46
IN THE Supreme Judicial Court FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS No. SJC-11641 SUFFOLK, SS. _____________ STEVEN P. ABDOW AND OTHERS Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GEORGE DUCHARME AND OTHERS; DANIEL RIZZO AND OTHERS; DOMENIC J. SARNO AND OTHERS, Interveners/Appellants, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Defendants/Appellees. _____________ ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY ______________ AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COALITION OF CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS _______________ Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222 Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128 (617) 567-0508 [email protected] Dated: April 16, 2014

Community Amicus Brief

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Community Amicus Brief

IN THE

Supreme Judicial Court FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

No. SJC-11641

SUFFOLK, SS.

_____________

STEVEN P. ABDOW AND OTHERS

Plaintiffs/Appellants, v.

GEORGE DUCHARME AND OTHERS; DANIEL RIZZO AND OTHERS; DOMENIC J. SARNO AND OTHERS,

Interveners/Appellants, v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Defendants/Appellees.

_____________

ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY

______________

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COALITION OF CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS

_______________

Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222 Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128

(617) 567-0508 [email protected] Dated: April 16, 2014

Page 2: Community Amicus Brief

i

RULE 1.21 STATEMENT

Pursuant to SJC Rule 1:21, the two corporate

entities that have joined in this brief state as

follows: The Amicus Curiae No Casino West Springfield , Inc.

(NCWSI) is a 26 U.S.C. §501(c)(3) non-profit public

interest corporation incorporated in Massachusetts in 2013

with it principal offices in West Springfield

Massachusetts. NCWS is a non-stock corporation with no

parents and no subsidiaries.

The Amicus Curiae Pride Stores, LLC. (PSI) is a non-

public Massachusetts limited liability corporation with it

principal offices in Springfield Massachusetts. The Amicus

Curiae Pride Convenience, Inc. (PCI) is a non-public

Massachusetts corporation with its principal office in

Springfield Massachusetts. Neither PSI or PCI have a parent

corporation or any subsidiaries.

Page 3: Community Amicus Brief

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Question Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Interest of the Amicus Curiae. . . . . . . . . . . 1

Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART.48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most

Communities and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

B. Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referendum Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

C. When Voters Were Given Sufficient Time and Information Such as Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling . . . . . . . . . 32

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Proof of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

ADDENDUM – “A” Host Community Ballot Summaries “B” Excerpts RFA-2 Applications “C” Leominster Post-Referendum Plans “D” Constitutional and Statutory Material

Page 4: Community Amicus Brief

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Massachusetts Cases Hurst v. State Ballot Comm’n, 427 Mass. 825, 828 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . 20 Carney v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006) . . . . . . . . . 21

Massachusetts Constitution

Amend Art.48, Pt.II, §3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Amend Art.48, Gen. Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Massachusetts Statutes

G.L.c. 23K, §1(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

G.L.c. 23K, §2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

G.L.c. 23K, §15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

G.L.c.23K, §15(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

G.L.c. 23K, §17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

G.L.c. 23K, §19(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,19

G.L.c. 23K, §15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

G.L.c. 23K, §15(13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

G.L.c. 53, §18B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

G.L.c. 54, §53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

G.L.c. 54 §54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Miscellaneous Institute for American Values, NEW YORK’S PROMISE – WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n Jaret & Hogan, “A Desperate Gamble”, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n

Page 5: Community Amicus Brief

iv

T. Keane, “Challenging the boundaries and definition of, ‘host community’”, The Boston Globe, April 6, 2014 . . . . . . . 13 B. Mohl, “Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table”, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014),http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-bet- against- me.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo . . . . . . ..28n Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf . . . 25-26,30-31 N.Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS Princeton U. Press 2012). . . . . .16n Spectrum Gaming Group, “Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts”, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com . . . . . . . . . . . .16n S. Sutner, “Rush Street drops Millbury slots plan – developer cites opposition as factor”, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/ article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0 . . . . . . 9 “WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana”, http://www.wbur.org/2014/03/19/ wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana . . . . . . . . . 33 Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . .16n

Page 6: Community Amicus Brief

-1-

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Attorney General erred in refusing to

certify an Initiative Petition entitled “An Act

Relative to Illegal Gaming” (the “Petition”) for

inclusion on the State election ballot in November,

2014, on the ground that the proposed law is not a

proper subject to be placed before the people for

consideration in a statewide election.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Pursuant to Mass.R.App.P.16(j), the Amicus Curiae

adopt and incorporate the Statement of the Case in the

Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellants, and the facts set

forth below.

INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE

This brief is submitted on behalf of a broad

coalition of citizens and community leaders who have

first-hand experience with the implementation of c.194

of the Acts of 2011 (the “Gaming Law”).1 Each of these

1 The Gaming Law is an amalgam of proposals that emerged from committee on August 29, 2011 as H3697. It passed without further public hearing or substantial changes on September 14, 2011 in the House as H3711 (one day of debate to dispose of 150 proposed amendments), and in the Senate on October 19, 2011 as S2035 (five days of debate), reconciled by conference and enacted as H3807 and signed by the Governor on November 4, 2011. See http://malegislature.gov/Bills/ 187/House/H3697;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/ House/H3711;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/ H3807 One critical addition to H3697 from prior bills was its “appropriation” of money to the Governor (as

Page 7: Community Amicus Brief

-2-

amici have witnessed the limitations, both legal and

practical, that the Gaming Law imposes upon the

freedom of voters, impacted by the potentially

irreversible future effects of introducing casinos

into the Commonwealth, to make informed choices about

this important issue. Some impacted citizens and

communities have been entirely disenfranchised. Others

have been deprived, either intentionally or by

circumstances, of the full extent of the arguments pro

and con. When robust debate was able to occur, more

often than not, a majority of citizens opted to reject

commercial casinos as not worth the risk.

