Casino

I'm starting a new thread on the Casino on the new site which is awesome.

I know the question of the Special Election was referred to Finance next week. Will the vote be next week? Assume the developers will be there? Will there be public comment?

Slightly off topic but relevant, why would a developer want to invest millions of dollars in this city with the out of control crime? One man shot dead in daylight and another series of shootings where cars are driving through Cary Street shooting at each other again in broad daylight. I understand the argument that more money means more cops. But a Casino is going to draw criminal element no matter how diligent Casino Security is. Just think a Casino is not the answer to this out of control crime we have.

More tax dollars means more money to hire more much needed police officers.

FYI - the Casino Agreement and all applicable documents are posted on the COB Website under Announcements.


The one thing about the Casino is the residents get to vote. That's assuming the CC vote for a Special Election. We didn't get to vote for a PP and see what a mess that is. A bit concerned about the timing. Just two months until a May vote?

I don't know...foxwoods, Mohegan Sun and twin rivers don't look crime ridden

Any thoughts that this is going to be a boon are a joke in my opinion. When the dust settles, this will be the last choice for people to go. The fairgrounds land represents maybe 1/2 of the parking lot of the proposed Everett casino.

I don't think its meant to equal Everett. Would like to see what NB and Somerset are proposing in order to compare.

noahfence wrote: Any thoughts that this is going to be a boon are a joke in my opinion. When the dust settles, this will be the last choice for people to go. The fairgrounds land represents maybe 1/2 of the parking lot of the proposed Everett casino.

No offense noahfence, but not sure what you're basing this on. Articles available state Steve Wynn purchased 33 acres in Everrett to build his casino, the fairgrounds is indicated as 60 acres in the casino articles. Since I still have the Bethlehem drawings, I was thinking I might drop it on the site for fun. Including parking, it would easily fit.

If someone wants to gamble, and can drive 15 minutes instead of 45 in either direction, plenty will choose the former. But, the idea is not to compete with Everrett or Springfield. That's why there were limited licenses in non overlapping areas.

Just a side note. Why is the feed so bad from CC meetings repeatedly?

dadof2 wrote: Just a side note. Why is the feed so bad from CC meetings repeatedly?

Probably intentional.

Probably.

CC Finance approved Special Election vote. Goes to CC next Monday where it will pass.

As much as you could hear and see due to the terrible feed it was a good presentation.

Tidbits:
Carney said if not approved for a casino he would be developing/selling Fairgrounds so in essence No More Fair either way in which the future.

Carney felt very very confident the Gaming Commission will award Brockton the license. Ruled out NB and Swansea. Don't know if hyperbole but was very confident.

Face in the Crowd: Jack Yunits

Like Tom Monahan, I would like to know more specifics before voting for this project. I would like to know just what kind of improvements to the city streets like Belmont and Forest ave are they talking about? How about over passes on Belmont and Forest Ave for the High School students? I'm thinking they would have to add lanes on Belmont and Forest ave? I think I read 300 parking spaces? Doesn't sound like a lot for a casino?

3000 parking spaces not 300.
Myself ,Cruise and Eanirie will be hosting the first informational public meeting on the Casino soon,I'll update on when and where

SeamusMcFly wrote:

noahfence wrote: Any thoughts that this is going to be a boon are a joke in my opinion. When the dust settles, this will be the last choice for people to go. The fairgrounds land represents maybe 1/2 of the parking lot of the proposed Everett casino.

No offense noahfence, but not sure what you're basing this on. Articles available state Steve Wynn purchased 33 acres in Everrett to build his casino, the fairgrounds is indicated as 60 acres in the casino articles. Since I still have the Bethlehem drawings, I was thinking I might drop it on the site for fun. Including parking, it would easily fit.

If someone wants to gamble, and can drive 15 minutes instead of 45 in either direction, plenty will choose the former. But, the idea is not to compete with Everrett or Springfield. That's why there were limited licenses in non overlapping areas.

