IN THE

Supreme Judicial Court

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. SJC-11641
SUFFOLK, SS.

_____________ STEVEN P. ABDOW AND OTHERS Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. GEORGE DUCHARME AND OTHERS; DANIEL RIZZO AND OTHERS; DOMENIC J. SARNO AND OTHERS, Interveners/Appellants, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH, Defendants/Appellees.

_____________
ON RESERVATION AND REPORT FROM THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT FOR SUFFOLK COUNTY

______________

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF COALITION OF CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS _______________

Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222 Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128 (617) 567-0508 nichole.micheroni@gmail.com

Dated: April 16, 2014

RULE 1.21 STATEMENT

Pursuant to SJC Rule 1:21, the two corporate entities that have joined in this brief state as follows: The Amicus Curiae No Casino West Springfield , Inc. (NCWSI) is a 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) non-profit public interest corporation incorporated in Massachusetts in 2013 with it principal offices in West Springfield Massachusetts. NCWS is a non-stock corporation with no

parents and no subsidiaries. The Amicus Curiae Pride Stores, LLC. (PSI) is a nonpublic Massachusetts limited liability corporation with it principal offices in Springfield Massachusetts. The Amicus Curiae Pride Convenience, Inc. (PCI) is a non-public Massachusetts corporation with its principal office in Springfield Massachusetts. Neither PSI or PCI have a parent corporation or any subsidiaries.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Question Presented . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interest of the Amicus Curiae. . . . . . . . . . . Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART.48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most Communities and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referendum Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . When Voters Were Given Sufficient Time and Information Such as Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling . . . . . . . . . 1 1 1 11

11

11

B.

20

C.

32 34 36 37

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Proof of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Certificate of Compliance. . . . . . . . . . . . . ADDENDUM A B C D

Host Community Ballot Summaries Excerpts RFA-2 Applications Leominster Post-Referendum Plans Constitutional and Statutory Material

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Massachusetts Cases Hurst v. State Ballot Commn, 427 Mass. 825, 828 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . 20 Carney v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006) . . . . . . . . . 21 Massachusetts Constitution Amend Art.48, Pt.II, 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Amend Art.48, Gen. Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Massachusetts Statutes G.L.c. 23K, 1(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G.L.c. 23K, 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G.L.c. 23K, 15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G.L.c.23K, 15(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 G.L.c. 23K, 17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G.L.c. 23K, 19(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,19

G.L.c. 23K, 15(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 G.L.c. 23K, 15(13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 G.L.c. 53, 18B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 G.L.c. 54, 53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 G.L.c. 54 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Miscellaneous Institute for American Values, NEW YORKS PROMISE WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n Jaret & Hogan, A Desperate Gamble, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16n iii

T. Keane, Challenging the boundaries and definition of, host community, The Boston Globe, April 6, 2014 . . . . . . . 13 B. Mohl, Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014),http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-betagainst- me.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo . . . . . . ..28n Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report, January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf . . . 25-26,30-31 N.Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS Princeton U. Press 2012). . . . . .16n Spectrum Gaming Group, Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com . . . . . . . . . . . .16n S. Sutner, Rush Street drops Millbury slots plan developer cites opposition as factor, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/ article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0 . . . . . .

WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana, http://www.wbur.org/2014/03/19/ wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana . . . . . . . . . 33 Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013) . . . . . . . . . . .16n

iv

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Attorney General erred in refusing to certify an Initiative Petition entitled An Act Relative to Illegal Gaming (the Petition) for inclusion on the State election ballot in November, 2014, on the ground that the proposed law is not a proper subject to be placed before the people for consideration in a statewide election. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to Mass.R.App.P.16(j), the Amicus Curiae adopt and incorporate the Statement of the Case in the Brief of Plaintiffs/Appellants, and the facts set forth below. INTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE This brief is submitted on behalf of a broad coalition of citizens and community leaders who have first-hand experience with the implementation of c.194 of the Acts of 2011 (the Gaming Law).1 Each of these
1

The Gaming Law is an amalgam of proposals that emerged from committee on August 29, 2011 as H3697. It passed without further public hearing or substantial changes on September 14, 2011 in the House as H3711 (one day of debate to dispose of 150 proposed amendments), and in the Senate on October 19, 2011 as S2035 (five days of debate), reconciled by conference and enacted as H3807 and signed by the Governor on November 4, 2011. See http://malegislature.gov/Bills/ 187/House/H3697;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/ House/H3711;http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/ H3807 One critical addition to H3697 from prior bills was its appropriation of money to the Governor (as

