IN THE
Supreme Judicial Court FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. SJC-11641
SUFFOLK, SS.
_____________
STEVEN P. ABDOW AND OTHERS
Plaintiffs/Appellants, v.
GEORGE DUCHARME AND OTHERS; DANIEL RIZZO AND OTHERS; DOMENIC J. SARNO AND OTHERS,
Interveners/Appellants, v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Defendants/Appellees.
_____________
ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY
______________
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COALITION OF CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS
_______________
Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222 Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128
(617) 567-0508 [email protected] Dated: April 16, 2014
i
RULE 1.21 STATEMENT
Pursuant to SJC Rule 1:21, the two corporate
entities that have joined in this brief state as
follows: The Amicus Curiae No Casino West Springfield , Inc.
(NCWSI) is a 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) non-profit public
interest corporation incorporated in Massachusetts in 2013
with it principal offices in West Springfield
Massachusetts. NCWS is a non-stock corporation with no
parents and no subsidiaries.
The Amicus Curiae Pride Stores, LLC. (PSI) is a non-
public Massachusetts limited liability corporation with it
principal offices in Springfield Massachusetts. The Amicus
Curiae Pride Convenience, Inc. (PCI) is a non-public
Massachusetts corporation with its principal office in
Springfield Massachusetts. Neither PSI or PCI have a parent
corporation or any subsidiaries.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Question Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Interest of the Amicus Curiae. . . . . . . . . . . 1
Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART.48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most
Communities and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referendum Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
C. When Voters Were Given Sufficient Time and Information Such as Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Proof of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
ADDENDUM – “A” Host Community Ballot Summaries “B” Excerpts RFA-2 Applications “C” Leominster Post-Referendum Plans “D” Constitutional and Statutory Material
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Massachusetts Cases Hurst v. State Ballot Comm’n, 427 Mass. 825, 828 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . 20 Carney v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006) . . . . . . . . . 21
Massachusetts Constitution
Amend Art.48, Pt.II, §3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Amend Art.48, Gen. Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Massachusetts Statutes
G.L.c. 23K, §1(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G.L.c. 23K, §2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G.L.c. 23K, §15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G.L.c.23K, §15(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
G.L.c. 23K, §17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G.L.c. 23K, §19(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,19
G.L.c. 23K, §15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
G.L.c. 23K, §15(13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
G.L.c. 53, §18B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
G.L.c. 54, §53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
G.L.c. 54 §54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Miscellaneous Institute for American Values, NEW YORK’S PROMISE – WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n Jaret & Hogan, “A Desperate Gamble”, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n
iv
T. Keane, “Challenging the boundaries and definition of, ‘host community’”, The Boston Globe, April 6, 2014 . . . . . . . 13 B. Mohl, “Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table”, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014),http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-bet- against- me.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo . . . . . . ..28n Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf . . . 25-26,30-31 N.Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS Princeton U. Press 2012). . . . . .16n Spectrum Gaming Group, “Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts”, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com . . . . . . . . . . . .16n S. Sutner, “Rush Street drops Millbury slots plan – developer cites opposition as factor”, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/ article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0 . . . . . . 9 “WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana”, http://www.wbur.org/2014/03/19/ wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana . . . . . . . . . 33 Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . .16n
-1-
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Attorney General erred in refusing to
certify an Initiative Petition entitled “An Act
Relative to Illegal Gaming” (the “Petition”) for
inclusion on the State election ballot in November,
2014, on the ground that the proposed law is not a
proper subject to be placed before the people for
consideration in a statewide election.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to Mass.R.App.P.16(j), the Amicus Curiae
adopt and incorporate the Statement of the Case in the
Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellants, and the facts set
forth below.
INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE
This brief is submitted on behalf of a broad
coalition of citizens and community leaders who have
first-hand experience with the implementation of c.194
of the Acts of 2011 (the “Gaming Law”).1 Each of these
1 The Gaming Law is an amalgam of proposals that emerged from committee on August 29, 2011 as H3697. It passed without further public hearing or substantial changes on September 14, 2011 in the House as H3711 (one day of debate to dispose of 150 proposed amendments), and in the Senate on October 19, 2011 as S2035 (five days of debate), reconciled by conference and enacted as H3807 and signed by the Governor on November 4, 2011. See http://malegislature.gov/Bills/ 187/House/H3697;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/ House/H3711;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/ H3807 One critical addition to H3697 from prior bills was its “appropriation” of money to the Governor (as
-2-
amici have witnessed the limitations, both legal and
practical, that the Gaming Law imposes upon the
freedom of voters, impacted by the potentially
irreversible future effects of introducing casinos
into the Commonwealth, to make informed choices about
this important issue. Some impacted citizens and
communities have been entirely disenfranchised. Others
have been deprived, either intentionally or by
circumstances, of the full extent of the arguments pro
and con. When robust debate was able to occur, more
often than not, a majority of citizens opted to reject
commercial casinos as not worth the risk.
This lopsided experience with the electoral
process under the Gaming Law, stacked in favor of the
commercial gambling industry, cannot be viewed as
providing the people a full and fair voice. Rather,
the process described by the amici in this brief
stands in stark contrast to the even-handed, level
playing field approach carefully crafted by the
drafters of Art.48 as an effective means for informed
voter consideration of important public issues.