This lopsided experience with the electoral

process under the Gaming Law, stacked in favor of the

commercial gambling industry, cannot be viewed as

providing the people a full and fair voice. Rather,

the process described by the amici in this brief

stands in stark contrast to the even-handed, level

playing field approach carefully crafted by the

drafters of Art.48 as an effective means for informed

voter consideration of important public issues.

Indeed, it is ironic that, after all the “log rolling”

well as a “start-up” transfer to MGC (taken from the Stabilization Fund), which insertion was used to block efforts to seek immediate repeal of the Gaming Law by Referendum.R.A.38-39(¶¶4-6),67-142(Exhs.1-4) See,e.g., https://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/House/H5000

Page 8: Community Amicus Brief

-3-

type-tactics employed by the gambling interests to get

the Gaming Law enacted and to persuade vulnerable

communities to take them in, that gambling-controlled

interests, such as represented by the Interveners,

would now contend that the people cannot be trusted to

decide this question by a fair and transparent ballot

Initiative process.

Accordingly, the amici offer their first-hand

experiences to the Court for consideration in reaching

a just result in this case. The amici include:

No Slots Tewksbury. Karin Theodoros, Deborah

Shipp, Karyn & John Sliva and Bonnie & Martin Spiegel

are residents and registered voters of the Town of

Tewksbury. Geoff Feldman, Nancy Greene, Linda Copp and

Carol Carbonell are residents and registered voters of

the City of Lowell. Gina Chavez is a resident and

registered voter of the Town of Andover. These

citizens, among others, collaborated in organizing and

supporting the community group known as No Slots

Tewksbury which successfully persuaded a Tewksbury

Town Meeting to overwhelmingly reject (by a vote of

1,568[NO] to 995[YES]) a proposed zoning by-law

amendment that resulted in the withdrawal of the

proposal by Penn National Gaming to locate a slots

parlor in the Town. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/

Page 9: Community Amicus Brief

-4-

2013/08/20/residents-reject-bid-build-slots-parlor-

tewksbury/kvt42uIeqoBxXMsE59iFQJ/story.html

Quaboag Valley Against Casinos (QVAC). Michael

Eagan is a resident and registered voter in the Town

of Palmer. He was a spokespersons for QVAC which was

formed to oppose the construction of a casino in the

Quaboag Valley area and waged a multi-year battle that

resulted in the defeat of the voter referendum on

Palmer’s Host Community Agreement (HCA) with Mohegan

Sun despite being outspent $17,101 to $369,642 by

casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question

Spending Reports (Palmer), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/

Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

Casino-Free Milford. John Seaver, Steven Trettel,

Rosemary Trettel, Geri Eddins, Cathy Mitchell, Robert

Mitchell, Amie Sanborn and Kim Smith are residents and

registered voters in the Town of Milford. Jay Marsden

and Ken Rockett are residents and registered voters in

the Town of Holliston where Mr. Marsden serves as a

Selectman. Brian Herr is a resident and registered

voter in the Town of Hopkinton. Mr. Herr is a member

of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen and a leader of a

consortium of towns known as MetroWest Anti-Casino

Coalition (MACC). He is the Massachusetts Republican

Party nominee for United States Senator to be elected

in November 2014. These citizens were instrumental in

Page 10: Community Amicus Brief

-5-

organizing and supporting the grassroots community

organization known as Casino Free Milford which

successfully opposed the proposal by Foxwoods Resorts

to locate a casino in the Town of Milford that was

eventually defeated in a referendum on the Town of

Milford/Foxwoods HCA by an overwhelming margin of 65%-

35%, despite being outspent $27,821 to $1,154,858 by

casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question

Spending Reports (Milford), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/

Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

No Eastie Casino (NEC). Celeste Meyers, Brian

Gannon,Steve Holt, Jessica Curtis, Bryan Schnittjer

and Mike Russo are residents and registered voters in

the City of Boston. These citizens, among others,

organized and supported the efforts of the community

group that became known as No Eastie Casino (NEC),

which, together with other grassroots citizen groups,

waged a three-year campaign against the HCA for a

casino at Suffolk Downs and successfully defeated that

proposal by a margin of 56%-44%, despite being

outspent by $52,210 to $2,776,675 by the casino

proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending

Reports (Boston), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/

Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending. These efforts

were nullified by MGC’s subsequent wiver that

permitted Mohegan Sun to propose a substantially

Page 11: Community Amicus Brief

-6-

comparable casino plan at Suffolk Downs by moving the

project a few hundred yards just across the Revere/

Boston city. R.A.51-54, 340 (¶¶29, 31-34, Exh. 21

Don’t Gamble on Revere. Linda Aufiero and Ralph

Vazza are residents and registered voters in the City

of Revere. They were mobilized to organize an

opposition to the Mohegan Sun/Revere HCA that was put

to a vote in Revere with the minimum 60-day notice and

approved by a majority of Revere voters. R.A.53, ¶34.

No Slots Leominster. Arline & Jim Stith, Robert

& Elaine Fitzpatrick, Donna & Tony Fiduccia, Arlene

Porter, Ephraim Josephs, Corey Shields, Brian Charron,

Therese Cross and Robert Young are residents and

registered voters of the Town of Leominster.