-1-

amici have witnessed the limitations, both legal and practical, that the Gaming Law imposes upon the freedom of voters, impacted by the potentially irreversible future effects of introducing casinos into the Commonwealth, to make informed choices about this important issue. Some impacted citizens and communities have been entirely disenfranchised. Others have been deprived, either intentionally or by circumstances, of the full extent of the arguments pro and con. When robust debate was able to occur, more often than not, a majority of citizens opted to reject commercial casinos as not worth the risk. This lopsided experience with the electoral process under the Gaming Law, stacked in favor of the commercial gambling industry, cannot be viewed as providing the people a full and fair voice. Rather, the process described by the amici in this brief stands in stark contrast to the even-handed, level playing field approach carefully crafted by the drafters of Art.48 as an effective means for informed voter consideration of important public issues. Indeed, it is ironic that, after all the log rolling

well as a start-up transfer to MGC (taken from the Stabilization Fund), which insertion was used to block efforts to seek immediate repeal of the Gaming Law by Referendum.R.A.38-39(4-6),67-142(Exhs.1-4) See,e.g., https://malegislature.gov/Bills/186/House/H5000

-2-

type-tactics employed by the gambling interests to get the Gaming Law enacted and to persuade vulnerable communities to take them in, that gambling-controlled interests, such as represented by the Interveners, would now contend that the people cannot be trusted to decide this question by a fair and transparent ballot Initiative process. Accordingly, the amici offer their first-hand experiences to the Court for consideration in reaching a just result in this case. The amici include: No Slots Tewksbury. Karin Theodoros, Deborah Shipp, Karyn & John Sliva and Bonnie & Martin Spiegel are residents and registered voters of the Town of Tewksbury. Geoff Feldman, Nancy Greene, Linda Copp and Carol Carbonell are residents and registered voters of the City of Lowell. Gina Chavez is a resident and registered voter of the Town of Andover. These citizens, among others, collaborated in organizing and supporting the community group known as No Slots Tewksbury which successfully persuaded a Tewksbury Town Meeting to overwhelmingly reject (by a vote of 1,568[NO] to 995[YES]) a proposed zoning by-law amendment that resulted in the withdrawal of the proposal by Penn National Gaming to locate a slots parlor in the Town. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/

-3-

2013/08/20/residents-reject-bid-build-slots-parlortewksbury/kvt42uIeqoBxXMsE59iFQJ/story.html Quaboag Valley Against Casinos (QVAC). Michael Eagan is a resident and registered voter in the Town of Palmer. He was a spokespersons for QVAC which was formed to oppose the construction of a casino in the Quaboag Valley area and waged a multi-year battle that resulted in the defeat of the voter referendum on Palmers Host Community Agreement (HCA) with Mohegan Sun despite being outspent $17,101 to $369,642 by casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (Palmer), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/ Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending Casino-Free Milford. John Seaver, Steven Trettel, Rosemary Trettel, Geri Eddins, Cathy Mitchell, Robert Mitchell, Amie Sanborn and Kim Smith are residents and registered voters in the Town of Milford. Jay Marsden and Ken Rockett are residents and registered voters in the Town of Holliston where Mr. Marsden serves as a Selectman. Brian Herr is a resident and registered voter in the Town of Hopkinton. Mr. Herr is a member

of the Hopkinton Board of Selectmen and a leader of a consortium of towns known as MetroWest Anti-Casino Coalition (MACC). He is the Massachusetts Republican Party nominee for United States Senator to be elected in November 2014. These citizens were instrumental in

-4-

organizing and supporting the grassroots community organization known as Casino Free Milford which successfully opposed the proposal by Foxwoods Resorts to locate a casino in the Town of Milford that was eventually defeated in a referendum on the Town of Milford/Foxwoods HCA by an overwhelming margin of 65%35%, despite being outspent $27,821 to $1,154,858 by casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (Milford), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/ Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending No Eastie Casino (NEC). Celeste Meyers, Brian Gannon,Steve Holt, Jessica Curtis, Bryan Schnittjer and Mike Russo are residents and registered voters in the City of Boston. These citizens, among others, organized and supported the efforts of the community group that became known as No Eastie Casino (NEC), which, together with other grassroots citizen groups, waged a three-year campaign against the HCA for a casino at Suffolk Downs and successfully defeated that proposal by a margin of 56%-44%, despite being outspent by $52,210 to $2,776,675 by the casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (Boston), http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/ Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending. These efforts were nullified by MGCs subsequent wiver that permitted Mohegan Sun to propose a substantially