Indeed, it is ironic that, after all the “log rolling”
well as a “start-up” transfer to MGC (taken from the Stabilization Fund), which insertion was used to block efforts to seek immediate repeal of the Gaming Law by Referendum.R.A.38-39(¶¶4-6),67-142(Exhs.1-4) See,e.g., https://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/House/H5000
-3-
type-tactics employed by the gambling interests to get
the Gaming Law enacted and to persuade vulnerable
communities to take them in, that gambling-controlled
interests, such as represented by the Interveners,
would now contend that the people cannot be trusted to
decide this question by a fair and transparent ballot
Initiative process.
Accordingly, the amici offer their first-hand
experiences to the Court for consideration in reaching
a just result in this case. The amici include:
No Slots Tewksbury. Karin Theodoros, Deborah
Shipp, Karyn & John Sliva and Bonnie & Martin Spiegel
are residents and registered voters of the Town of
Tewksbury. Geoff Feldman, Nancy Greene, Linda Copp and
Carol Carbonell are residents and registered voters of
the City of Lowell. Gina Chavez is a resident and
registered voter of the Town of Andover. These
citizens, among others, collaborated in organizing and
supporting the community group known as No Slots
Tewksbury which successfully persuaded a Tewksbury
Town Meeting to overwhelmingly reject (by a vote of
1,568[NO] to 995[YES]) a proposed zoning by-law
amendment that resulted in the withdrawal of the
proposal by Penn National Gaming to locate a slots
parlor in the Town. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/
-4-
2013/08/20/residents-reject-bid-build-slots-parlor-
tewksbury/kvt42uIeqoBxXMsE59iFQJ/story.html
Quaboag Valley Against Casinos (QVAC). Michael
Eagan is a resident and registered voter in the Town
of Palmer. He was a spokespersons for QVAC which was
formed to oppose the construction of a casino in the
Quaboag Valley area and waged a multi-year battle that
resulted in the defeat of the voter referendum on
Palmer’s Host Community Agreement (HCA) with Mohegan
Sun despite being outspent $17,101 to $369,642 by
casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question
Spending Reports (Palmer), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/
Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending
Casino-Free Milford. John Seaver, Steven Trettel,
Rosemary Trettel, Geri Eddins, Cathy Mitchell, Robert
Mitchell, Amie Sanborn and Kim Smith are residents and
registered voters in the Town of Milford. Jay Marsden
and Ken Rockett are residents and registered voters in
the Town of Holliston where Mr. Marsden serves as a
Selectman. Brian Herr is a resident and registered
voter in the Town of Hopkinton. Mr. Herr is a member
of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen and a leader of a
consortium of towns known as MetroWest Anti-Casino
Coalition (MACC). He is the Massachusetts Republican
Party nominee for United States Senator to be elected
in November 2014. These citizens were instrumental in
-5-
organizing and supporting the grassroots community
organization known as Casino Free Milford which
successfully opposed the proposal by Foxwoods Resorts
to locate a casino in the Town of Milford that was
eventually defeated in a referendum on the Town of
Milford/Foxwoods HCA by an overwhelming margin of 65%-
35%, despite being outspent $27,821 to $1,154,858 by
casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question
Spending Reports (Milford), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/
Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending
No Eastie Casino (NEC). Celeste Meyers, Brian
Gannon,Steve Holt, Jessica Curtis, Bryan Schnittjer
and Mike Russo are residents and registered voters in
the City of Boston. These citizens, among others,
organized and supported the efforts of the community
group that became known as No Eastie Casino (NEC),
which, together with other grassroots citizen groups,
waged a three-year campaign against the HCA for a
casino at Suffolk Downs and successfully defeated that
proposal by a margin of 56%-44%, despite being
outspent by $52,210 to $2,776,675 by the casino
proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending
Reports (Boston), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/
Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending. These efforts
were nullified by MGC’s subsequent wiver that
permitted Mohegan Sun to propose a substantially
-6-
comparable casino plan at Suffolk Downs by moving the
project a few hundred yards just across the Revere/
Boston city. R.A.51-54, 340 (¶¶29, 31-34, Exh. 21
Don’t Gamble on Revere. Linda Aufiero and Ralph
Vazza are residents and registered voters in the City
of Revere. They were mobilized to organize an
opposition to the Mohegan Sun/Revere HCA that was put
to a vote in Revere with the minimum 60-day notice and
approved by a majority of Revere voters. R.A.53, ¶34.
No Slots Leominster. Arline & Jim Stith, Robert
& Elaine Fitzpatrick, Donna & Tony Fiduccia, Arlene
Porter, Ephraim Josephs, Corey Shields, Brian Charron,
Therese Cross and Robert Young are residents and
registered voters of the Town of Leominster.
Alexandra Turner and John Bowman are residents and
registered voters in the Town of Lancaster, which
shares a border with Leominster. These citizens, among
others, organized the grassroots opposition to the HCA
between Leominster and Cordish Companies for a slots
parlor on the Leominster/Lancaster line which was
approved by a margin of 61%-39% in a voter referendum
in which No Slots Leominster was outspent by $1,725 to
$498,182 by the slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino
Ballot Question Spending Reports (Leominster), http://
ocpf.cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending
-7-
NoPlainvilleRacino. Mary Ann Greanier is a
resident and registered voter of the Town of
Plainville. Erin and Collin Ernst are residents and
registered voters in the Town of Foxboro, which abuts
Plainville. These citizens organized and supported the
grassroots community organization to oppose the HCA
for a slots parlor at Plainridge Race Track which was
approved in a voter referendum by a 75%-25% margin. No
Slots Plainville was outspent $661 to $55,924 by the
slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question
Spending Reports Plainville),http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/
Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending
NoCasinoSpringfield. Michelle Steger, Ted Steger,
Elizabeth Port and Marjorie Morgan are residents and
registered voters of the Town of Longmeadow which lies
about two to four miles from the proposed Springfield
casino site. These citizens sought to mobilize
surrounding community opposition after the MGM/
Springfield HCA was approved by a 57%-42% margin
(opponents in Springfield were outspent $14,236 to
$2,255,111 by casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot
Question Spending Reports (Springfield), http://ocpf.
cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending).
