Is the Problem in Massachussetts the Gaming Commission, or the Players?

Steve Wynn recently called the Massachusetts guidelines the most challenging and complex he'd ever faced in the gaming business world-wide - his experience in Las Vegas and Macau speaks volumes on how difficult attaining and keeping a gaming licnse can be.   He lashed out at the Massachusetts Gaming Commission over what he called a "crummy assumption" by state regulators that if you're in the gambling industry, you must be unsavory.

But the commission stands by its strict rules.  It's understandable because it appears most of the state's communities don't want it in their backyard, anyway.  Maybe they can build in somebody else's community (far away) so they can rake in the additional revenue and benefit from keeping those Mass gamblers from traveling to Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine.  But, no, no, no - not in my backyard.

In pro & anti casino camps, you hear from liars, hypocrites, and those who rationalize the financial rebuilding and community benefit against those who exaggerate the sinfulness of casino gambling.  "We will help save the state financially" says one side.  "You will tear apart the good in our communities and bring sin and crime," says the other.

Comical that they don't see there is a middle ground where compromise could bring economic relief and still ward away the down side of casino gambling - or at least restrict it, leading the country in "how to do it right."  And that is exactly what the Massachusetts Gaming Commission is trying to do.  Let's hope that there is some gambling entity left to do it with.

Ballot box setbacks concerning community agreements with would-be developers, most recently in East Boston and Palmer, and rigorous background investigations by state police attached to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission have diminished the possibilities for three regional Class I Resorts from eight to two (or three is you still count the Mashpee Wanpanogs) - and the possibility still exists that no current bidder would qualify in either region, a prospect that would put off any casino openings for months if not years.

Here are stunning results leading to this interesting scenario from latest back in time:

1) Tuesday, when East Boston voters rejected by a 56-44 percent margin a casino at the Suffolk Downs thoroughbred race track, a proposal that enjoyed powerful support from DeLeo and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, among others.

2) Mohegan Sun, which for years had courted residents of Palmer, saw its $1 billion casino proposal defeated Tuesday by fewer than 100 votes.

3) In West Springfield, voters rejected Hard Rock's proposal for a casino at the Eastern States Exhibition in September.

4) In July, Springfield voters backed a resort casino proposed by MGM Resorts International and Revere on Tuesday supported the Suffolk Downs proposal even while East Boston did not.

5) Voters in Leominster, Plainville and Raynham signed off on proposed slots parlors, (the fourth gambling facilty license) smaller gambling facilities expected to bring fewer visitors and less traffic.

6) Caesars Entertainment, sidelined by a background check when red flags raised by investigators led the MGC to their indirect Russian Mob connections. Suffolk Downs had to sever ties with Caesars Entertainment before their their ill-fated referendum. (A spokesman for Caesars said Massachusetts was setting standards for suitability that were arbitrary and unreasonable.)

The commission still has yet to release background checks on the Wynn group, MGM and Foxwoods, which has proposed a casino in Milford.  So, will there be even less operators after this month?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

That's all for now.

Binbin