-5-

comparable casino plan at Suffolk Downs by moving the project a few hundred yards just across the Revere/ Boston city. R.A.51-54, 340 (29, 31-34, Exh. 21 Dont Gamble on Revere. Linda Aufiero and Ralph Vazza are residents and registered voters in the City of Revere. They were mobilized to organize an

opposition to the Mohegan Sun/Revere HCA that was put to a vote in Revere with the minimum 60-day notice and approved by a majority of Revere voters. R.A.53, 34. No Slots Leominster. Arline & Jim Stith, Robert

& Elaine Fitzpatrick, Donna & Tony Fiduccia, Arlene Porter, Ephraim Josephs, Corey Shields, Brian Charron, Therese Cross and Robert Young are residents and registered voters of the Town of Leominster. Alexandra Turner and John Bowman are residents and registered voters in the Town of Lancaster, which shares a border with Leominster. These citizens, among others, organized the grassroots opposition to the HCA between Leominster and Cordish Companies for a slots parlor on the Leominster/Lancaster line which was approved by a margin of 61%-39% in a voter referendum in which No Slots Leominster was outspent by $1,725 to $498,182 by the slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (Leominster), http:// ocpf.cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending

-6-

NoPlainvilleRacino. Mary Ann Greanier is a resident and registered voter of the Town of Plainville. Erin and Collin Ernst are residents and registered voters in the Town of Foxboro, which abuts Plainville. These citizens organized and supported the grassroots community organization to oppose the HCA for a slots parlor at Plainridge Race Track which was approved in a voter referendum by a 75%-25% margin. No Slots Plainville was outspent $661 to $55,924 by the slots parlor proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports Plainville),http://ocpf.cloudapp.net/ Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending NoCasinoSpringfield. Michelle Steger, Ted Steger, Elizabeth Port and Marjorie Morgan are residents and registered voters of the Town of Longmeadow which lies about two to four miles from the proposed Springfield casino site. These citizens sought to mobilize surrounding community opposition after the MGM/ Springfield HCA was approved by a 57%-42% margin (opponents in Springfield were outspent $14,236 to $2,255,111 by casino proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (Springfield), http://ocpf. cloudapp.net/Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending).

-7-

Their efforts resulted in a Longmeadow Special Town Meeting vote opposing a casino in Springfield and West Springfield, a unanimous vote of the Longmeadow School Board opposing a Springfield casino, and a vote at the East Longmeadow Town Meeting opposing all casinos in Western Massachusetts.2 No Casino West Springfield, Inc. Alan Cabot and Nathan Bech are residents and registered voters of the City of West Springfield who are incorporators and directors of No Casino West Springfield, Inc. (NCSWI). NCSWI was organized to educate and increase public awareness of the adverse health and social costs of gambling and the associated detriments to the greater West Springfield community and opposed the proposed HCA with Hard Rock Intl for a casino in that city. The HCA was defeated by margin of 55%-45%, with NCWSI being outspent by $14,550 to $1,071,105 for the casino
2

See https://www.myworldnews.com/Channel/442wwlp/Story/ 255453-longmeadow-votes-against-apotential-casino; https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=5w9tWKnKm8&index =2&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7 Chd1blql1n8G_YWDc1Rok [vote at 2:40:00]); https:// docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid =sites&srcid =bG9uZ21lYWRvdy5rMTIubWEudXN8d3d3fGd4OjM4ZmVlZW QzMzZjODYxNjg (Minutes); https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v= TG96kc22K-&list=PLDEmFQOMKpX7rs3SBIX umygPZtMFMf2_K ([vote around 51:00]); http:// www.wggb.com/2013/10/22/ surrounding-communitiessound-concerns-over-mgm-springfield/

