In a roundtable discussion, each of the candidates said they’ll vote no on a question to repeal the state’s casino law in November.
Baker says he will vote against repeal but if it does pass and he becomes governor, he would then file a bill with the Legislature “to put the Springfield casino back on the map.”
Casinos coming to Massachusetts are no sure thing. That’s after last month’s ruling by the state’s highest court that allows a repeal question to go before voters in November. However, the behind-the-scenes work continues to develop a workforce for a Bay state casino industry.
The properties would be part of the resort casino MGM wants to build in Springfield.
The much-awaited Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision concerning casinos came down Tuesday morning. The court ruled unanimously to allow a question on the November ballot, asking voters if they want to repeal the state’s casino law.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Tuesday that a question calling for repeal of the 2011 law can be on the November ballot.
READ: SJC ruling
Some residents are hopeful about economic recovery; others warn against potential problems.
Massachusetts Gaming Commission’s vote was widely expected.
Most of those speaking oppose the Springfield casino plan from MGM resorts, which is the only remaining bid for the license.
MGM’s lawyer, Seth Stratton, says the company wants money back if surrounding community dollar amounts end up being too high.
A decision is expected in May and MGM is the only remaining applicant for the casino license reserved for western Massachusetts. But the commission has the option of starting the process all over again.
The meeting will allow residents one last chance to speak their minds, but members of a prominent group opposing a Springfield casino are not going to show up.
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission wanted casino applicants to make nice with their neighbors, and pay-up to offset the expected costs of a casino, like for traffic and public safety.
A setback on Monday for the Eastern States Exposition, and a win for casino company MGM.
The hearing is about what’s called “surrounding community status.” It means a town or city would be impacted by a Springfield casino, and the casino operator – MGM – has to pay up.