Countering the previous approval by several city officials, East Boston voters rejected the proposal for a $1 billion resort-casino development at the Suffolk Downs racetrack in a Tuesday referendum.
Approximately 56.08 percent, or 4,281 votes, went against the addition to the more than 75-year-old track, according to data from the Boston Elections Commission. The vote was restricted to the about 16,600 eligible East Boston voters.
Celeste Myers, co-chair of No Eastie Casino, an advocacy group against the Suffolk Downs development in Boston, said she was elated by the proposal’s rejection.
“I’m completely blown away by the response of East Boston residents,” she said. “We knew that Suffolk Downs was off the mark with their approach and with their message to the residents of East Boston. Just because we are a working-class community doesn’t mean we’re going to take any deal that they want to hand to us.”
Suffolk Downs is still competing for the sole eastern Massachusetts casino license to be awarded by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission allowed under the Commonwealth’s 2011 gaming law. As a result of the referendum, it cannot built in Boston city lines, but it can still do so in Revere, which was also part of the original project designs, because the city independently approved the project by a vote of 61 percent for and 39 percent against the project.
Even though a casino can be redesigned to be built just in Revere, the rejection in East Boston makes the future of Suffolk Downs uncertain, said Chief Operating Officer Chip Tuttle.
“The track hasn’t been profitable since 2005 or 2006, and we’ve invested a lot of money to keep racing going over the last several years,” he said. “The future of Suffolk Downs as a racetrack is very much in doubt without the ability to do gaming development at the property. In the absence of a positive result today and the ability to move forward, that future is clearly in jeopardy.”
Myers said future development, even if outside of Boston, would still be a bad idea.
“My expectation around any future development plans, whether in East Boston or Revere, is that the gaming commission upholds the language in the legislature that describes that any entity which has an unsuccessful bid in a referendum has to go back and resend their plans,” she said. “Our Mayor-elect [Martin Walsh] … [should] safeguard the residents of East Boston and the city of Boston from any potential detrimental development.”
In the months leading up to the vote, opponents of the casino said it would increase addiction and crime in the area, while proponents claimed it would bring economic benefits.
Maurice Cunningham, associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, said the referendum remained close because many people were most likely torn between the economic and social tradeoffs of the casino.
“Those opposed to the casino are concerned that their community will change, that there will be disruptions in their neighborhoods, that crime will increase,” he said. “Those in favor are concerned with preserving the jobs that already exist in Suffolk Downs because without the casino, Suffolk Downs will go out of business probably.”
Several East Boston voters said they had mixed opinions on the effects the casino would have on the area.
Edson Dias, 37, said he voted against the proposal because he was concerned about gambling addictions.
“I am against the casino, one, on moral grounds,” he said. “Gambling … takes your money, the casinos always win and there isn’t much benefit for the gambler [in the] long term. If the house always wins, then the community’s not winning.”
Tom Winn, 48, said he voted in favor of it because it would add a more social and cultural life to Boston.
“We have to start pushing development through,” he said. “It [the casino] is an opportunity to grow the city. The casino would certainly add to the entertainment and nightlife that might keep people here, or possibly get more conventions here, which brings more money into Boston.”
Ann Howell, 58, said the casino would “break this city,” so she also voted against it.
“I really don’t think that I would appreciate a casino in my area,” she said. “They [patrons of the casino] are not going to use our stores. They’re not going to go to our restaurants. They’re going to stay at the casinos. For East Boston, all it would do is cause congestion on the highway and a lot of our area being ripped up and disrupted.”
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
It’s not true that the casino can be built in Revere; according to the gaming legislation, both East Boston and Revere were required to pass the referendum.