-8-

proponents. OCPF-Casino Ballot Question Spending Reports (West Springfield), http://ocpf. cloudapp.net/ Reports/CasinoBallotQuestionSpending No Slots Millbury. Lesa McWalters, Melinda Taylor and Brian Ashmankas are residents and registered voters in the Town of Millbury. Mr. Ashmankas serves as a member of the Millbury Board of Selectmen and was the only member to oppose the HCA between the Town and Rush Street Gaming for a slots parlor to be located in Millbury. These citizens organized and supported the community organization know as No Slots Millbury and, as a result of the educational efforts of that organization, Rush Street decided to withdraw its proposal just days before the scheduled referendum on the HCA. S. Sutner, Rush Street drops Millbury slots plan developer cites opposition as factor, WORCESTER TELEGRAM & GAZETTE, Sept.8, 2013, http://www.telegram.com/ article/20130906/NEWS/309069564/0 Robert Bolduc is a resident and registered voter of Longmeadow, Massachusetts. He has been associated for years with the Springfield area chain of 28 gas

station/convenience stores operated by Pride Stores LLC,(PSI) one of which is located on property (leased

-9-

to PSI by Pride Convenience, Inc.) that abuts the proposed MGM Springfield casino site. PSIs stores also are Massachusetts Lottery agents. William Dwight is a resident and registered voter in the City of Northampton and serves as the City Council Chair. Northampton petitioned for surrounding community (SC) status under c.23K, 17, being about nineteen miles proximity to the proposed Springfield casino, a community that was denied SC status by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC). Edward voter in S. the Harrison Town of a resident and registered Board of

Monson.

Monsons

Selectmen and other community leaders established a Western MA Casino Task Force in September 2007: To assure that the economic, social and quality of life interests of communities Region are within and the all Western impacts

Massachusetts

protected

resulting from the potential development of expanded gambling/gaming within the Region are recognized.

-10-

ARGUMENT A STATEWIDE VOTE BY THE PEOPLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ART. 48 ON WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW OR RESTRICT COMMERCIAL CASINO GAMBLING IN MASSACHUSETTS IS THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND EFFECTIVE MEANS BY WHICH ALL THOSE IMPACTED BY THESE PROPOSED FACILITIES CAN FORM AND EXPRESS AN INFORMED CHOICE ON THE SUBJECT. A. The Gaming Law Disenfranchised Most Communities and Citizens Impacted by the Introduction of Commercial Casino Gambling in Massachusetts from Meaningful Participation._________________ As enacted, the Gaming Law appeared to promise that all citizens who would be impacted by the introduction of casino gambling in the Commonwealth would have a voice in the process of licensing the casinos, if any, by the MGC. As the implementation of the Gaming Law has unfolded, however, the statute actually has enabled a small percentage of municipalities and other financially interested parties to dictate the terms under which the proposed casinos will be permitted. The overwhelming majority of citizens and municipal leaders within the vast majority of affected communities have been largely frozen out of the process. The purposes of the Gaming Law include: ensuring public confidence in the integrity of the gaming licensing process and protecting all citizens and

-11-

municipalities in proximity to a [casino] which... experience or are likely to experience impacts from the development or operation of a gaming establishment .... G.L.c. 23K, 1(1), 2 (definition surrounding community). See also G.L.c.23K, 15(9)(surrounding community agreements must include documentation of public outreach and stipulations of known impacts from the development and operation of a gaming establishment); G.L.c. 23K, 17(designation of surrounding communities); G.L.c. 23K, 19(a)(gaming licensee must provide convincing evidence that a gaming establishment provides value to the region in which it the gaming establishment is proposed to be located and to the commonwealth) Reality turned out

to be quite different from expectations. First, the Gaming Law had provided that only voters in a host community
3

would be allowed to vote

on whether to approve the terms of the HCA entered

A host community is a municipality in which a gaming applicant has proposed locating a gaming establishment. G.L.c.23K, 2. A gaming establishment is the premises approved under a gaming license which include a gaming area and any other non-gaming structures related to the gaming area and may include, but shall not be limited to, hotels, restaurants or other ameneties. c.23K, 2.

