Here in the US, a casino near a city that is a tourist attraction pretty much hasn't been tried. Las Vegas was a desert before the casinos arrived. Atlantic City was a dying beach resort at a time when the entire Jersey Shore was failing. Most other casinos are on remote tribal land; a few are located near minor cities that nobody wanted to visit anyway.
The Suffolk Downs proposal would have been something new: a casino with transit access to a major tourist city. It might have led (and I say MIGHT because it hasn't been tried anywhere) to a new kind of casino visit: people who come to the casino, but who also travel into the city to enjoy other attractions or have a meal. It also would have led to city residents traveling to the casino for its attractions: not just gambling, but also restaurants and performances. And it would have provided jobs that urban residents could get to without automobiles.
The location chosen in Everett lacks those advantages. It has no transit access; Wynn has proposed a water taxi service, but water taxis are unreliable because they can't run in bad weather. It is also difficult to drive to, unlike Suffolk Downs which is located on a highway.
I wanted a casino in the Boston area. But I wanted it at Suffolk Downs, where it could have helped our city. Since the powers that be have decided that we can't have that, I am now inclined to vote against casinos.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-11-03 23:35 (UTC)The Suffolk Downs proposal would have been something new: a casino with transit access to a major tourist city. It might have led (and I say MIGHT because it hasn't been tried anywhere) to a new kind of casino visit: people who come to the casino, but who also travel into the city to enjoy other attractions or have a meal. It also would have led to city residents traveling to the casino for its attractions: not just gambling, but also restaurants and performances. And it would have provided jobs that urban residents could get to without automobiles.
The location chosen in Everett lacks those advantages. It has no transit access; Wynn has proposed a water taxi service, but water taxis are unreliable because they can't run in bad weather. It is also difficult to drive to, unlike Suffolk Downs which is located on a highway.
I wanted a casino in the Boston area. But I wanted it at Suffolk Downs, where it could have helped our city. Since the powers that be have decided that we can't have that, I am now inclined to vote against casinos.