Alexandra Turner and John Bowman are residents and

registered voters in the Town of Lancaster, which

shares a border with Leominster. These citizens, among

others, organized the grassroots opposition to the HCA

between Leominster and Cordish Companies for a slots

parlor on the Leominster/Lancaster line which was

approved by a margin of 61%-39% in a voter referendum

in which No Slots Leominster was outspent by $1,725 to

$498,182 by the slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino

Ballot Question Spending Reports (Leominster), http://

ocpf.cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

Page 12: Community Amicus Brief

-7-

NoPlainvilleRacino. Mary Ann Greanier is a

resident and registered voter of the Town of

Plainville. Erin and Collin Ernst are residents and

registered voters in the Town of Foxboro, which abuts

Plainville. These citizens organized and supported the

grassroots community organization to oppose the HCA

for a slots parlor at Plainridge Race Track which was

approved in a voter referendum by a 75%-25% margin. No

Slots Plainville was outspent $661 to $55,924 by the

slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question

Spending Reports Plainville),http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/

Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

NoCasinoSpringfield. Michelle Steger, Ted Steger,

Elizabeth Port and Marjorie Morgan are residents and

registered voters of the Town of Longmeadow which lies

about two to four miles from the proposed Springfield

casino site. These citizens sought to mobilize

surrounding community opposition after the MGM/

Springfield HCA was approved by a 57%-42% margin

(opponents in Springfield were outspent $14,236 to

$2,255,111 by casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot

Question Spending Reports (Springfield), http://ocpf.

cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending).

Page 13: Community Amicus Brief

-8-

Their efforts resulted in a Longmeadow Special Town

Meeting vote opposing a casino in Springfield and West

Springfield, a unanimous vote of the Longmeadow School

Board opposing a Springfield casino, and a vote at the

East Longmeadow Town Meeting opposing all casinos in

Western Massachusetts.2

No Casino West Springfield, Inc. Alan Cabot and

Nathan Bech are residents and registered voters of the

City of West Springfield who are incorporators and

directors of No Casino West Springfield, Inc. (NCSWI).

NCSWI was organized to “educate and increase public

awareness of the adverse health and social costs of

gambling and the associated detriments to the greater

West Springfield community” and opposed the proposed

HCA with Hard Rock Int’l for a casino in that city.

The HCA was defeated by margin of 55%-45%, with NCWSI

being outspent by $14,550 to $1,071,105 for the casino

2 See https://www.myworldnews.com/Channel/442-wwlp/Story/ 255453-longmeadow-votes-against-a-potential-casino; https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=5w9tWKnKm8&index =2&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7 Chd1blql1n8G_YWDc1Rok [vote at 2:40:00]); https:// docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid =sites&srcid =bG9uZ21lYWRvdy5rMTIubWEudXN8d3d3fGd4OjM4ZmVlZW QzMzZjODYxNjg (Minutes); https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v= TG96kc22K-&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7rs3SBIX umygPZtMFMf2_K ([vote around 51:00]); http:// www.wggb.com/2013/10/22/ surrounding-communities-sound-concerns-over-mgm-springfield/

Page 14: Community Amicus Brief

-9-

proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending

Reports (West Springfield), http://ocpf. cloudapp.net/

Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

No Slots Millbury. Lesa McWalters, Melinda Taylor

and Brian Ashmankas are residents and registered

voters in the Town of Millbury. Mr. Ashmankas serves

as a member of the Millbury Board of Selectmen and was

the only member to oppose the HCA between the Town and

Rush Street Gaming for a slots parlor to be located in

Millbury. These citizens organized and supported the

community organization know as No Slots Millbury and,

as a result of the educational efforts of that

organization, Rush Street decided to withdraw its

proposal just days before the scheduled referendum on

the HCA. S. Sutner, “Rush Street drops Millbury slots

plan – developer cites opposition as factor”, WORCESTER

TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/

article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0

Robert Bolduc is a resident and registered voter

of Longmeadow, Massachusetts. He has been associated

for years with the Springfield area chain of 28 gas

station/convenience stores operated by Pride Stores

LLC,(PSI) one of which is located on property (leased

Page 15: Community Amicus Brief

-10-

to PSI by Pride Convenience, Inc.) that abuts the

proposed MGM Springfield casino site. PSI’s stores

also are Massachusetts Lottery agents.

William Dwight is a resident and registered voter

in the City of Northampton and serves as the City

Council Chair. Northampton petitioned for “surrounding

community” (SC) status under c.23K, §17, being about

nineteen miles proximity to the proposed Springfield

casino, a community that was denied SC status by the

Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC).

Edward S. Harrison a resident and registered

voter in the Town of Monson. Monson’s Board of

Selectmen and other community leaders established a

Western MA Casino Task Force in September 2007: “To

assure that the economic, social and quality of life

interests of communities within the Western

Massachusetts Region are protected and all impacts

resulting from the potential development of expanded

gambling/gaming within the Region are recognized.”

Page 16: Community Amicus Brief

-11-

ARGUMENT

A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT

COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL

THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT.

A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most Communities

and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation._________________

As enacted, the Gaming Law appeared to promise

that all citizens who would be impacted by the

introduction of casino gambling in the Commonwealth

would have a voice in the process of licensing the

casinos, if any, by the MGC. As the implementation of

the Gaming Law has unfolded, however, the statute

actually has enabled a small percentage of

municipalities and other financially interested

parties to dictate the terms under which the proposed

casinos will be permitted. The overwhelming majority

of citizens and municipal leaders within the vast

majority of affected communities have been largely

frozen out of the process.

The purposes of the Gaming Law include: “ensuring

public confidence in the integrity of the gaming

licensing process” and protecting all citizens and

Page 17: Community Amicus Brief

-12-

municipalities “in proximity to a [casino] which...

experience or are likely to experience impacts from

the development or operation of a gaming establishment

....” G.L.c. 23K, §1(1), §2 (definition – surrounding

community). See also G.L.c.23K, §15(9)(surrounding

community agreements must include “documentation of

public outreach” and “stipulations of known impacts

from the development and operation of a gaming

establishment”); G.L.c. 23K, §17(designation of

surrounding communities); G.L.c. 23K, §19(a)(gaming

licensee must provide “convincing evidence” that a

gaming establishment provides “value to the region in

which it the gaming establishment is proposed to be

located and to the commonwealth”) Reality turned out

to be quite different from expectations.