-12-

into by their municipal officials with a gaming applicant. G.L.c.23K, 15(13)(voter referendum on HCAs) Gaming applicants were able to use the

imprecisely worded definitions of a host community to reduce the number of communities in which a voter referendum approving the HCA arguably would be required. The current issues in this regard over the Wynn/Everett and Mohegan Sun/Revere sites are now well known. See, e.g., T. Keane, Challenging the boundaries and definition of, host community, The Boston Globe, April 6, 2014; MGC Public Meeting #116, April 3, 2014, pp. 94-132, http://massgaming.com/wpcontent/uploads/ Transcript-4.3.14.pdf. Similarly, in Leominster, the project site abuts the Lancaster/Leominster line, but no one in Lancaster could vote on the proposal, even abutters to the project who could see the site from their own properties across the municipal line. See e.g., MGC Public Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 194-203, 207-211, 240-244, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-12-3-13-HC.pdf (Lancaster residents) Thus, the one electoral choice provided under the Gaming Law has kept the number of voters entitled to

-13-

vote on whether to permit commercial gambling in the Commonwealth to a very select few. In fact, a total number of 53,923 voters turned out in the six municipalities that voted to approve an HCA, and a total of 79,560 voters turned out in all ten referenda held. In the aggregate, this turnout represents 1.2% and 1.8%, respectively, of the 4,342,000 registered voters in the Commonwealth (which compares to the 55% turnout of voters in the most recent [2010] Statewide Election for Governor) and a net margin of 5,086 votes, of 0.01% of total registered voters in the Commonwealth.4

State voter registrations: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ ele12/06NOV2012_ST_Party_Enrollment_Stats_3.pdf; http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollment_count_regdt _10132010.pdf;http://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/ele10/enrollme nt_count_regdt_10132010.pdf Referenda:http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/201308 13/News/308139891 (Raynham); https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/Qpbb-9_9Tc/ Section%205 %20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-04%20Certified%20Results.pdf (Springfield); https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ vrqj2y9n64tipkn/PUBPewBWYU/Section%205%20Mitigation/Wy nn%205-05-03%20Official%20Election %20Results.pdf (Everett); http://www.sentineland enterprise.com/ news/ci_24171176/slots-win-big-leominster-bid-nowgoes-before (Leominster); https://www.dropbox.com /sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/Section%205%20Mitigatio n/SGR%205-05-01%20Election%20Result%20Cert..pdf (Plainville); www.revere.org/docs/election/ CityElection20131105.pdf (Revere); http:// www.boston.com/metrodesk/blogs/in-the-cards/2013/

-14-

The voting in these referenda breaks down as follows Municipality Turnout Raynham 21.5% Springfield 24.7% Everett 32.1% Leominster 33.0% Plainville 37.0% Revere (11/2013) 42.6% East Boston 47.0% W.Springfield 45.7% Palmer 62.1% Milford 56.6% TOTAL For HCA 1822 13973 5320 5235 1582 6566 3353 3413 2564 3480 42073 Opposed to HCA 290 10260 833 3306 502 4232 4381 4165 2657 6361 36987

Source: See footnote 3, page 14-15. It is noteworthy that, of the ten community referenda held, the six municipalities that approved HCA referenda had the lowest turnouts, and the four that rejected HCAs had the highest turnout. Similarly, the statutory standing granted to surrounding communities has been shrunk to its smallest possible atomic size. The MGC has, in effect, narrowly defined the statutory known impacts [G.L.c.23K, 15(9)] that trigger surrounding community

11/05/casino/kAfAFsb6QJJE1tmF2Y2umK/ blog.html(East Boston); boston.com/metrodesk/2013/09/10/springfieldrejects-casino-plainridge-wins-approval/ sF6B1Sme3kqyR9nUbIZL9L/story.html (W.Springfield); http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/ 2013/11/2013_palmer_mohegan_sun_massac.html (Palmer); http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/19/turnoutbrisk-voters-have-their-say-milford-casino-proposal/ jtr02uGtmtqxQhFEnMAEeJ/story.html (Milford)

-15-

(SC) status to turn, largely, on issues of traffic congestion. This, despite considerable research that demonstrates that the known impacts of commercial casinos extends along a range of social and economic issues that implicate numerous consequences for private enterprise and municipal services many miles away from the casino site.5 For example, after hearing presentations about the impact of a Springfield casino on their communities, the MGC used a narrow definition of surrounding community to deny SC status to Northampton, within 18 miles and a 20 minute drive to the proposed MGM Springfield casino, and Hampden, abutting a corner of Springfield. See, MGC Public Meeting #104, January 28, 2014, pp. 10-78, http:// massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-1-28-14Open.pdf; MGC Public Meeting #107, February 18, 2014,

