The City of Boston has drawn a line in the sand in its battle against the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and not even a $1 million check from Wynn Resorts is going to change its mind.
According to a statement released by Wynn Resorts, the City of Boston “refused to accept” the check the casino operator issued as part of a condition Wynn had to keep to help mitigate traffic effects in Charleston, which is located within Boston’s city limits.
The city’s refusal to accept the mitigation comes a few days after it sued the gaming commission over the latter’s decision to award the license without giving Boston a “host community” designation. Getting the designation was important for the city because it would’ve allowed it to negotiate a more lucrative agreement with the casino operator than the one agreed upon by Wynn and the commission as a condition for the awarding of the license.
Boston was actually denied host community status by the commission last year, adding more strain to what has become a contentious relationship between the commission and Boston mayor Marty Walsh.
Representatives of the city of Boston have so far decline any comment on their apparent cold-shoulder treatment of Wynn Resorts, citing the pending litigation against the commission as the reason to remain tight-lipped on the issue.
It must be said, though, that accepting Wynn’s check would’ve put the city in a bad light, especially after it announced its lawsuit against the commission over the latter’s decision to award the license to Wynn Resorts amidst much pomp and circumstance. Besides, if the lawsuit ends up going up in smoke, that money is still tied into escrow, which means that the city could still claim it in the future.
Over in Springfield, city council president Michael Fenton is proposing an ethics bill that would put certain restrictions on city leaders from becoming employed by MGM Resorts for at least five years after leaving their public posts.
In a statement, Fenton said that the proposal is meant to discourage political abuse among public constituents who might want to incur favors with the casino operator in exchange for future employment. In addition to the five-year ban, Fenton is also proposing a two-year ban on city workers in “major policymaking positions,” or anyone who reports directly to a department head.
“I want to take any appearance of unfair play off the table by codifying stringent rules,” Fenton added. “The casino project comes with unprecedented risks, and we owe it to the public to be as transparent and forthcoming as possible.”
A public hearing and a possible first vote on Fenton’s proposed ordinance has been scheduled for Jan. 12. For the ordinance to pass, it’s going to need three votes from the gaming commission before it goes to the table of the mayor, who must then decide to either approve or reject the proposed measure.
