Автор: genom

So how many bites of the apple do casino opponents get?

That tricky bit of business is now the question for the state’s highest court to answer. And judging from the direction of questioning by the justices — and, yes, it’s always a bit problematic to draw conclusions from that — there is a healthy skepticism that repeal belongs on the state ballot.

Noting that the Gaming Commission has already issued a five-year license for a slots parlor “at a great cost to the applicant, can that simply be taken away with a big never mind?” Justice Robert J. Cordy asked Thomas O. Bean, attorney for casino opponents.

“They can do this without compensation?” Cordy added.

Bean insisted, “We’re dealing with an extremely well-financed industry” that made its investments knowing full well that opponents could launch a repeal effort. “They followed the controversy.”

But they also depended on a 104-page law passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor.

Chief Justice Roderick Ireland asked, “What about the chilling effect?”

What indeed! If the ballot can be used to cancel a legally binding contract — and an exceedingly expensive one at that — then whose business is safe?

And, of course, because the initiative petition process can’t be used to make appropriations, there would be no way to compensate those would-be casino operators who had won licenses and paid for the privilege. Although if it went on the ballot and passed, casino operators could certainly sue for compensation, Assistant Attorney General Peter Sacks, arguing against the ballot question, told the court.

He also noted that there had been a way for casino opponents to get on the ballot legally with a simpler measure that would prohibit the Gaming Commission from issuing licenses. But they insisted on going full-throttle for a repeal of the gaming law and threw in repeal of dog racing simulcasts just for good measure.

They overreached. But beyond that they endanger the state’s already shaky reputation as a good place to do business. Let’s all hope the Supreme Judicial Court makes that clear too.

PHILADELPHIA, May 05, 2014 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Organizers of the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic today announced that Novo Nordisk will serve as the Title Sponsor of the inaugural Walk the Wall event. As part of the event, members of the Philadelphia community are invited to walk or run up the iconic Manayunk Wall on Saturday, May 31, 2014 – the day before the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic professional cycling race.

“As we continue to grow the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic, our goal is to add opportunities like this that embrace the neighborhoods that support us and get more people to be active, even if it is not on a bike,” said Richard Adler of Liberty Sports Development, the event producer.

The Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall eventwill also help raise money for local non-profit organizations, to be announced in the coming weeks, which are committed to promoting healthy living.

“The rise of diabetes is one of the most serious health challenges affecting urban communities today and Novo Nordisk is passionate about helping combat this public health epidemic, especially in our own backyard,” said George McAvoy, vice president, Diabetes Marketing at Novo Nordisk. “We look forward to welcoming the Philadelphia community, a city rich with cycling traditions and passionate fans, to the 2014 Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall event, where fans are invited to climb the same stretch of course that has challenged the world’s best professional cyclists for over 30 years: the legendary Manayunk Wall. Together we will beat the Wall. Together we will work to beat diabetes."

Novo Nordisk is a returning sponsor of the Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic and sponsor of Team Novo Nordisk, the world’s first all-diabetes professional cycling team, who will compete in the professional race on June 1. Members of Team Novo Nordisk will also participate in the Walk the Wall event - sharing their inspirational stories and encouraging participants as they climb the Wall.

The Manayunk Wall, which is comprised of a 17 percent-grade hill, begins at the base of Levering Street at Cresson and climbs to the top of the wall at Lyceum and Manayunk Avenues. The Novo Nordisk Walk the Wall event will begin at Main and Levering Streets in Manayunk at 4 p.m. To learn more and register, please visit: https://walkthewall.eventbrite.com .

About Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic

The Parx Casino Philly Cycling Classic is operated by a community-based non-profit organization formed to organize and host the new world-class professional cycling race in Philadelphia. Joining title sponsor Parx Casino is event Founding Sponsor New Penn Financial, and official sponsors Novo Nordisk, Philadelphia Federal Credit Union, Fuji Bikes, Amstel Radler, Bicycling Magazine, and Roxborough Memorial Hospital. For more information, visit www.phillycyclingclassic.org .

About Novo Nordisk

Headquartered in Denmark, Novo Nordisk is a global healthcare company with more than 90 years of innovation and leadership in diabetes care. The company also has leading positions within hemophilia care, growth hormone therapy and hormone replacement therapy. Novo Nordisk employs approximately 40,000 employees in 75 countries, and markets its products in more than 180 countries. For more information, visit novonordisk-us.com or follow our news in the U.S. on Twitter: @NovoNordiskUS.

THE MASSACHUSETTS constitution gives voters wide latitude to propose changes in state law, and a ballot measure proposed by gambling critics bent on repealing the state’s controversial 2011 casino legislation falls squarely within that power. So when Attorney General Martha Coakley blocked the measure last year, casino opponents understandably sued to overturn her decisionin state court. Keeping the question off the November ballot may soothe the anxieties of gambling firms. But Coakley’s office simply hasn’t offered a compelling legal rationale for denying voters a direct voice on the gambling issue. The Supreme Judicial Court, which heard arguments in the case this week, should overturn the attorney general’s decision, and quickly.