-8-
Their efforts resulted in a Longmeadow Special Town
Meeting vote opposing a casino in Springfield and West
Springfield, a unanimous vote of the Longmeadow School
Board opposing a Springfield casino, and a vote at the
East Longmeadow Town Meeting opposing all casinos in
Western Massachusetts.2
No Casino West Springfield, Inc. Alan Cabot and
Nathan Bech are residents and registered voters of the
City of West Springfield who are incorporators and
directors of No Casino West Springfield, Inc. (NCSWI).
NCSWI was organized to “educate and increase public
awareness of the adverse health and social costs of
gambling and the associated detriments to the greater
West Springfield community” and opposed the proposed
HCA with Hard Rock Int’l for a casino in that city.
The HCA was defeated by margin of 55%-45%, with NCWSI
being outspent by $14,550 to $1,071,105 for the casino
2 See https://www.myworldnews.com/Channel/442-wwlp/Story/ 255453-longmeadow-votes-against-a-potential-casino; https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=5w9tWKnKm8&index =2&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7 Chd1blql1n8G_YWDc1Rok [vote at 2:40:00]); https:// docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid =sites&srcid =bG9uZ21lYWRvdy5rMTIubWEudXN8d3d3fGd4OjM4ZmVlZW QzMzZjODYxNjg (Minutes); https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v= TG96kc22K-&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7rs3SBIX umygPZtMFMf2_K ([vote around 51:00]); http:// www.wggb.com/2013/10/22/ surrounding-communities-sound-concerns-over-mgm-springfield/
-9-
proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending
Reports (West Springfield), http://ocpf. cloudapp.net/
Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending
No Slots Millbury. Lesa McWalters, Melinda Taylor
and Brian Ashmankas are residents and registered
voters in the Town of Millbury. Mr. Ashmankas serves
as a member of the Millbury Board of Selectmen and was
the only member to oppose the HCA between the Town and
Rush Street Gaming for a slots parlor to be located in
Millbury. These citizens organized and supported the
community organization know as No Slots Millbury and,
as a result of the educational efforts of that
organization, Rush Street decided to withdraw its
proposal just days before the scheduled referendum on
the HCA. S. Sutner, “Rush Street drops Millbury slots
plan – developer cites opposition as factor”, WORCESTER
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/
article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0
Robert Bolduc is a resident and registered voter
of Longmeadow, Massachusetts. He has been associated
for years with the Springfield area chain of 28 gas
station/convenience stores operated by Pride Stores
LLC,(PSI) one of which is located on property (leased
-10-
to PSI by Pride Convenience, Inc.) that abuts the
proposed MGM Springfield casino site. PSI’s stores
also are Massachusetts Lottery agents.
William Dwight is a resident and registered voter
in the City of Northampton and serves as the City
Council Chair. Northampton petitioned for “surrounding
community” (SC) status under c.23K, §17, being about
nineteen miles proximity to the proposed Springfield
casino, a community that was denied SC status by the
Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC).
Edward S. Harrison a resident and registered
voter in the Town of Monson. Monson’s Board of
Selectmen and other community leaders established a
Western MA Casino Task Force in September 2007: “To
assure that the economic, social and quality of life
interests of communities within the Western
Massachusetts Region are protected and all impacts
resulting from the potential development of expanded
gambling/gaming within the Region are recognized.”
-11-
ARGUMENT
A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT
COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL
THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT.
A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most Communities
and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation._________________
As enacted, the Gaming Law appeared to promise
that all citizens who would be impacted by the
introduction of casino gambling in the Commonwealth
would have a voice in the process of licensing the
casinos, if any, by the MGC. As the implementation of
the Gaming Law has unfolded, however, the statute
actually has enabled a small percentage of
municipalities and other financially interested
parties to dictate the terms under which the proposed
casinos will be permitted. The overwhelming majority
of citizens and municipal leaders within the vast
majority of affected communities have been largely
frozen out of the process.
The purposes of the Gaming Law include: “ensuring
public confidence in the integrity of the gaming
licensing process” and protecting all citizens and
-12-
municipalities “in proximity to a [casino] which...
experience or are likely to experience impacts from
the development or operation of a gaming establishment
....” G.L.c. 23K, §1(1), §2 (definition – surrounding
community). See also G.L.c.23K, §15(9)(surrounding
community agreements must include “documentation of
public outreach” and “stipulations of known impacts
from the development and operation of a gaming
establishment”); G.L.c. 23K, §17(designation of
surrounding communities); G.L.c. 23K, §19(a)(gaming
licensee must provide “convincing evidence” that a
gaming establishment provides “value to the region in
which it the gaming establishment is proposed to be
located and to the commonwealth”) Reality turned out
to be quite different from expectations.
First, the Gaming Law had provided that only
voters in a “host community” 3 would be allowed to vote
on whether to approve the terms of the HCA entered
3 A “host community” is a municipality in which a gaming applicant “has proposed locating a gaming establishment”. G.L.c.23K, §2. A “gaming establishment” is “the premises approved under a gaming license which include a gaming area and any other non-gaming structures related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants or other ameneties.” c.23K, §2.