Wynn has the ability to go up in Everett - while he may not have the acreage of the Fairgrounds to work with, something that quite frankly surprised me, he does have the ability to go much further up than in Brockton, unless we can build a 25-30 story building. (?) The casino in Everett will be a 1.7 billion dollar casino. Clearly with 3x the money to spend, it's going to be far, far more enticing for out of towners.

So while I'll concede I made some incorrect assumptions, my point is still valid. We won't compete with Everett.

Thanks. If at all possible, could this be telecast on Cable ? Assuming it's a much better broadcast feed than last night. TIA.

noahfence wrote:

SeamusMcFly wrote:

noahfence wrote: Any thoughts that this is going to be a boon are a joke in my opinion. When the dust settles, this will be the last choice for people to go. The fairgrounds land represents maybe 1/2 of the parking lot of the proposed Everett casino.

If someone wants to gamble, and can drive 15 minutes instead of 45 in either direction, plenty will choose the former. But, the idea is not to compete with Everrett or Springfield. That's why there were limited licenses in non overlapping areas.

Wynn has the ability to go up in Everett - while he may not have the acreage of the Fairgrounds to work with, something that quite frankly surprised me, he does have the ability to go much further up than in Brockton, unless we can build a 25-30 story building. (?) The casino in Everett will be a 1.7 billion dollar casino. Clearly with 3x the money to spend, it's going to be far, far more enticing for out of towners.

So while I'll concede I made some incorrect assumptions, my point is still valid. We won't compete with Everett.

Again, per the previous statement. It's not intended to compete with other Massachusetts Casinos. The whole intent of the legislation is to prevent them from overlapping and pillaging from each other. The idea is to keep the revenue in the State of MA that we lose to CT & RI.
The Everett casino is meant to be a Vegas style casino with all the glitz. I reference the Bethlehem casino as being analogous to the Brockton one, as it is a very apt comparison. Similar city, with similar demographics, and similar metro population to draw on. It was built with the same amount of hotel rooms (300 which only called for a 10 storey hotel.). It had a larger attached parking structure, which to fit 3,000 cars, would not be taller than the hotel.

I'm not sure why Everett has more ability to go high than Brockton, aside from archaic zoning we might have in place. There's no reason we can't build tall, and we should be. But, 10 floors for a hotel, even with a podium, is only let's say 120'. That's far from crazy height. You and many are overestimating traffic and parking space required.

Edit - Since I was mentioning Bethlehem. It's worth noting, this was the only Sand's casino that turned a profit in 2014. So this type of casino in this setting, can work. When done right.

Sportsfan wrote: Like Tom Monahan, I would like to know more specifics before voting for this project. I would like to know just what kind of improvements to the city streets like Belmont and Forest ave are they talking about? How about over passes on Belmont and Forest Ave for the High School students? I'm thinking they would have to add lanes on Belmont and Forest ave? I think I read 300 parking spaces? Doesn't sound like a lot for a casino?

The answer to traffic should never be adding lanes. 4 lanes is more than suitable for the area and the traffic to be added. Traffic control, lights, etc. do a much better job of limiting traffic impacts. 6 lanes, and we start looking like LA, and that is not a desirable setup for successful urban design. Boylston (Boston) is no bigger, and it manages with much more traffic than we would ever see here.

Proper lights, and crossing signals, will go a long way to fixing problems. This isn't rocket science. Just take a stroll around Boston and Kendall. You'll see cars and people living together in much greater amounts than Belmont street.

I'd love to see how adding lanes will work in practice. What of the existing businesses from 24 to the site? Will they be compensated?

Belmont is 4 lanes going west from West St. Forest ave is 2 lanes. The 4 lanes coming east on Belmont ends right before the fairgrounds. In case you haven't noticed? Trying to cut across traffic anywhere on that stretch of 4 lanes on Belmont is extremely difficult except at a set of lights. I never said it couldn't be done I would like to see more information and not just trust me it will be done right. I have heard that before, just look at the mess of an intersection at Montello and Howard St. and the mess at Reynolds Highway and Un Pleasant. I agree with someone else that said if the casino is going to be so insignificant compared to the other ones then I don't think it's going to be a player at all.

Like I said I would like to see more info before I vote!!!!