First, the Gaming Law had provided that only

voters in a “host community” 3 would be allowed to vote

on whether to approve the terms of the HCA entered

3 A “host community” is a municipality in which a gaming applicant “has proposed locating a gaming establishment”. G.L.c.23K, §2. A “gaming establishment” is “the premises approved under a gaming license which include a gaming area and any other non-gaming structures related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants or other ameneties.” c.23K, §2.

Page 18: Community Amicus Brief

-13-

into by their municipal officials with a gaming

applicant. G.L.c.23K, §15(13)(voter referendum on

HCAs) Gaming applicants were able to use the

imprecisely worded definitions of a host community to

reduce the number of communities in which a voter

referendum approving the HCA arguably would be

required. The current issues in this regard over the

Wynn/Everett and Mohegan Sun/Revere sites are now well

known. See, e.g., T. Keane, “Challenging the

boundaries and definition of, ‘host community’”, The

Boston Globe, April 6, 2014; MGC Public Meeting #116,

April 3, 2014, pp. 94-132, http://massgaming.com/wp-

content/uploads/ Transcript-4.3.14.pdf.

Similarly, in Leominster, the project site abuts

the Lancaster/Leominster line, but no one in Lancaster

could vote on the proposal, even abutters to the

project who could see the site from their own

properties across the municipal line. See e.g., MGC

Public Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 194-203, 207-211,

240-244, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/

Transcript-12-3-13-HC.pdf (Lancaster residents)

Thus, the one electoral choice provided under the

Gaming Law has kept the number of voters entitled to

Page 19: Community Amicus Brief

-14-

vote on whether to permit commercial gambling in the

Commonwealth to a very select few. In fact, a total

number of 53,923 voters turned out in the six

municipalities that voted to approve an HCA, and a

total of 79,560 voters turned out in all ten referenda

held. In the aggregate, this turnout represents 1.2%

and 1.8%, respectively, of the 4,342,000 registered

voters in the Commonwealth (which compares to the 55%

turnout of voters in the most recent [2010] Statewide

Election for Governor) and a net margin of 5,086

votes, of 0.01% of total registered voters in the

Commonwealth.4

4State voter registrations: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ ele12/06NOV2012_ST_Party_Enrollment_Stats_3.pdf; http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollment_count_regdt_10132010.pdf;http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollment_count_regdt_10132010.pdf Referenda:http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20130813/News/308139891 (Raynham); https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/Qpbb-9_9Tc/ Section%205 %20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-04%20Certified%20Results.pdf (Springfield); https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ vrqj2y9n64tipkn/PUBPewBWYU/Section%205%20Mitigation/Wynn%205-05-03%20Official%20Election %20Results.pdf (Everett); http://www.sentineland enterprise.com/ news/ci_24171176/slots-win-big-leominster-bid-now-goes-before (Leominster); https://www.dropbox.com /sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/Section%205%20Mitigation/SGR%205-05-01%20Election%20Result%20Cert..pdf (Plainville); www.revere.org/docs/election/ CityElection20131105.pdf (Revere); http:// www.boston.com/metrodesk/blogs/in-the-cards/2013/

Page 20: Community Amicus Brief

-15-

The voting in these referenda breaks down as follows

Municipality Turnout For HCA Opposed to HCA Raynham 21.5% 1822 290 Springfield 24.7% 13973 10260 Everett 32.1% 5320 833 Leominster 33.0% 5235 3306 Plainville 37.0% 1582 502 Revere (11/2013) 42.6% 6566 4232 East Boston 47.0% 3353 4381 W.Springfield 45.7% 3413 4165 Palmer 62.1% 2564 2657 Milford 56.6% 3480 6361 TOTAL 42073 36987 Source: See footnote 3, page 14-15. It is noteworthy that, of the ten community referenda

held, the six municipalities that approved HCA

referenda had the lowest turnouts, and the four that

rejected HCAs had the highest turnout.

Similarly, the statutory standing granted to

“surrounding communities” has been shrunk to its

smallest possible atomic size. The MGC has, in effect,

narrowly defined the statutory “known impacts”

[G.L.c.23K, §15(9)] that trigger surrounding community

11/05/casino/kAfAFsb6QJJE1tmF2Y2umK/ blog.html(East Boston); boston.com/metrodesk/2013/09/10/springfield-rejects-casino-plainridge-wins-approval/ sF6B1Sme3kqyR9nUbIZL9L/story.html (W.Springfield); http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/ 2013/11/2013_palmer_mohegan_sun_massac.html (Palmer); http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/19/turnout-brisk-voters-have-their-say-milford-casino-proposal/ jtr02uGtmtqxQhFEnMAEeJ/story.html (Milford)

Page 21: Community Amicus Brief

-16-

(SC) status to turn, largely, on issues of traffic

congestion. This, despite considerable research that

demonstrates that the “known impacts” of commercial

casinos extends along a range of social and economic

issues that implicate numerous consequences for

private enterprise and municipal services many miles

away from the casino site.5

For example, after hearing presentations about

the impact of a Springfield casino on their

communities, the MGC used a narrow definition of

“surrounding community” to deny SC status to

Northampton, within 18 miles and a 20 minute drive to

the proposed MGM Springfield casino, and Hampden,

abutting a corner of Springfield. See, MGC Public

Meeting #104, January 28, 2014, pp. 10-78, http://

massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-1-28-14-

Open.pdf; MGC Public Meeting #107, February 18, 2014,

5 See, e.g., Jaret & Hogan, “A Desperate Gamble”, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014, Institute for American Values, NEW YORK’S PROMISE – WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013); Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013); Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS (Princeton U. Press 2012); Spectrum Gaming Group, “Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts”, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com

