Teamsters Local 707 President Kevin McCaffrey fluffs up his treasury by taking the money of Nassau OTB employees in return for next to nothing. Unions are crazy if they think that people will vote for someone who takes compelled union dues in return for doing......
Come ask Nassau OTB employees what Kevin McCaffrey has done for them.
Keep Kevin McCaffrey in Lindenhurst.
Teamsters Local 707's Pension Plan awaits takeover by the PBGC. At every union meeting one or more people ask Kevin McCaffrey when the PBGC takeover will occur.
vote NO on PROPOSITION ONE and take your money elsewhere and hope that NY's social ills and racketeering government will grow no more. Andrew Cuomo for President of Lebanon.
End of Casino Partnership Leaves Fate of East Boston Racetrack in Doubt
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
BOSTON — Suffolk Downs, a famed but fading thoroughbred racetrack in the
neighborhood of East Boston, had dreams of a major revitalization, and
when the state approved casinos in 2011, it partnered with the Caesars Entertainment Corporation to apply for the sole casino license that would be awarded in the greater Boston area.
They planned a $1 billion destination resort casino that would be one of
the biggest in the Western Hemisphere, a curved, glassy mega-palace
that might look more at home in Miami Beach than in this gritty
neighborhood hard by Logan International Airport.
Suffolk Downs needed voter approval before it could advance to the next
stage for the license and invested more than $2 million in a campaign
for a yes vote on a referendum on Tuesday’s ballot.
But in mid-October, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission,
reputed to be one of the toughest in the country, pulled the plug on
Caesars, saying it was unsuitable for doing business in the state.
Suffolk Downs asked Caesars to withdraw, and it did.
Now, Suffolk Downs is suddenly scrambling to find a new partner. And the
election is going ahead because the ballots have already been printed —
with Caesars’ name on them.
Suffolk Downs says Caesars’ exit does not change anything as far as
voters go. But opponents say that it changes everything and that it is
absurd for voters to be passing judgment on something that does not
exist.
“At a certain point, you can’t cancel a vote,” said Pamela Wilmot, the
executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, a watchdog group,
which has not taken a position on the casino. “But this throws the whole
thing into doubt, with voters not really knowing what they’re voting
for.”
If the referendum passes, she said, opponents will probably challenge it
in court. “Voter intent will be difficult to ascertain, given the
situation,” she said.
As confusing as this might be for voters, Suffolk needs their approval
before it can compete against two potent rivals that are also seeking
the license for a casino to be built in the untapped, lucrative Eastern
Massachusetts market. At stake is billions of dollars in anticipated
revenue, some of which will be shared with the host community and the
state.
One rival is Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas casino mogul and chief executive
of Wynn Resorts Ltd., who has proposed a $1.2 billion resort casino on
the Mystic River waterfront, a few miles west in the town of Everett.
Residents there have approved his project with 86.5 percent of the vote.
Another competitor is Foxwoods, which is planning a $1 billion casino in
the suburban town of Milford, about 40 miles southwest of Boston.
Milford will vote on the Foxwoods plan on Nov. 19.
Once they have local approval, the casinos must submit their final
applications to the state by Dec. 31. The gambling commission is to
award the license by spring.
Suffolk Downs was believed to have the edge because of its strong
political backing, most notably from Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston.
The track, where the Beatles played in 1966, is also a sentimental
favorite since it has been here almost 80 years. Pro-casino organizers
are trading on that nostalgic connection: their green and yellow signs
say “Vote ‘yes’ for Suffolk Downs.” In tiny letters is the Caesars logo,
but the word “casino” does not appear.
But the gambling commission threw cold water on Caesars’ participation.
In a lengthy report, it cited Caesars’ $24 billion debt, alleged ties of
an associate to organized crime in Russia and a scandal involving a
high-roller named Terrance Watanabe, who racked up millions of dollars
in unpaid debt at Caesars casinos and in turn claimed that the company
encouraged him to gamble while he was intoxicated.
Suffolk Downs officials said they were blindsided by the report. Caesars
said it was equally surprised. On its way out, the company, which
operates more than 50 other casinos across the world, said the
Massachusetts standards for suitability were “arbitrary, unreasonable
and inconsistent with those that exist in every other gaming
jurisdiction.”
The commission did deem Suffolk Downs suitable for a casino. As track
officials seek a new partner, they have sought to minimize any sense of
disruption. Chip Tuttle, the chief operating officer of Suffolk Downs,
said the ballot referendum was merely a land use question for voters. He
said the track would acquire a new partner quickly and hold it to the
same standards agreed to by Caesars.
He also said the loss of Caesars had not hurt his campaign. Generally,
he said, 25 percent to 30 percent of people oppose casinos for moral or
religious reasons. He said Suffolk could overcome that disadvantage with
the promise of 4,000 permanent jobs; last month, 1,000 people turned
out for a job fair at the track to learn about opportunities.
But opponents say there is no guarantee that a new partner will abide by
the agreements reached with Caesars on matters such as number of jobs,
employee benefits and payments to the city. Worse, they say, voters have
no idea what they are voting on.
“Suffolk Downs is a headless horseman,” said Matt Cameron, a local
lawyer who is volunteer counsel to No Eastie Casino, an opposition
group.
In addition to East Boston, the neighboring town of Revere will also
vote on Tuesday’s referendum because the track straddles the city line.
Voters in East Boston and Revere have to approve the plan for it to go
forward.
Voters in Revere appear poised to approve it. At an informational
meeting last week, Mayor Daniel Rizzo said Revere would get $15 million
annually and improved roads without any sacrifice.
But in East Boston, polls show the vote as too close to call, even
though No Eastie Casino has a war chest of only $30,000.
Among the skeptics in East Boston, where half the population is Latino,
many work in the small businesses that make up the lifeblood of the
neighborhood.
Amelia Sanchez, 60, who owns La Sultana bakery, said she opposed the
casino because she was afraid it would bring drugs, prostitution and
gang violence. With her daughter, Jennifer, 20, translating, Mrs.
Sanchez, who is from Colombia, said she was also worried that the casino
would drive up rents and force her out. She said many other immigrants
who had worked hard to establish themselves here feared the same.
Whether Caesars is part of the project does not matter to many. But
Celeste Myers, a leader of No Eastie Casino, said its disqualification
gave her group new ammunition, and the message to voters now includes
this warning: “You can’t trust Suffolk Downs to make a decision for a
partnership for themselves, much less for our neighborhood.”
No comments:
Post a Comment