Under state law, it’s up to the attorney general to certify that initiatives meet constitutional requirements, one of the first steps in a process that also involves collecting thousands of signatures, a hurdle the anti-casino campaign cleared easily. Courts have ruled that attorneys general should err on the side of voters, instructing them to green-light referendums “unless it is reasonably clear that a proposal contains an excluded matter.” Coakley has authorized many controversial ballot measures, including the 2008 referendum that banned dog racing. Yet when organizers of the casino repeal filed their petition last year, she rejected it. But her arguments, then and now, are convoluted.

Before the SJC on Monday, Coakley’s office cited a provision in the Massachusetts constitution that prohibits popular initiatives that take away an individuals’ “right to receive compensation for private property appropriated to public use.” But nothing in the repeal proposal takes away anything that fits the common-sense definition of property, such as objects or real estate. Rather, Coakley claims the companies that have applied for the four casino licenses created by the law have an “implied contract” with the state that amounts to a kind of property. Since the applicants have anted up a $400,000 fee to determine an outcome to the licensing process, Coakley says, they have a right to get a resolution of that process, one that voters may not take away.

As a practical matter, though, the gaming commission expects to award all its licenses by November anyway. If the repeal law passes, it wouldn’t go into effect until December. That means the applicants will have received the determination they’ve paid for before the law goes into effect, rendering the attorney general’s central argument against a referendum moot.

And even if the commission misses its deadline, it’s long been understood that the Commonwealth can change the rules governing gambling at will — whether by legislative fiat or at the ballot box. After all, the former operators of dog tracks in Massachusetts invested money in keeping up their licenses, only to see the voters abolish their whole industry.

That precedent has caused some apprehension in the broader business community, because additional wrangling on a high-profile policy matter is said to exacerbate the state’s reputation for unpredictability. Yet the court’s job here is simply to assess the legal issues. At the very least, there is no “reasonably clear” case that anything in the proposed referendum runs afoul of the law — the standard the attorney general should have applied before blocking a vote. The court should authorize the ballot question, and rule quickly to resolve uncertainty around the issue.

Casino operator Caesars Entertainment has entered the race to secure one of four available licences to operate a resort casino in New York, submitting its $1m application fee to the New York State Gaming Commission this week.

Caesars is one of a number of casino operators looking to secure one of the four available licences in New York, after Governor Andrew Cuomo led efforts to expand gambling in upstate communities to boost economies and generate more jobs and tax revenue in the state.

The House has decided not to reconsider the two-casino proposal it rejected by a single vote at last week’s session.

This morning, 172 House members voted to bring the bill up again, while 192 voted against.

The measure, approved by the state Senate, would legalize two casinos sharing a total of 5,000 video slot machines and 240 table games. It also includes $25 million dollars in aid to towns, which supporters said would provide property tax relief.

The House has consistently rejected efforts to legalize casino gambling. It voted down a bill to legalize a single casino a month ago before rejecting this measure.

With only a single vote breaking the tie on the casino bill last week, there’s been a lot of lobbying before the issue goes before the House again tomorrow.

Lawmakers from both parties are asking their House colleagues to switch alliances on legislation that could mean the difference between two multi-million-dollar casinos being built in New Hampshire or none at all. The bill also proposes 5,000 video slot machines and 240 table games between the two locations.

If Senate Bill 366 is approved in a reconsideration vote and signed into law by Gov. Maggie Hassan, many Southern New Hampshire residents hope one of the entertainment venues would be established at Rockingham Park in Salem.

They hope a casino would create hundreds of local jobs and generate millions of dollars in annual revenue for the state and surrounding communities.

But several local lawmakers who voted to kill the bill said they don’t plan to change their vote. Several amendments are expected to be presented that could affect the vote’s outcome, including a medical marijuana proposal.

Two of the four Southern New Hampshire members of the House who didn’t vote last week defended their reasons for not being present. The vote was 173-172 to kill the legislation. Forty-two House members did not cast votes.

Rep. Jeffrey Oligny, R-Plaistow, said his job as an engineer for a defense contractor prevented him from voting in Concord on April 30.

He said his job, which requires a lot of travel, also prevented him from voting on another casino bill, House Bill 1633, in March. The House killed that bill, 173-144.

Oligny, who said he supports expanded gaming, agreed his vote could have made a difference last week if he were present. But he won’t be voting tomorrow either.

“I’m one of the ones who, if I was there, I would have voted for it,” he said. “Given that, I’m not retired and I’m not wealthy.”