See, e.g., Jaret & Hogan, A Desperate Gamble, AARP BULLETIN/REAL POSSIBILITIES, Jan./Feb. 2014, Institute for American Values, NEW YORKS PROMISE WHY SPONSORING CASINOS IS A REGRESSIVE POLICY WORTHY OF A GREAT STATE (IAV 2013); Zeittlow, SENIORS IN CASINO LAND: TOUGH LUCK FOR OLDER AMERICANS (IAV 2013); Shull, ADDICTION BY DESIGN: MACHINE GAMBLING IN LAS VEGAS (Princeton U. Press 2012); Spectrum Gaming Group, Gambling in Connecticut: analyzing the Economic and Social Impacts, June 22, 2009, www.spectrumgaming.com

-16-

pp. 3-72, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-2.18.14.pdf Similarly, Sterling, although situated directly south on a major state route to Leominster) was denied SC status. MGC Public Meeting (Leominster), January 28, 2014, Transcript, pp. 41-43, http://massgaming. com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-1-28-14-Leominster. pdf; MGC Public Meeting #91, November 21, 2013, Transcript, pp.70-85, http://massgaming.com/wpcontent/uploads/Transcript-11-21-13.pdf Moreover, communities that were able to secure SC status have been forced to negotiate a Surrounding Community Agreement (SCA) for their known impacts with very little information, as compared with the much greater bargaining power of the gaming applicants. For, example, the Town of Princeton, abutter to Leominster, accepted the de minimus offer of a $5,000 minimum annual mitigation fee. Bolton ($35,000 minimum), Holyoke ($85,000)and Lancaster ($200,000) and Foxboro ($250,000) faired only a little better. See Surrounding Community Agreements for Bolton & Lancaster(Leominister), Holyoke(Springfield)

-17-

& Foxboro (Plainville) at http://massgaming.com/wpcontent/uploads/Applicant-status.pdf Some communities could procure mere agreements that impacts would be determined after the casino opened for business by a study commissioned by the casino operator. See, e.g., Surrounding Community

Agreements for Attleboro, Mansfield, North Attleboro & Wrentham (Plainville), http://massgaming.com/wpcontent/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf These agreements all passed muster with MGC. Id. Of particular note is the MGM Springfield HCA, which contains provisions that cap MGMs liability for surrounding community mitigation payments and if the actual costs of mitigation exceed that cap, the City of Springfield will share in the overage thus, creating a perverse incentive for Springfield to keep mitigation payments to nearby communities low. MGM/ Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01 (HCA Exh. D), https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/VT3bIdQXW9/ Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-04-01%20HCA.pdf Given this conflict, it comes as no surprise that the Sarno Interveners Brief (of Springfield voters) would argue that as one of the four municipalities

-18-

chosen for a casino, Springfield had the rights of home rule and the other 347 municipalities across the state should not be allowed to invalidate their decision to accept a casino within their borders by enacting a law through the Initiative.(Sarno Interveners Brief,pp.13). This argument, apart from impermissibly claiming that legislative actions trump constitutional ones, presents one example of how selfcentered behavior has turned a blind eye to the interests of other impacted communities and the interests of their citizens that are supposedly meant to be equally valued elements under the Gaming Law. See G.L.c.23K, 15(9) & 19(a) In sum, the limited opportunity for electoral choice and public participation presented under the Gaming Law, in fact, combined with next point, namely, that the information provided to voters has often been less than complete, punctuates how foreign the Gaming Law experience has been from the level playing field provided to voters through the Initiative process.