-13-
into by their municipal officials with a gaming
applicant. G.L.c.23K, §15(13)(voter referendum on
HCAs) Gaming applicants were able to use the
imprecisely worded definitions of a host community to
reduce the number of communities in which a voter
referendum approving the HCA arguably would be
required. The current issues in this regard over the
Wynn/Everett and Mohegan Sun/Revere sites are now well
known. See, e.g., T. Keane, “Challenging the
boundaries and definition of, ‘host community’”, The
Boston Globe, April 6, 2014; MGC Public Meeting #116,
April 3, 2014, pp. 94-132, http://massgaming.com/wp-
content/uploads/ Transcript-4.3.14.pdf.
Similarly, in Leominster, the project site abuts
the Lancaster/Leominster line, but no one in Lancaster
could vote on the proposal, even abutters to the
project who could see the site from their own
properties across the municipal line. See e.g., MGC
Public Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 194-203, 207-211,
240-244, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/
Transcript-12-3-13-HC.pdf (Lancaster residents)
Thus, the one electoral choice provided under the
Gaming Law has kept the number of voters entitled to
-14-
vote on whether to permit commercial gambling in the
Commonwealth to a very select few. In fact, a total
number of 53,923 voters turned out in the six
municipalities that voted to approve an HCA, and a
total of 79,560 voters turned out in all ten referenda
held. In the aggregate, this turnout represents 1.2%
and 1.8%, respectively, of the 4,342,000 registered
voters in the Commonwealth (which compares to the 55%
turnout of voters in the most recent [2010] Statewide
Election for Governor) and a net margin of 5,086
votes, of 0.01% of total registered voters in the
Commonwealth.4
4State voter registrations: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ ele12/06NOV2012_ST_Party_Enrollment_Stats_3.pdf; http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollment_count_regdt_10132010.pdf;http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollment_count_regdt_10132010.pdf Referenda:http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20130813/News/308139891 (Raynham); https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/Qpbb-9_9Tc/ Section%205 %20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-04%20Certified%20Results.pdf (Springfield); https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ vrqj2y9n64tipkn/PUBPewBWYU/Section%205%20Mitigation/Wynn%205-05-03%20Official%20Election %20Results.pdf (Everett); http://www.sentineland enterprise.com/ news/ci_24171176/slots-win-big-leominster-bid-now-goes-before (Leominster); https://www.dropbox.com /sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/Section%205%20Mitigation/SGR%205-05-01%20Election%20Result%20Cert..pdf (Plainville); www.revere.org/docs/election/ CityElection20131105.pdf (Revere); http:// www.boston.com/metrodesk/blogs/in-the-cards/2013/
-15-
The voting in these referenda breaks down as follows
Municipality Turnout For HCA Opposed to HCA Raynham 21.5% 1822 290 Springfield 24.7% 13973 10260 Everett 32.1% 5320 833 Leominster 33.0% 5235 3306 Plainville 37.0% 1582 502 Revere (11/2013) 42.6% 6566 4232 East Boston 47.0% 3353 4381 W.Springfield 45.7% 3413 4165 Palmer 62.1% 2564 2657 Milford 56.6% 3480 6361 TOTAL 42073 36987 Source: See footnote 3, page 14-15. It is noteworthy that, of the ten community referenda
held, the six municipalities that approved HCA
referenda had the lowest turnouts, and the four that
rejected HCAs had the highest turnout.
Similarly, the statutory standing granted to
“surrounding communities” has been shrunk to its
smallest possible atomic size. The MGC has, in effect,
narrowly defined the statutory “known impacts”
[G.L.c.23K, §15(9)] that trigger surrounding community
11/05/casino/kAfAFsb6QJJE1tmF2Y2umK/ blog.html(East Boston); boston.com/metrodesk/2013/09/10/springfield-rejects-casino-plainridge-wins-approval/ sF6B1Sme3kqyR9nUbIZL9L/story.html (W.Springfield); http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/ 2013/11/2013_palmer_mohegan_sun_massac.html (Palmer); http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/19/turnout-brisk-voters-have-their-say-milford-casino-proposal/ jtr02uGtmtqxQhFEnMAEeJ/story.html (Milford)
-16-
(SC) status to turn, largely, on issues of traffic
congestion. This, despite considerable research that
demonstrates that the “known impacts” of commercial
casinos extends along a range of social and economic
issues that implicate numerous consequences for
private enterprise and municipal services many miles
away from the casino site.5
For example, after hearing presentations about
the impact of a Springfield casino on their
communities, the MGC used a narrow definition of
“surrounding community” to deny SC status to
Northampton, within 18 miles and a 20 minute drive to
the proposed MGM Springfield casino, and Hampden,
abutting a corner of Springfield. See, MGC Public
Meeting #104, January 28, 2014, pp. 10-78, http://
massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-1-28-14-
Open.pdf; MGC Public Meeting #107, February 18, 2014,
5 See, e.g., Jaret & Hogan, “A Desperate Gamble”, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014, Institute for American Values, NEW YORK’S PROMISE – WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013); Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013); Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS (Princeton U. Press 2012); Spectrum Gaming Group, “Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts”, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com
-17-
pp. 3-72, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/
Transcript-2.18.14.pdf
Similarly, Sterling, although situated directly
south on a major state route to Leominster) was denied
SC status. MGC Public Meeting (Leominster), January
28, 2014, Transcript, pp. 41-43, http://massgaming.
