Just when you thought that Massachusetts’ casino plans have finally taken significant steps forward, a proposed repeal of the state’s casino law could turn everything upside down.
Turns out, that’s the step casino opponents are taking after arguing that state voters didn’t have a strong enough voice to weigh in on the state’s decision to allow casino within its borders. But those people didn’t give up their own fight, taking the matter to the Supreme Judicial Court after Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts denied an earlier petition filed last year on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Since then, opponents were given the right to collect as many signatures as they could muster while the appeal was still pending and they did just that, amassing 68,911 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.
For now, it’s a wait-and-see game until the court takes up the matter in May, which will be followed by a decision in the months after that.
That’s what the casino opponents have been clamoring for, and if their efforts pay off and the repeal appears on the November ballot, there’s a chance that the state’s plan to open casinos could blow up in its face.
Naturally, the casino operators that are still competing for these casino licenses are up-in-arms over the proposed repeal and are in the midst of preparing a motion to the state courts to keep the repeal off the ballot.
MGM Resorts International is one of the operators left that are vying for a casino license in the state and to no one’s surprise, it’s become one of the strongest voices against seeing this repeal on the ballot. And for good reason, too, considering that the company has already invested millions of dollars into its proposal and more importantly, it’s already received the green light from its host city Springfield to develop its proposed $800 million casino and entertainment complex in the downtown area of the city.
“Our plan was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of voters,” Michael Mathis, vice president of MGM’s global gaming development, said in a statement.
“It would be devastating to roll back all that has been accomplished and take away the promise of what is to come.”
That’s just one headache that MGM and other operators are bracing themselves for in what has become a surreal process in Massachusetts. There’s also that issue of paying licensing fees, something those who win these licenses would be required to do within 30 days of being chosen. Those fees aren’t exactly chump change either – $85 million for a resort casino and $25 million for a slot parlor – and they’re non-refundable, which means that if the state accepts these licensing fees and the law somehow gets repealed, you can expect lawsuits to be flying around from all corners of the Commonwealth.
And by the way, the licensing fees aren’t the only payments operators have to make if they win casino licenses. They also need to pay up to their host communities and those land option payments, headaches in their own right that could turn into migraines if this repeal issue blows over.
All that and there’s still the big question of how successful a repeal would be in the event it gets added into the November ballot. Some people like MGM understandably want to squash it even before it goes that far.
But others are more confident that even if a repeal does appear on the ballot, it’s going to be difficult to get all the votes to make it stand.
“We’ve seen these types of repeal challenges before and they’ve never been successful,” Eric Schippers, Penn National Gaming senior vice president said, as quoted by the Boston Globe.
Schippers also added that if Penn wins the slot license, it won’t have any issue forking over the $25 million fee it needs to pay the state even if the issue of the repeal still hangs over its head.
In true casino fashion, it’s a gamble that these operators have to make and there’s no reason why they shouldn’t dive in and push all their chips into the table. They’ve gotten this far anyway and no amount of opposition should make them think twice of throwing the towel this late in the fight.