Page 22: Community Amicus Brief

-17-

pp. 3-72, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/

Transcript-2.18.14.pdf

Similarly, Sterling, although situated directly

south on a major state route to Leominster) was denied

SC status. MGC Public Meeting (Leominster), January

28, 2014, Transcript, pp. 41-43, http://massgaming.

com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-1-28-14-Leominster.

pdf; MGC Public Meeting #91, November 21, 2013,

Transcript, pp.70-85, http://massgaming.com/wp-

content/uploads/Transcript-11-21-13.pdf

Moreover, communities that were able to secure SC

status have been forced to negotiate a Surrounding

Community Agreement (SCA) for their “known impacts”

with very little information, as compared with the

much greater bargaining power of the gaming

applicants. For, example, the Town of Princeton,

abutter to Leominster, accepted the de minimus offer

of a $5,000 minimum annual mitigation fee. Bolton

($35,000 minimum), Holyoke ($85,000)and Lancaster

($200,000) and Foxboro ($250,000) faired only a little

better. See Surrounding Community Agreements for

Bolton & Lancaster(Leominister), Holyoke(Springfield)

Page 23: Community Amicus Brief

-18-

& Foxboro (Plainville) at http://massgaming.com/wp-

content/uploads/Applicant-status.pdf

Some communities could procure mere agreements

that impacts would be determined after the casino

opened for business by a study commissioned by the

casino operator. See, e.g., Surrounding Community

Agreements for Attleboro, Mansfield, North Attleboro &

Wrentham (Plainville), http://massgaming.com/wp-

content/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf These agreements

all passed muster with MGC. Id.

Of particular note is the MGM Springfield HCA,

which contains provisions that cap MGM’s liability for

surrounding community mitigation payments and if the

actual costs of mitigation exceed that cap, the City

of Springfield will share in the overage – thus,

creating a perverse incentive for Springfield to keep

mitigation payments to nearby communities low. MGM/

Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01 (HCA Exh. D), https://

www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/VT3bIdQXW9/

Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-04-01%20HCA.pdf

Given this conflict, it comes as no surprise that

the Sarno Interveners’ Brief (of Springfield “voters”)

would argue that as one of the four municipalities

Page 24: Community Amicus Brief

-19-

chosen for a casino, Springfield had the rights of

“home rule” and “the other 347 municipalities across

the state should not be allowed to invalidate” their

decision to accept a casino within their borders by

enacting a law through the Initiative.(Sarno

Interveners’ Brief,pp.13). This argument, apart from

impermissibly claiming that legislative actions trump

constitutional ones, presents one example of how self-

centered behavior has turned a blind eye to the

interests of other impacted communities and the

interests of their citizens that are supposedly meant

to be equally valued elements under the Gaming Law.

See G.L.c.23K, §15(9) & §19(a)

In sum, the limited opportunity for electoral

choice and public participation presented under the

Gaming Law, in fact, combined with next point, namely,

that the information provided to voters has often been

less than complete, punctuates how foreign the Gaming

Law experience has been from the level playing field

provided to voters through the Initiative process.

Page 25: Community Amicus Brief

-20-

B. Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referenda Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome._______________________

As envisioned by the Constitutional Convention

and implemented by the Attorney General and the

Secretary of State, the Initiative process under

Art.48 provides a carefully balanced process through

which the people may exercise their right to enact

laws. See, e.g., Hurst v. State Ballot Comm’n, 427

Mass. 825, 828 (1998) This process provides for a

threshold indicia of support from voters throughout

the Commonwealth (not just a few communities or one or

two counties). Amend Art.48, Pt.II, §3; Amend.Art.48,

Gen. Provisions. The Attorney General is obligated to

prepare an impartial “fair and neutral” summary to be

placed on the ballot. Id; G.L.c.54, §53. The Secretary

is obliged to prepare a Voter Guide that is sent to

all registered voters in the Commonwealth well in

advance of the election which contains the Attorney

General’s summary together with a more detailed

position statement from the question’s proponents and

the opponents, chosen by the Secretary. G.L.c.54, §§

53 & 54. By virtue of these provisions, the Art. 48

Initiative process permits voters to carefully study

Page 26: Community Amicus Brief

-21-

an Initiative proposal, take time to learn more about

it, and, on Election Day, be prepared to make an

informed choice that can truly be described as the

expression of a “unified public policy” of the

majority of the people of the Commonwealth. cf. Carney

v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006)

(Carney I)

The experience under the Gaming Act has been a

stark contrast to the Initiative process.

First, the “ballot summary” provided to voters in

an HCA referendum is a one-sided presentation, that

must be “concise” (but not necessarily “neutral” or

“fair”), prepared, without oversight, by proponents

and host community counsel. G.L.c.23K, §15(13); cf.

G.L.c.53, §18B (provides for a “fair and concise”

summary of other municipal ballot questions, together

with information that sets forth arguments both for

and against the proposal). Thus, without a statutory

or constitutional requirement for a “fair” or

“neutral” summary, casino ballot summaries have

Page 27: Community Amicus Brief

-22-

cherry-picked the details of the HCA to emphasize the

benefits without explaining the risks.6

Second, voters were frequently required to cast

their ballots without having critical information

about the gaming applicant or the proposed facility.