com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-1-28-14-Leominster.
pdf; MGC Public Meeting #91, November 21, 2013,
Transcript, pp.70-85, http://massgaming.com/wp-
content/uploads/Transcript-11-21-13.pdf
Moreover, communities that were able to secure SC
status have been forced to negotiate a Surrounding
Community Agreement (SCA) for their “known impacts”
with very little information, as compared with the
much greater bargaining power of the gaming
applicants. For, example, the Town of Princeton,
abutter to Leominster, accepted the de minimus offer
of a $5,000 minimum annual mitigation fee. Bolton
($35,000 minimum), Holyoke ($85,000)and Lancaster
($200,000) and Foxboro ($250,000) faired only a little
better. See Surrounding Community Agreements for
Bolton & Lancaster(Leominister), Holyoke(Springfield)
-18-
& Foxboro (Plainville) at http://massgaming.com/wp-
content/uploads/Applicant-status.pdf
Some communities could procure mere agreements
that impacts would be determined after the casino
opened for business by a study commissioned by the
casino operator. See, e.g., Surrounding Community
Agreements for Attleboro, Mansfield, North Attleboro &
Wrentham (Plainville), http://massgaming.com/wp-
content/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf These agreements
all passed muster with MGC. Id.
Of particular note is the MGM Springfield HCA,
which contains provisions that cap MGM’s liability for
surrounding community mitigation payments and if the
actual costs of mitigation exceed that cap, the City
of Springfield will share in the overage – thus,
creating a perverse incentive for Springfield to keep
mitigation payments to nearby communities low. MGM/
Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01 (HCA Exh. D), https://
www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/VT3bIdQXW9/
Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-04-01%20HCA.pdf
Given this conflict, it comes as no surprise that
the Sarno Interveners’ Brief (of Springfield “voters”)
would argue that as one of the four municipalities
-19-
chosen for a casino, Springfield had the rights of
“home rule” and “the other 347 municipalities across
the state should not be allowed to invalidate” their
decision to accept a casino within their borders by
enacting a law through the Initiative.(Sarno
Interveners’ Brief,pp.13). This argument, apart from
impermissibly claiming that legislative actions trump
constitutional ones, presents one example of how self-
centered behavior has turned a blind eye to the
interests of other impacted communities and the
interests of their citizens that are supposedly meant
to be equally valued elements under the Gaming Law.
See G.L.c.23K, §15(9) & §19(a)
In sum, the limited opportunity for electoral
choice and public participation presented under the
Gaming Law, in fact, combined with next point, namely,
that the information provided to voters has often been
less than complete, punctuates how foreign the Gaming
Law experience has been from the level playing field
provided to voters through the Initiative process.
-20-
B. Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referenda Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome._______________________
As envisioned by the Constitutional Convention
and implemented by the Attorney General and the
Secretary of State, the Initiative process under
Art.48 provides a carefully balanced process through
which the people may exercise their right to enact
laws. See, e.g., Hurst v. State Ballot Comm’n, 427
Mass. 825, 828 (1998) This process provides for a
threshold indicia of support from voters throughout
the Commonwealth (not just a few communities or one or
two counties). Amend Art.48, Pt.II, §3; Amend.Art.48,
Gen. Provisions. The Attorney General is obligated to
prepare an impartial “fair and neutral” summary to be
placed on the ballot. Id; G.L.c.54, §53. The Secretary
is obliged to prepare a Voter Guide that is sent to
all registered voters in the Commonwealth well in
advance of the election which contains the Attorney
General’s summary together with a more detailed
position statement from the question’s proponents and
the opponents, chosen by the Secretary. G.L.c.54, §§
53 & 54. By virtue of these provisions, the Art. 48
Initiative process permits voters to carefully study
-21-
an Initiative proposal, take time to learn more about
it, and, on Election Day, be prepared to make an
informed choice that can truly be described as the
expression of a “unified public policy” of the
majority of the people of the Commonwealth. cf. Carney
v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006)
(Carney I)
The experience under the Gaming Act has been a
stark contrast to the Initiative process.
First, the “ballot summary” provided to voters in
an HCA referendum is a one-sided presentation, that
must be “concise” (but not necessarily “neutral” or
“fair”), prepared, without oversight, by proponents
and host community counsel. G.L.c.23K, §15(13); cf.
G.L.c.53, §18B (provides for a “fair and concise”
summary of other municipal ballot questions, together
with information that sets forth arguments both for
and against the proposal). Thus, without a statutory
or constitutional requirement for a “fair” or
“neutral” summary, casino ballot summaries have
-22-
cherry-picked the details of the HCA to emphasize the
benefits without explaining the risks.6
Second, voters were frequently required to cast
their ballots without having critical information
about the gaming applicant or the proposed facility.
In a particularly egregious example, the Plainville
HCA was signed on July 8, 2013, without disclosure
that the proposed applicant, Ourway Realty LLC, knew
that the MGC was about to report unfavorably on its
suitability. Neither Ourway nor the MGC informed
6 MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/i1G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary% 2BBallot.pdf; Wynn Ballot https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64tipkn/Xc0-zCwDkT/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Wynn%205-05-02%20HCA%20 Summary.pdf; Plainville Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/ Section%205%20Mitigation/SGR%205-05-01%20Election %20Result%20Cert..pdf; Leominster Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/ 6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-05-02%20Summ%20of%20Host%20Comm%20Ag.pdf; Leominster HCA Summary,https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/W-Rqw3ZIAY/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-05-01%20Election%20Order.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs HCA Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/ GomAp-xRmO/Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-05-05%20Summary%20SSR-RevereHCA.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs Ballot, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wkascadjn9ddq6x/ eWObZ2yDCA/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-05-06%20Revere %20Nov% 20Ballot.pdf
Copies of these ballot summaries are attached in Addendum “A”.
