Revere a Host City

June 13, 2012
By

Revere is a host city if and when a casino comes to Suffolk Downs.

The casino legislation provides for this designation for Revere exactly and specifically.

“A Host community is a municipality in which a gaming establishment is located or in which an applicant has proposed locating a gaming establishment,” reads the state law (MGL,c. 24K, s. 2).

In addition, the state law provides that Revere is a host city if a casino is located at Suffolk Downs: “A Gaming Establishment is the Premises approved under a gaming license which includes a gaming area and any other non gaming structure related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants and other amenities,” reads the state law (MGL, c. 24K, s. 2).

Further, a condition of the gaming license(for licensed racetracks as of July 1, 2011) shall be to maintain and complete the annual live racing season,” the law further reads (MGL, c. 24K, s.19(e)).

In addition, the state law directs in Section 15 of the chapter specifically this: “if a proposed gaming establishment is situated in 2 or more cities and towns, the applicant shall execute an agreement with each host community, or a joint agreement with both communities, and receive a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election held in each host community in favor of such a license.”

Because Suffolk Downs has been a licensed gaming facility located in East Boston and Revere for 77 years, the laws as defined in the gaming statutes makes Revere’s host community designation perfectly clear.

The same exact reasoning applies to East Boston, if and when a casino comes to Suffolk Downs.

Bottom line, Revere and East Boston are host communities to Suffolk Downs. If and when Suffolk Downs receives its casino license, Revere and East Boston are host cities. Even before that, Revere and East Boston, as host cities, must complete referendums that allow for such a casino to exist on the property.

Adding to this, House Speaker Robert DeLeo asserted that Revere is a host community if the Gaming Commission approves its application. “I have no doubt about the law defining host community … and Revere would most certainly be a host community.”

Local reports spiraling out of control this week that Revere is not a host city are specious at best, foolish and uninformed at worst.

The efforts of a few people to cast the false impression that Revere is not a host city does nothing for the administration of Mayor Dan Rizzo, who, right now, is negotiating a host city mitigation package with the owners of Suffolk Downs.

On April 10 of this year, Suffolk Downs began negotiating in earnest with the city of Revere as a host city under the conditions set forth under the gaming legislation for Region A – for a casino located at Suffolk Downs, pursuant to Section 15(8) of Chapter 23K of the General Laws.

The only possibility for Revere not being a host city is if Suffolk Downs withdraws from the application process for a casino license located at its facility in East Boston and Revere.

A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. Listening to people around here claiming to be lawyers about Revere’s host city status is a mistake in judgment as well as being factually and legally incorrect.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/P7S27UVVZ467GZNV6ZSQACRFXA Dave

    Here the Journal goes again, acting as a shill for for the mayor and the Revere good-ole-boy network.   The fact that it took more than a day for anyone at the Gaming Commission to to stand up and say anything should tell you how much respect the powers-that-be have for the Revere side of the equation.   The fact that the casino plans almost completely wall-off the Revere side of the “resort”, with no pedestrian access and only a “delivery” access for vehicles should also be cause for concern.  The fact that only $40M should cause any resident with a critical mind to demand more (again, that’s half the amount that was spent on the Wonderland garage… do you really think that’s enough to fix the enormous set of problems with 1A/16/60)?

    Proceed with caution.   I’m not really opposed to a casino on moral grounds, but Revere’s getting the short end of the stick here, and should vote “no” unless a lot of things change. 

Search the Journal

Recent Activity

Full Print Edition

Get Adobe Flash player