In a particularly egregious example, the Plainville

HCA was signed on July 8, 2013, without disclosure

that the proposed applicant, Ourway Realty LLC, knew

that the MGC was about to report unfavorably on its

suitability. Neither Ourway nor the MGC informed

6 MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/i1G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary% 2BBallot.pdf; Wynn Ballot https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64tipkn/Xc0-zCwDkT/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Wynn%205-05-02%20HCA%20 Summary.pdf; Plainville Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/ Section%205%20Mitigation/SGR%205-05-01%20Election %20Result%20Cert..pdf; Leominster Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/ 6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-05-02%20Summ%20of%20Host%20Comm%20Ag.pdf; Leominster HCA Summary,https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/W-Rqw3ZIAY/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-05-01%20Election%20Order.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs HCA Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/ GomAp-xRmO/Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-05-05%20Summary%20SSR-RevereHCA.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs Ballot, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wkascadjn9ddq6x/ eWObZ2yDCA/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-05-06%20Revere %20Nov% 20Ballot.pdf

Copies of these ballot summaries are attached in Addendum “A”.

Page 28: Community Amicus Brief

-23-

Plainville about the looming financial problems at

Plainridge, about the “culture of fear and concealment

pervasive in the operations of Plainridge”, or about

the unauthorized withdrawals from the money room by

its president, which surfaced two weeks later at the

adjudicatory hearing on Ourway’s suitability, and

resulted in its disqualification as an applicant. R.A.

45-47, ¶¶22, 25; R.A.346-357, Exh.23. It was not for

another month, and just six days before the referendum

on the HCA, that Penn National was disclosed to

Plainville voters as Ourway’s replacement and, this

too, before MGC made any determination of Penn’s

suitability. R.A.47, ¶25; R.A.368-375, Exh.26

Other examples of the lack of candor with voters

in the HCA referenda process:

• Leominster voters approved an HCA that described

a 16 acre parcel with a 125,000 square foot

gaming facility and no hotel and the proposal

that was actually filed with MGC was for a

facility on 26 acres which also shows a future

hotel and potential expansion of the gaming

facility to 175,000 square feet. This plan was

approved in a fast-track zoning approval that

Page 29: Community Amicus Brief

-24-

residents questioned. The MGC professed no

authority to inquire or hear even brief argument

about the validity of the zoning decision in its

deliberations. See MGC Public Meeting #93,

Transcript, pp.25-27,73-82,103-106,214, http://

massgaming. com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-

12-3-13-HC.pdf (Public Statements); PPE RFA2

Attch 05-03-01, HCA, p.1, https://www.dropbox.

com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20

Mitigation/PPE%205-05-02%20Summ%20of%20Host%20

Comm%20Ag.pdf [Copy in Addendum “A”]

• As noted earlier, Springfield voters approved an

HCA which contained an obligation by the City to

share in a portion of the costs of mitigation

caused by MGM to surrounding communities, a

provision that is buried in the fine print of the

HCA without mentioning it in the ballot summary.

Similarly, the ballot summary referred to MGM’s

agreement to pay the City a sum “in lieu of

taxes”, omitting that this provision represented

a multi-million dollar tax break to MGM at

Page 30: Community Amicus Brief

-25-

taxpayer expense.7 Springfield voters were also

kept in the dark about the serious traffic

congestion and air quality problems at the

intersection where the MGM Springfield casino

would be placed, whose impacts have been long

apparent and acknowledged to regulators, but

which, now, suddenly seem “not being addressed or

even questioned by anyone.”8 Not until January

2014, long after the referendum, was a report on

health issues presented to MGC that described how

the casino would exacerbate the congestion and

pollution issues, including more “driving under

the influence” and “increased risk for collisions

and increased likelihood of associated injury and

fatalities” as well as an increase in regional

air pollution. The report stated: “Vulnerable

populations that will experience disproportionate

effects include children, elderly, and those with

7 MGM/Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01, HCA Exhs. D & U, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ VT3bIdQXW9/Section%205%20Migation/MGM%205-04-01%20HCA.pdf 8 See MGC Public Meeting, April 1, 2014, Transcript, pp. 200-205, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-4.1.14.pdf; MGC Public Meeting, March 3, 2014, Transcript, pp. 161-165, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/Transcript-3-3-14.pdf.

Page 31: Community Amicus Brief

-26-

pre-existing conditions. . . Hispanics and

African-Americans will be disproportionately

impacted as they experience high rates of asthma

and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations when

compared to non-Hispanic Whites. In particular, a

large number of Hispanics live within 200 meters

of the likely local casino access routes and

would be exposed to the increases in near roadway

air pollution.”9

Perhaps the most troubling misconception that voters

have suffered was the characterization of the proposed

casinos as “destination resorts” that would attract

tourists to Massachusetts and create thousands of

“good jobs”. For example, the Springfield Ballot

Summary stated:

If approved by the voters of Springfield, the Host Community Agreement . . . requires MGM to develop a destination casino resort in the downtown area of Springfield. (emphasis added).10

9 Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf

10 See, e.g., MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/MGM %205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary%20Ballot.pdf [Copy in Addendum “A”]

Page 32: Community Amicus Brief

-27-

As the casino applications now confirm, however, none

of the proposed facilities remotely resemble

“destination resorts”. In fact, all the proposals are

scaled-down “convenience gambling” facilities that

derive most of their revenues by inducing local

residents to gamble more frequently than they have

done before and spend more of their money at these

facilities that would otherwise have been spent

elsewhere in the local economy. See R.A. 262, 290

(Exh.17), [UMass/Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis,

“New England Casino Update, 2013”, p.13]

• MGM Springfield projects 8.1 million visits – 2.6

million (32%) from Hampden Co. residents [18+pop.

399,528]11, 781,000 million (10%) from Berkshire,

Franklin and Hampshire Co. residents [18+pop.

200,451] and 4.1 million from other “Day-Trippers”

(51%). Overnight guests at MGM Springfield’s

“resort” hotel will make up only 3% (116,000) of

the total visits. R.A. 192-193 (Exh.13)12

11 U.S. Census Bureau,quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/ 12 Blue Tarp RFA-2 Attachment 3-01-01 (HR&A Advisors, pp.28-29),https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ sA3NIwBJDT/Section%203%20Economic%20Development/MGM %203-01-01%20HRA%20Impacts%20Study.pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”]

Page 33: Community Amicus Brief

-28-

• Wynn MA predicts 44% of its revenue from 3 million

“Local Market” visits by residents living less than

30-minutes away and another 15% from about 1

million other “Local Market” residents living 30 to

60 minutes away, whom Wynn predicts will gamble at

the casino, on average, 10 to 11 times per year.

