Milford Voters Say No to Foxwoods
Voters in Milford, Massachusetts, gave a round of no’s to a plan by Foxwoods to construct a new $1 billion land-based casino property there.
The vote Tuesday means that Foxwoods will not be eligible to be licensed in the state.
Fairly wide margin against casino development
According to The Courant, the vote ended up with 3,480 people in Milford voting yes to Foxwoods, with 6,361 voting against it.
Ahead of Tuesday’s vote, reports were that polling results did not point to a clear advantage for Foxwoods, with many voters having mixed opinions about the casino.
“We respect the choice Milford voters made today. Throughout this process we’ve gotten to know Milford and thousands of its residents. While we worked hard to offer a resort casino we believe would benefit the area, the town made a decision similar to many other communities across the state,” said the president of Foxwoods, Scott Butera.
Public referendums have considerably narrowed options for regulators
Under the terms of Massachusetts’ casino expansion law, which was passed back in 2011, before gaming regulators can make a final licensing decision, local voters must first approve all casino proposals in a public referendum.
Recent weeks have seen a series of defeats for casino plans at the polls, with the Foxwoods rejection being the latest. Earlier this month, a plan by another Connecticut tribal casino, Mohegan Sun, was shot down by voters in the town of Palmer, Massachusetts.
This leaves far fewer options for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, which is set to award three casino licenses in the early part of 2014.
Two full-scale Las Vegas-style resorts will be allowed – one in the greater Boston area and another for the western part of the state. Additionally, one license is to be granted for a slots-only gambling parlor.
Suffolk Downs plan could move forward
On the same day voters nixed the Mohegan Sun plan, November 5, residents in the neighborhood of East Boston said no to a proposal by historic local racetrack Suffolk Downs. Suffolk Downs was partnered with Caesars Entertainment, with the two companies looking to build a new casino at the site of Suffolk Downs’ racetrack, an East Boston institution since 1935.
Though East Boston voters rejected the Suffolk Downs plan, voters in nearby Revere also went to the polls on the matter, as the site of the proposed development abuts that municipality. Voters in Revere said yes to the idea, and Suffolk Downs has said it will attempt to re-work its plans so that the new casino is entirely situated in Revere.
Caesars made hasty exit from Massachusetts
The plan put forward by Caesars and Suffolk Downs fell apart at the eleventh hour when Massachusetts gaming officials warned that Caesars was likely to be deemed unsuitable to operate in the state after routine background investigations uncovered alleged criminal ties to an investor in a Las Vegas Strip redevelopment project.
The investor, Arik Kislin, a German-born backer of the Gansevoort Hotel, a New York luxury property that was slated to expand into the site of the old Bill’s Gamblin’ Hall in Las Vegas, is reported to have ties to Russian organized crime figures, including a hitman.
Both Caesars and Kislin refuted the claims, and criticized Massachusetts for having overly harsh regulatory standards, particularly for a company as well-known as Caesars. The company is regulated in a number of U.S. states and also operates properties abroad.
For its part, Suffolk Downs vowed to press on, even in the absence of a casino partner. The company has said it plans to establish a casino partnership prior to the December 31 application deadline.
