable as Deeval Patrick's promise to lower real property taxes, if only Massachusetts voters would let him occupy space in the State House. Well, he got his wish and we still p;ay ever-increasing property taxes 'cause Deeval lied... flat out... made a promise he never intended to keep. Anyone agree that the smooth guy from Suffolk Downs amd the hoodie looking one from Caesar's Vegas joing are unlikely to keep lots of the words they dumped on willing suckers they imported to the site this past Tuesday... oldish bluehairs and Suffolk employees, all willing to clap and cheer every little thing?

The question on whether or not we are going to have a casino is over. We are. Get over it. Now, who gets to decide where should be the people whose community it is going in. The reason only Revere and East Boston voters get a say is because it will impact them the most. Allowing the rest of the state to vote where it should be makes no sense. Instead of a Casino let's say, for arguments sake, we are talking about a prison. Not many people would want a prison in their community and allowing folks from around the state, let's say Carlisle or Dover, to overide the wishes of East Boston & Revere and putting a prison there smacks of elitism.

The answer is pretty simple. Suffolk Downs is across the harbor from most of Boston and the people in East Boston are the only ones who will be affected by the casino. Your attitude is basically, "Let's add a bunch of voters to the mix who really don't care about the casino as long as it's not in their neighborhood." How could you (in good conscience) believe that's fair. The ideal situation would be 2 votes -- one in East Boston and another for the rest of the city -- with a requirement that the casino be approved by both sets of voters.

Joan Vennochi makes some very good points in her editorial "All of Boston should vote on a Suffolk Downs casino." I am a resident of East Boston who is very strongly opposed to having a casino in my neighborhood. Local politicians (who are all pro-casino) come to our civic association meetings and assure us that since we'd be most affected by a casino, we and only we should have a say in the matter. I think the reality is that, as Chip Tuttle acknowledged, proponents feel they have a better shot at getting what they want by limiting the vote. From my perspective, if the world were fair, the vote would work like this: If East Boston & Revere say no to a casino at Suffolk Downs the deal is dead. If they say yes, then they would also need approval from the city at large. After all it is the city that will absorb the cost of additional police, fire, etc. resulting from such a dramatic increase in people traffic. I also think the concerns of residents of the town of Winthrop also need to be heard. They don't get a vote either way even though with only one road in and one road out they will surely be negatively impacted by traffic congestion.

While it is true that the casino will have little impact on South Boston, the South End, Brighton, Roxbury or Dorchester, it is also true that there will be significant impact on several cities and towns on the North Shore, whose residents rely on the Blue Line, Rte. 1A, and the Ted Williams Tunnel for access to the Airport and Boston. To minimize adverse impact on transportation, one solution that should be considered is the extension of Interstate 90 from its present terminus north of the airport to a point near Wonderland. There could be a ramp directly into the casino property, another near Bell Circle, and another to access orient heights. Local businesses along the present Lee Burbank Hwy, Rte 1A would be accessible by a parallel access road next to the interstate. This reconfiguration would eliminate three lights, and allow through traffic to flow smoothly past the casino. The construction would be covered under the plan to upgrade local roads, and the federal government might pay something to extend an existing interstate highway a by a few miles.

I live in Everett 1 block from the Revere Beach Parkway (rt 16)and about a mile and a half from Suffolk Downs. The majority of Boston is across the harbor and couldn't find East Boston on a map. Why should some one from West Roxbury 10 plus miles from there get a vote and I don't. Personally I don't care one way or another because I probably won't go there much, but the people in Everett and Chelsea have no say in the matter and will get all the headaches from the casino and zero benefit.

That's just what we need. More asphalt. Build it and they will come. We don't need any new expressways destroying the residential neighborhoods in Revere and East Boston. That is an absolutely heartless solution. There's been enough of East Boston destroyed by Massport. Something needs to be done at Bell Circle, especially fly-overs, but the Burbank Highway is probably adequate with a few improvements. People will be coming and going to the casino around the clock so that traffic won't be concentrated at particular times like rush-hour traffic is.

Joan-This article reads like you want to get into a discussion over the evils of gambling. I'm afraid it might be a little too late for that. You do have a point when you say that a smaller casino will pull money from the local community. William Thompson from the University of Nevada concluded that in order for a casino to have a net positive effect on a community, half or more of the people spending their money have to be from outside the state or local area. Most of the smaller casinos in the country including places like Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Louisiana, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin etc. etc. pull on average around 85% from the local community. Many of these smaller casinos are located on Indian reservations. You really do need to have a big, easily-accessible casino to draw the "whales" from outside. I've found that gambling on the Indian reservation casinos (all around the country) have a similar broken-down-stale-cigarette-bottom-of-the-barrel-dismal-scratch-tickets-on-the-floor-oxygen-tank-wheelchair feel to them. Not pleasant places to be.