Only 9% of revenue is expected to come from 1,427

“high yield international gamers” and another 5%

from other “tourism”. R.A. 197-199.13

• Mohegan Sun projects 8.1 million visits to a

Revere casino. Of the total visits, 2.0 million

(25%) are predicted to be residents of Revere and

the three other towns in Suffolk Co. (Boston,

13 Wynn RFA-2 Attach 3-01-03(TMG Consulting Report, pp.57-58,71), https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64 tipkn/KFabU0tSqR/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Wynn%203-01-03 %20TMG%20Report.pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”] Steve Wynn’s dependence on local gambling explains why he (the only casino applicant that did not join in opposing the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit), acknowledged in honest candor that he actually considers putting the repeal of the Gaming Law on the ballot a positive, since he would not want to build a casino in a state whose citizens were against it. B. Mohl, “Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table”, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014), http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/ Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-bet-against-me.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo

Page 34: Community Amicus Brief

-29-

Chelsea & Winthrop). Another 4.2 million visits

(51%) will be residents of neighboring Norfolk,

Essex and Middlesex Cos combined. Only 3% of

total visits are predicted to come from anywhere

outside New England. R.A.186-187 (Exh.12)14

Similarly, the RFA2 applications filed show that the

“good jobs” promised by the proponents are a handful

of top spots in the executive suite as well as a few

hundred others, while many jobs will be entry level

positions that will not even pay enough to constitute

a “livable wage”.15

14 Mohegan Sun RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report.p.19) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic %20Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact. Pdf [Copy in Addendum “B”] 15 The top nine (9) executives at Mohegan Sun Revere will earn an average of $157,642. Average pay for all other Mohegan Sun Revere employees is set at $18,380 (plus tips, for some, that Mohegan Sun claims will average $42,000 for beverage workers, $21,000 for dealers and $2,400 for hospitality staff). Mohegan Sun Massachusetts, LLC, RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report. P.13) https://www.dropbox.com/sh /wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact.pdf The Mashpee Tribe plans to pay its Taunton Casino top executive $434,000 and other senior executives an average $198,540. By comparison, the starting pay for other casino workers will range from $9,043 plus tips for beverage workers to $23,513 a year for “cage” workers, with the starting pay for administrative jobs

Page 35: Community Amicus Brief

-30-

In the Western Massachusetts Casino Impact

Assessment Report filed with MGC in January 2014, the

following conclusions were reached about jobs at the

proposed Springfield casino:

The Crittendon Women’s Economic Independence Index Report provides estimates of the. . . the amount needed for a single parent family with one child . . . . to be self-sufficient was $40,296 if the child was pre-school age, and $36,804 if the child was school age. The line level and administrative positions do not meet this threshold . . . . [A]t least 28% of positions would not provide an income that would allow self-sufficiency for a single parent family with one child in Hampden County, Massachusetts.

. . . Evidence suggests that turnover rates may be as high as 40% for entry-level unskilled casino positions.

Casino employees have been found to have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviors (smoking, alcohol, and problem gambling), which negatively impact health. It is unclear the extent to which MGM’s stated policy that employees are not allowed to gamble onsite will affect the likelihood of increased risk of problem gambling.

A large proportion of resort casino employees will work non-standard work hours, or shiftwork, which has been associated with an increased risk for

at $18,087. HR&A Advisors, “Economic Impacts of Project First Light” (May 30, 2012), pp. 16-17, filed at www.taunton-ma.gov/Pages/TauntonMA_Mayor/ destinationresortupdates [Copies of these data are attached in Addendum “B”] (The 2014 federal poverty level is $19,530 for a 3-person family and $23,850 for a 4-person family.2014 HHS Poverty Guidelines, 79 F.R. 3593, January 22, 2014)

Page 36: Community Amicus Brief

-31-

chronic disease, cancer, and mental health conditions through 1) increased sleep disturbance and circadian rhythm disruption, and 2) negative impacts on family cohesion. Best available evidence suggests that 23-40% of casino gaming positions will work night shift-work, which has the most risk for negative impacts due to circadian rhythm disruption.”16

Unfortunately, Springfield voters did not have the

benefit of any of this analysis at the time they voted

on the HCA.

The unvarnished truth about casino math is not

hard to grasp. This came through with the clarity that

no expert could have provided when a Springfield

seventh grader stepped up to speak to the MGC at a

recent public meeting on the MGM casino plan:

“My name is Tynesha Andrews . . . I’m here today because I’m the future and I am deeply concerned with the type of world you are creating for my generation. I don’t fully understand all the long-term effects and pros and cons of gambling. You call it gaming but I do understand that gaming is designed to take people’s money and not give it back.

“. . . Now I’m hearing of . . . how my future

is geared towards . . . jobs that are designed around gambling. . . . Instead of using big and fancy words, if you look at casino gaming in a simpler picture and for what it truly is or look at things in a kid’s point of view, maybe you

16 Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc. “Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report,” January 2014, pp. 27-30, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf

Page 37: Community Amicus Brief

-32-

will see things differently and will understand. . . . Like I said earlier, I might not understand everything but I do know gaming is designed to take people’s money and not give it back.”

MGC Public Meeting #116, April 3, 2014, pp.149-151,

http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-

4.3.14.pdf.

