The SJC Decision

June 25, 2014
By

Tuesday’s decision by the Supreme Judiclal Court ordering that the question of whether Massachusetts can issue licenses for casino gambling must be placed before the voters for a referendum in November is one of seismic proportions, with the epicenter situated right here in the Everett-Chelsea-East Boston-Revere-Winthrop area and its reverberations extending throughout the state.

Whether one agrees with the SJC’s decision, the bottom line is that our highest court has the final say (in other words, even when the court is wrong, it still is right) and its decision must be followed. The only thing that is clear in the aftermath of the decision is that the question of casino gambling in Massachusetts now is in limbo. The years of planning and million of dollars that have been spent on casino-related matters all could come to nothing, dependent now on the outcome of the November election.

The hopes of our area municipalities, which had been looking toward casino gambling as a significant revenue-producer in the years ahead, are in jeopardy. In addition, the dreams of thousands of our residents who had been looking forward to jobs in the casino industry likewise have been placed on hold.

There is no doubt that the casino proponents on the various facets of the issue now will make their case to the voters in the coming months. But as far as things stand right now, about the only thing that is certain is that everything casino-related is uncertain.

  • drensber

    When the local referendum(s) took place, people who were opposed to a casino in their city were confronted with the uncomfortable reality that voting against it would effectively be voting _for_ a casino in Everett that would be almost as close, but would (since our McMayor was too bullheaded to even sign a surrounding community agreement with then) provide absolutely no benefit to Revere.

    Even in the face of that reality, more than 1/3 of Revere residents still voted against the Mohegan Sun proposal. Now that there is an opportunity to cast a “No” vote that _won’t_ carry that inconvenient side effect, I would have to assume that more Revere residents will do so. Wouldn’t it be funny if more than 50% of Revere voted to repeal the casino law? Would mayor McRizzo (or this newspaper, which serves as his mouthpiece) respect that?

Search the Journal


Recent Activity

Full Print Edition

Get Adobe Flash player