Residents of Charlestown, Massachusetts, have put a spanner in the works for a proposed casino in nearby Everett, by starting a petition to be recognized as a ‘host community’ so they can have an input in the project.
The $1.2bn project is the brainchild of Steve Wynn and when completed will contain a 15-story hotel, 24-hour casino and all the other modern trappings expecting in a casino and hotel complex bearing his name.
The site for the new casino is the ground left by the demolition of the former Monsanto chemical plant on the Mystic River in Everett. A location that Charleston residents are insisting makes them a host community, which by 2011 casino law means they have a right to negotiate with Wynn over the development of the casino, to make sure they are duly compensated for any disruption the casino could bring to the community.
The Everett residents are big fans of the casino after voting 5,320 to 833 in a binding referendum on the matter. Representatives from the Las Vegas developer will meet with the Charlestown community to discuss a way forward in the next few days.
The petition read: “As established by the 2011 casino law, a host community or “a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located,” can negotiate with the developer over the terms by which it would accept the project, such as compensation or service to mitigate the impacts of the business. Voters in host communities must also approve casino projects before any project can move forward.”
The gauntlet has been laid down by the folk of Charleston as they believe the majority of traffic that will be introduced onto the roads will pass through their community, as well as the Charleston community being closer to the former chemical plant than the residents of Everett.
SugarHouse Casino to Sue the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board
The SugarHouse Casino is preparing to sue the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (PGCB) in an attempt to stop them from issuing a second casino license in the city of Philadelphia.
The news comes after the PGCB announced a hearing date of Sep 24 where the six groups in the process of bidding for that second license will relay their bids to the board and members of the general public.
For once the city is sorely missing some brotherly love as RPRS Gaming (who hold a minority stake in SugarHouse), claims the PGCB doesn’t have the authority to ‘reissue’ a license, after the board stripped the Foxwoods casino of its license back in 2008.
“Nothing in the Gaming Act vests the Board with authority to ‘reissue’ a previously-issued license that the Board has revoked,” the suit states. It notes that the 2004 Gaming Act only gave the gaming board “the specific power and duty … to issue, approve, renew, revoke, suspend, condition or deny issuance or renewal of slot machine licenses.”
Semantics or not, the lawsuit does give the PGCB something extra to think about. A spokesperson for the board said: ‘The agency is reviewing the claim asserted by persons holding a small interest in the Sugarhouse Casino. The Board will be responding to the petition and seeking the dismissal of the action as it believes the action to be without support in the law.”