-23-
Plainville about the looming financial problems at
Plainridge, about the “culture of fear and concealment
pervasive in the operations of Plainridge”, or about
the unauthorized withdrawals from the money room by
its president, which surfaced two weeks later at the
adjudicatory hearing on Ourway’s suitability, and
resulted in its disqualification as an applicant. R.A.
45-47, ¶¶22, 25; R.A.346-357, Exh.23. It was not for
another month, and just six days before the referendum
on the HCA, that Penn National was disclosed to
Plainville voters as Ourway’s replacement and, this
too, before MGC made any determination of Penn’s
suitability. R.A.47, ¶25; R.A.368-375, Exh.26
Other examples of the lack of candor with voters
in the HCA referenda process:
• Leominster voters approved an HCA that described
a 16 acre parcel with a 125,000 square foot
gaming facility and no hotel and the proposal
that was actually filed with MGC was for a
facility on 26 acres which also shows a future
hotel and potential expansion of the gaming
facility to 175,000 square feet. This plan was
approved in a fast-track zoning approval that
-24-
residents questioned. The MGC professed no
authority to inquire or hear even brief argument
about the validity of the zoning decision in its
deliberations. See MGC Public Meeting #93,
Transcript, pp.25-27,73-82,103-106,214, http://
massgaming. com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-
12-3-13-HC.pdf (Public Statements); PPE RFA2
Attch 05-03-01, HCA, p.1, https://www.dropbox.
com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20
Mitigation/PPE%205-05-02%20Summ%20of%20Host%20
Comm%20Ag.pdf [Copy in Addendum “A”]
• As noted earlier, Springfield voters approved an
HCA which contained an obligation by the City to
share in a portion of the costs of mitigation
caused by MGM to surrounding communities, a
provision that is buried in the fine print of the
HCA without mentioning it in the ballot summary.
Similarly, the ballot summary referred to MGM’s
agreement to pay the City a sum “in lieu of
taxes”, omitting that this provision represented
a multi-million dollar tax break to MGM at
-25-
taxpayer expense.7 Springfield voters were also
kept in the dark about the serious traffic
congestion and air quality problems at the
intersection where the MGM Springfield casino
would be placed, whose impacts have been long
apparent and acknowledged to regulators, but
which, now, suddenly seem “not being addressed or
even questioned by anyone.”8 Not until January
2014, long after the referendum, was a report on
health issues presented to MGC that described how
the casino would exacerbate the congestion and
pollution issues, including more “driving under
the influence” and “increased risk for collisions
and increased likelihood of associated injury and
fatalities” as well as an increase in regional
air pollution. The report stated: “Vulnerable
populations that will experience disproportionate
effects include children, elderly, and those with
7 MGM/Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01, HCA Exhs. D & U, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ VT3bIdQXW9/Section%205%20Migation/MGM%205-04-01%20HCA.pdf 8 See MGC Public Meeting, April 1, 2014, Transcript, pp. 200-205, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-4.1.14.pdf; MGC Public Meeting, March 3, 2014, Transcript, pp. 161-165, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/Transcript-3-3-14.pdf.
-26-
pre-existing conditions. . . Hispanics and
African-Americans will be disproportionately
impacted as they experience high rates of asthma
and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations when
compared to non-Hispanic Whites. In particular, a
large number of Hispanics live within 200 meters
of the likely local casino access routes and
would be exposed to the increases in near roadway
air pollution.”9
Perhaps the most troubling misconception that voters
have suffered was the characterization of the proposed
casinos as “destination resorts” that would attract
tourists to Massachusetts and create thousands of
“good jobs”. For example, the Springfield Ballot
Summary stated:
If approved by the voters of Springfield, the Host Community Agreement . . . requires MGM to develop a destination casino resort in the downtown area of Springfield. (emphasis added).10
9 Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf
10 See, e.g., MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/MGM %205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary%20Ballot.pdf [Copy in Addendum “A”]
-27-
As the casino applications now confirm, however, none
of the proposed facilities remotely resemble
“destination resorts”. In fact, all the proposals are
scaled-down “convenience gambling” facilities that
derive most of their revenues by inducing local
residents to gamble more frequently than they have
done before and spend more of their money at these
facilities that would otherwise have been spent
elsewhere in the local economy. See R.A. 262, 290
(Exh.17), [UMass/Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis,
“New England Casino Update, 2013”, p.13]
• MGM Springfield projects 8.1 million visits – 2.6
million (32%) from Hampden Co. residents [18+pop.
399,528]11, 781,000 million (10%) from Berkshire,
Franklin and Hampshire Co. residents [18+pop.
200,451] and 4.1 million from other “Day-Trippers”
(51%). Overnight guests at MGM Springfield’s
“resort” hotel will make up only 3% (116,000) of
the total visits. R.A. 192-193 (Exh.13)12
11 U.S. Census Bureau,quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/ 12 Blue Tarp RFA-2 Attachment 3-01-01 (HR&A Advisors, pp.28-29),https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ sA3NIwBJDT/Section%203%20Economic%20Development/MGM %203-01-01%20HRA%20Impacts%20Study.pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”]
-28-
• Wynn MA predicts 44% of its revenue from 3 million
“Local Market” visits by residents living less than
30-minutes away and another 15% from about 1
million other “Local Market” residents living 30 to
60 minutes away, whom Wynn predicts will gamble at
the casino, on average, 10 to 11 times per year.
