- Home /
- Forum /
- Brockton Public Forum /
- General Issues /
- Supermarkets
Casino
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SeamusMcFly
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 109
- Karma: 13
- Thank you received: 31
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- BrocktonDave
- Offline
- Administrator
But I'm sure STC will be created shortly, and they will start communicating too.
David R. Heidke
Steward of InBrockton.com
"A mile of road will take you a mile, but a mile of runway will take you anywhere..."
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Tom Monahan Ward 2 CC
- Offline
- Junior Member
Myself ,Cruise and Eanirie will be hosting the first informational public meeting on the Casino soon,I'll update on when and where
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SeamusMcFly
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 109
- Karma: 13
- Thank you received: 31
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.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.
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SeamusMcFly
- Offline
- Junior Member
- Posts: 109
- Karma: 13
- Thank you received: 31
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.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?
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Like I said I would like to see more info before I vote!!!!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.