C. When Voters Had Sufficient Time and Information Such As Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling.____________________

The debate about allowing commercial casino

gambling in the Commonwealth has been a contest that

pits money against time. When voters in a community

have had enough time to be educated on the issues,

more often than not, they have rejected the overtures

of casino developers. Only when voters have been

forced to a rush to judgment and have not been

afforded the time to learn all the facts, have the

tantalizing offers of “jobs and revenue” and

proponents’ blizzard of advertizing money bought the

casino developers a victory. See e.g., MGC Public

Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 174-179, 184-189, http://

massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-12-3-13-

HC.pdf (speakers reviewing the short window provided

Page 38: Community Amicus Brief

-33-

for voter review on Leominster proposal during summer

vacation for many and asking for “another vote”)

It is no coincidence that, in mid-summer (July)

2013, Springfield voters approved the HCA with MGM by

a 15% margin in favor, while, in September 2013, West

Springfield voters, with two more months to become

educated, rejected the HCA with Hard Rock by a 10%

margin against that proposal. See http://massgaming.

com/wp-content/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf

This pattern carries through all of the other

referenda, save for Leominster and Revere:

Everett 6/22/2013 HCA Approved Raynham 8/24/2013 HCA Approved Plainville 9/10/2013 HCA Approved W.Springfield 9/10/2013 HCA REJECTED Leominster 9/24/2013 HCA Approved East Boston 11/05/2014 HCA REJECTED Palmer 11/05/2013 HCA REJECTED Revere-1 11/05/2013 HCA Approved Milford 11/19/2013 HCA REJECTED

See http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/

Applicant-status.pdf. A similar trend also appears to

be emerging in the voter polling that has been

conducted. “WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts

Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana”, http://www.wbur.org/

2014/03/19/wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana

Page 39: Community Amicus Brief

-34-

Indeed, casino proponents’ tactics to keep voters

in the dark is manifest even in the proceedings before

this Court, where belated intervention has pushed the

resolution of this matter to the latest possible date,

thus, truncating the period for waging an active

educational campaign. The amici believe that each day

that the uncertainty about the fate of the Initiative

Petition lingers truncates the amount of time

available to the task of voter education and, thus,

continues to tilt the playing field in the casino

developers’ favor.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, a statewide vote under

the provisions of the Initiative to give all the

people the right to decide whether or not to permit

commercial casinos to be constructed within the

Commonwealth should be allowed to proceed. Unless this

question appears on the November 2014 ballot, the

choice of whether to suffer the potentially adverse

and irreversible effects of introducing these

facilities will have been decided by a few self-

interested and well-financed parties at the expense of

the rights of the majority of the people who live and

Page 40: Community Amicus Brief

-35-

work in the Commonwealth and have a stake, but no

vote, in the matter as it now stands.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/____________________Nicole Micheroni BBO#68022Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128

(617) 567-0508 [email protected]

Page 41: Community Amicus Brief

-36-

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, Nicole Micheroni, hereby certify under the

penalty of perjury that I served the within brief by

causing two copies thereof to be mailed on April 16,

2014, via first-class mail to:

Thomas O. Bean, Esq. Verrill Dana LLP One Boston Place – Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02108 Peter Sacks, Esq. State Solicitor One Ashburton Place – 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Carl Valvo, Esq. Cosgrove, Eisenberg and Kiley, P.C. One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Paul Capizzi, Esq. City of Revere Law Department 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Edward M. Pikula, Esq. City of Springfield Law Department 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Frank E. Antonucci, Esq. Antonucci & Associates 83 State Street, Suite 204 Springfield, MA 01103 /s/____________________ Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222

Page 42: Community Amicus Brief

-37-

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I, Nichole Micheroni, hereby certify that this

brief complies with the rules of court that pertain to

the filing of briefs.

/s/_____________________ Nicole Micheroni, BBO#680222

Page 43: Community Amicus Brief

ADDENDUM “A”

A1-A7 WYNN/EVERETT HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A8-A11 MGM/SPRINGFIELD HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A12-A16 PPE/LEOMINSTER HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A17-A19 PLAINVILLE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY A20-A23 SUFFOLK DOWNS/REVERE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY

Page 44: Community Amicus Brief

ADDENDUM “B”

B1 EXCERPTS MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-02-02 - TOURISM ECONOMICS MARKET PROJECTIONS B2-B5 EXCERPTS WYNN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-03 – TMG CONSULTING MARKET PROJECTIONS B6-B7 EXCERPTS MGM/BLUE TARP RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-01 – HR&A ADVISORS, INC MARKET PROJECTIONS B8 EXCERPT MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTCH 03-02-02 – TOURISM ECONOMICS PAYROLL PROJECTIONS B10 EXCERPT FIRST LIGHT/TAUNTON – HR&A ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY – PAYROLL PROJECTIONS

Page 45: Community Amicus Brief

ADDENDUM “C”

C1-C4 EXCERPTS – CORDISH/LEOMINSTER POST-REFERENDUM PRESENTATION TO MGC – OCTOBER 7, 2013 C5-C7 EXCERPTS – PPE/LEOMINSTER RFA-2 APPLICATION- OCTOBER 4, 2013

Page 46: Community Amicus Brief

 

 

 

 

 

ADDENDUM “D”

D1-D4 Constitution of Massachusetts, Amend Art. XVIII, The Initiative, Sections 1-3 D5 Constitution of Massachusetts, Amed. Art. LXXIV D6-D9 G.L.c. 23K, §1 D9-D12 G.L.c. 23K, §2 D12-D13 G.L.c. 23K, §3 D13-D17 G.L.c. 23K, §15 D17-D19 G.L.c. 23K, §17 D19-D22 G.L.c. 23K, §18 D22-DD23 G.L.c. 23K, §19 D23-D24 G.L.c. 23K, §20 D25-D27 G.L.c. 53, §18B D28-D29 G.L.c. 54, §53 D29 G.L.c. 54, §54