Only 9% of revenue is expected to come from 1,427
“high yield international gamers” and another 5%
from other “tourism”. R.A. 197-199.13
• Mohegan Sun projects 8.1 million visits to a
Revere casino. Of the total visits, 2.0 million
(25%) are predicted to be residents of Revere and
the three other towns in Suffolk Co. (Boston,
13 Wynn RFA-2 Attach 3-01-03(TMG Consulting Report, pp.57-58,71), https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64 tipkn/KFabU0tSqR/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Wynn%203-01-03 %20TMG%20Report.pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”] Steve Wynn’s dependence on local gambling explains why he (the only casino applicant that did not join in opposing the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit), acknowledged in honest candor that he actually considers putting the repeal of the Gaming Law on the ballot a positive, since he would not want to build a casino in a state whose citizens were against it. B. Mohl, “Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table”, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014), http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/ Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-bet-against-me.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo
-29-
Chelsea & Winthrop). Another 4.2 million visits
(51%) will be residents of neighboring Norfolk,
Essex and Middlesex Cos combined. Only 3% of
total visits are predicted to come from anywhere
outside New England. R.A.186-187 (Exh.12)14
Similarly, the RFA2 applications filed show that the
“good jobs” promised by the proponents are a handful
of top spots in the executive suite as well as a few
hundred others, while many jobs will be entry level
positions that will not even pay enough to constitute
a “livable wage”.15
14 Mohegan Sun RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report.p.19) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic %20Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact. Pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”] 15 The top nine (9) executives at Mohegan Sun Revere will earn an average of $157,642. Average pay for all other Mohegan Sun Revere employees is set at $18,380 (plus tips, for some, that Mohegan Sun claims will average $42,000 for beverage workers, $21,000 for dealers and $2,400 for hospitality staff). Mohegan Sun Massachusetts, LLC, RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report. P.13) https://www.dropbox.com/sh /wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact.pdf The Mashpee Tribe plans to pay its Taunton Casino top executive $434,000 and other senior executives an average $198,540. By comparison, the starting pay for other casino workers will range from $9,043 plus tips for beverage workers to $23,513 a year for “cage” workers, with the starting pay for administrative jobs
-30-
In the Western Massachusetts Casino Impact
Assessment Report filed with MGC in January 2014, the
following conclusions were reached about jobs at the
proposed Springfield casino:
The Crittendon Women’s Economic Independence Index Report provides estimates of the. . . the amount needed for a single parent family with one child . . . . to be self-sufficient was $40,296 if the child was pre-school age, and $36,804 if the child was school age. The line level and administrative positions do not meet this threshold . . . . [A]t least 28% of positions would not provide an income that would allow self-sufficiency for a single parent family with one child in Hampden County, Massachusetts.
. . . Evidence suggests that turnover rates may be as high as 40% for entry-level unskilled casino positions.
Casino employees have been found to have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviors (smoking, alcohol, and problem gambling), which negatively impact health. It is unclear the extent to which MGM’s stated policy that employees are not allowed to gamble onsite will affect the likelihood of increased risk of problem gambling.
A large proportion of resort casino employees will work non-standard work hours, or shiftwork, which has been associated with an increased risk for
at $18,087. HR&A Advisors, “Economic Impacts of Project First Light” (May 30, 2012), pp. 16-17, filed at www.taunton-ma.gov/Pages/TauntonMA_Mayor/ destinationresortupdates [Copies of these data are attached in Addendum “B”] (The 2014 federal poverty level is $19,530 for a 3-person family and $23,850 for a 4-person family.2014 HHS Poverty Guidelines, 79 F.R. 3593, January 22, 2014)
-31-
chronic disease, cancer, and mental health conditions through 1) increased sleep disturbance and circadian rhythm disruption, and 2) negative impacts on family cohesion. Best available evidence suggests that 23-40% of casino gaming positions will work night shift-work, which has the most risk for negative impacts due to circadian rhythm disruption.”16
Unfortunately, Springfield voters did not have the
benefit of any of this analysis at the time they voted
on the HCA.
The unvarnished truth about casino math is not
hard to grasp. This came through with the clarity that
no expert could have provided when a Springfield
seventh grader stepped up to speak to the MGC at a
recent public meeting on the MGM casino plan:
“My name is Tynesha Andrews . . . I’m here today because I’m the future and I am deeply concerned with the type of world you are creating for my generation. I don’t fully understand all the long-term effects and pros and cons of gambling. You call it gaming but I do understand that gaming is designed to take people’s money and not give it back.
“. . . Now I’m hearing of . . . how my future
is geared towards . . . jobs that are designed around gambling. . . . Instead of using big and fancy words, if you look at casino gaming in a simpler picture and for what it truly is or look at things in a kid’s point of view, maybe you
16 Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc. “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp. 27-30, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf
-32-
will see things differently and will understand. . . . Like I said earlier, I might not understand everything but I do know gaming is designed to take people’s money and not give it back.”
MGC Public Meeting #116, April 3, 2014, pp.149-151,
http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-
4.3.14.pdf.
