Politics & Government
Do You Support Suffolk Downs' Newest Plan?
Suffolk Downs wants to cut East Boston out of the deal and go forward with a Revere-only casino. Should the state allow that to go forward?
Written by Roberto Scalese
Suffolk Downs racetrack, reeling from twin blows to its original plan for a Boston casino, is regrouping with Revere to submit an alternative plan before the end of the year, according to the Boston Globe.
The move comes weeks after Suffolk Downs lost Caesar's as its casino operator (the company was dropped ahead of failing its background check) and days after East Boston resoundingly voted against the casino plan last week.
Revere, meanwhile, voted for the plan by a wide margin. Suffolk Downs property spans between Revere and East Boston, which meant both communities could vote for the proposal.
Revere Mayor Dan Rizzo wasted no time on election night, saying he'd pursue an alternative plan placing the Suffolk Downs casino only on Revere land. Suffolk has signaled that they will work with the city on that.
Casino opponents are incensed, saying the new plan clearly violates the law. But when asked by the Globe about the move, gaming commission chairman Stephen Crosby said “nothing in our regulations makes this [Suffolk Downs] situation appropriate or inappropriate; this was not anticipated.”
What do you think? Should a Revere-only casino be allowed? Does East Boston's vote count more than Revere's? Would you prefer the casino in Revere, Everett or (maybe) Milford? Tell us what you think in the comments below.
Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.