Eight years in the planning, the New Bedford casino looked like a credible proposal: It enjoyed strong political support and offered an interesting plan to remediate a brownfield site in the city. Still, the New Bedford developers, KG Urban, were forced to throw in their cards, citing fears of the remote possibility that the Mashpee Wampanoag could open a tribal casino in Taunton. Such a facility would operate with an enormous competitive advantage, thanks to a pact negotiated by former Governor Deval Patrick.
If state law allowed developers to build smaller casinos, investors might still have been willing to take the slight risk of greater competition in the future. But the Massachusetts casino law requires a minimum of $500 million in investment, a provision meant to ensure that casinos deliver the jobs and economic development that backers promised when the Legislature approved the law. The gaming commission bent over backwards to give KG Urban time to assemble that level of financing, but the New Bedford group was ultimately unable to overcome fears about the financial viability of such a large plan.
Rush Street, the group behind the Brockton plan, says that it can still be successful with a large casino in the region, even if a tribal casino opens. They make a strong argument that a Brockton casino will start off stronger just by virtue of its geography; whereas New Bedford was farther from the Boston market than Taunton, Brockton is closer. Rush Street points out that it wouldn’t apply for the license if it intended to lose money, and that, unlike KG Urban, it already has financing and extensive experience operating casinos.
Still, the failure of the New Bedford plan, which had seemed so well positioned just a few months ago, is a market signal that the gaming commission can’t just ignore. A failing casino would be a huge headache for the Commonwealth. Rush Street deserves a fair shot at making its case, but it shouldn’t automatically get the license unless the commission is satisfied it can succeed. The demise of the New Bedford plan may well be a special case with no broader implications, but the more the commission knows about why it failed, the better.