C. When Voters Had Sufficient Time and Information Such As Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling.____________________
The debate about allowing commercial casino
gambling in the Commonwealth has been a contest that
pits money against time. When voters in a community
have had enough time to be educated on the issues,
more often than not, they have rejected the overtures
of casino developers. Only when voters have been
forced to a rush to judgment and have not been
afforded the time to learn all the facts, have the
tantalizing offers of “jobs and revenue” and
proponents’ blizzard of advertizing money bought the
casino developers a victory. See e.g., MGC Public
Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 174-179, 184-189, http://
massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-12-3-13-
HC.pdf (speakers reviewing the short window provided
-33-
for voter review on Leominster proposal during summer
vacation for many and asking for “another vote”)
It is no coincidence that, in mid-summer (July)
2013, Springfield voters approved the HCA with MGM by
a 15% margin in favor, while, in September 2013, West
Springfield voters, with two more months to become
educated, rejected the HCA with Hard Rock by a 10%
margin against that proposal. See http://massgaming.
com/wp-content/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf
This pattern carries through all of the other
referenda, save for Leominster and Revere:
Everett 6/22/2013 HCA Approved Raynham 8/24/2013 HCA Approved Plainville 9/10/2013 HCA Approved W.Springfield 9/10/2013 HCA REJECTED Leominster 9/24/2013 HCA Approved East Boston 11/05/2014 HCA REJECTED Palmer 11/05/2013 HCA REJECTED Revere-1 11/05/2013 HCA Approved Milford 11/19/2013 HCA REJECTED
See http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/
Applicant-status.pdf. A similar trend also appears to
be emerging in the voter polling that has been
conducted. “WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts
Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana”, http://www.wbur.org/
2014/03/19/wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana
-34-
Indeed, casino proponents’ tactics to keep voters
in the dark is manifest even in the proceedings before
this Court, where belated intervention has pushed the
resolution of this matter to the latest possible date,
thus, truncating the period for waging an active
educational campaign. The amici believe that each day
that the uncertainty about the fate of the Initiative
Petition lingers truncates the amount of time
available to the task of voter education and, thus,
continues to tilt the playing field in the casino
developers’ favor.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, a statewide vote under
the provisions of the Initiative to give all the
people the right to decide whether or not to permit
commercial casinos to be constructed within the
Commonwealth should be allowed to proceed. Unless this
question appears on the November 2014 ballot, the
choice of whether to suffer the potentially adverse
and irreversible effects of introducing these
facilities will have been decided by a few self-
interested and well-financed parties at the expense of
the rights of the majority of the people who live and
-35-
work in the Commonwealth and have a stake, but no
vote, in the matter as it now stands.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/____________________Nicole Micheroni BBO#68022Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128
(617) 567-0508 [email protected]
-36-
PROOF OF SERVICE
I, Nicole Micheroni, hereby certify under the
penalty of perjury that I served the within brief by
causing two copies thereof to be mailed on April 16,
2014, via first-class mail to:
Thomas O. Bean, Esq. Verrill Dana LLP One Boston Place – Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02108 Peter Sacks, Esq. State Solicitor One Ashburton Place – 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Carl Valvo, Esq. Cosgrove, Eisenberg and Kiley, P.C. One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Paul Capizzi, Esq. City of Revere Law Department 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Edward M. Pikula, Esq. City of Springfield Law Department 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Frank E. Antonucci, Esq. Antonucci & Associates 83 State Street, Suite 204 Springfield, MA 01103 /s/____________________ Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222
-37-
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
I, Nichole Micheroni, hereby certify that this
brief complies with the rules of court that pertain to
the filing of briefs.
/s/_____________________ Nicole Micheroni, BBO#680222
ADDENDUM “A”
A1-A7 WYNN/EVERETT HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A8-A11 MGM/SPRINGFIELD HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A12-A16 PPE/LEOMINSTER HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A17-A19 PLAINVILLE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A20-A23 SUFFOLK DOWNS/REVERE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY
ADDENDUM “B”
B1 EXCERPTS MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-02-02 - TOURISM ECONOMICS MARKET PROJECTIONS B2-B5 EXCERPTS WYNN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-03 – TMG CONSULTING MARKET PROJECTIONS B6-B7 EXCERPTS MGM/BLUE TARP RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-01 – HR&A ADVISORS, INC MARKET PROJECTIONS B8 EXCERPT MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTCH 03-02-02 – TOURISM ECONOMICS PAYROLL PROJECTIONS B10 EXCERPT FIRST LIGHT/TAUNTON – HR&A ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY – PAYROLL PROJECTIONS
ADDENDUM “C”
C1-C4 EXCERPTS – CORDISH/LEOMINSTER POST-REFERENDUM PRESENTATION TO MGC – OCTOBER 7, 2013 C5-C7 EXCERPTS – PPE/LEOMINSTER RFA-2 APPLICATION- OCTOBER 4, 2013
ADDENDUM “D”
D1-D4 Constitution of Massachusetts, Amend Art. XVIII, The Initiative, Sections 1-3 D5 Constitution of Massachusetts, Amed. Art. LXXIV D6-D9 G.L.c. 23K, §1 D9-D12 G.L.c. 23K, §2 D12-D13 G.L.c. 23K, §3 D13-D17 G.L.c. 23K, §15 D17-D19 G.L.c. 23K, §17 D19-D22 G.L.c. 23K, §18 D22-DD23 G.L.c. 23K, §19 D23-D24 G.L.c. 23K, §20 D25-D27 G.L.c. 53, §18B D28-D29 G.L.c. 54, §53 D29 G.L.c. 54, §54