-19-

B. Negotiation of Some HCAs, SCAs and Voter Referenda Proceeded With Incomplete Information That Skewed the Outcome._______________________ As envisioned by the Constitutional Convention and implemented by the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, the Initiative process under Art.48 provides a carefully balanced process through which the people may exercise their right to enact laws. See, e.g., Hurst v. State Ballot Commn, 427 Mass. 825, 828 (1998) This process provides for a threshold indicia of support from voters throughout the Commonwealth (not just a few communities or one or two counties). Amend Art.48, Pt.II, 3; Amend.Art.48, Gen. Provisions. The Attorney General is obligated to

prepare an impartial fair and neutral summary to be placed on the ballot. Id; G.L.c.54, 53. The Secretary is obliged to prepare a Voter Guide that is sent to all registered voters in the Commonwealth well in advance of the election which contains the Attorney Generals summary together with a more detailed position statement from the questions proponents and the opponents, chosen by the Secretary. G.L.c.54, 53 & 54. By virtue of these provisions, the Art. 48 Initiative process permits voters to carefully study

-20-

an Initiative proposal, take time to learn more about it, and, on Election Day, be prepared to make an informed choice that can truly be described as the expression of a unified public policy of the majority of the people of the Commonwealth. cf. Carney v. Attorney General, 447 Mass. 218, 230-31 (2006) (Carney I) The experience under the Gaming Act has been a stark contrast to the Initiative process. First, the ballot summary provided to voters in an HCA referendum is a one-sided presentation, that must be concise (but not necessarily neutral or fair), prepared, without oversight, by proponents and host community counsel. G.L.c.23K, 15(13); cf. G.L.c.53, 18B (provides for a fair and concise summary of other municipal ballot questions, together with information that sets forth arguments both for and against the proposal). Thus, without a statutory or constitutional requirement for a fair or neutral summary, casino ballot summaries have

-21-

cherry-picked the details of the HCA to emphasize the benefits without explaining the risks.6 Second, voters were frequently required to cast their ballots without having critical information about the gaming applicant or the proposed facility. In a particularly egregious example, the Plainville HCA was signed on July 8, 2013, without disclosure that the proposed applicant, Ourway Realty LLC, knew that the MGC was about to report unfavorably on its suitability. Neither Ourway nor the MGC informed
6

MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ 0xm7izslcu15iqi/i1G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/ MGM%205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary% 2BBallot.pdf; Wynn Ballot https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64tipkn/Xc0-zCwDkT/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Wynn%205-05-02%20HCA%20 Summary.pdf; Plainville Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/ynb0gze7k7yjqfz/XjyaYzf00d/ Section%205%20Mitigation/SGR%205-05-01%20Election %20Result%20Cert..pdf; Leominster Ballot Summary, https:// www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/ 6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-0502%20Summ%20of%20Host%20Comm%20Ag.pdf; Leominster HCA Summary,https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/WRqw3ZIAY/Section%205%20Mitigation/PPE%205-0501%20Election%20Order.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs HCA Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/ GomAp-xRmO/Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-0505%20Summary%20SSR-RevereHCA.pdf; Revere/Suffolk Downs Ballot, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wkascadjn9ddq6x/ eWObZ2yDCA/ Section%205%20Mitigation/Mohegan%205-0506%20Revere %20Nov% 20Ballot.pdf Copies of these ballot summaries are attached in Addendum A.

-22-

Plainville about the looming financial problems at Plainridge, about the culture of fear and concealment pervasive in the operations of Plainridge, or about the unauthorized withdrawals from the money room by its president, which surfaced two weeks later at the adjudicatory hearing on Ourways suitability, and resulted in its disqualification as an applicant. R.A. 45-47, 22, 25; R.A.346-357, Exh.23. It was not for

another month, and just six days before the referendum on the HCA, that Penn National was disclosed to Plainville voters as Ourways replacement and, this too, before MGC made any determination of Penns suitability. R.A.47, 25; R.A.368-375, Exh.26 Other examples of the lack of candor with voters in the HCA referenda process: Leominster voters approved an HCA that described a 16 acre parcel with a 125,000 square foot gaming facility and no hotel and the proposal that was actually filed with MGC was for a facility on 26 acres which also shows a future hotel and potential expansion of the gaming facility to 175,000 square feet. This plan was approved in a fast-track zoning approval that

-23-

residents questioned. The MGC professed no authority to inquire or hear even brief argument about the validity of the zoning decision in its deliberations. See MGC Public Meeting #93, Transcript, pp.25-27,73-82,103-106,214, http:// massgaming. com/wp-content/uploads/ Transcript12-3-13-HC.pdf (Public Statements); PPE RFA2 Attch 05-03-01, HCA, p.1, https://www.dropbox. com/sh/xwert9j1tm4hz04/6YvJW5xvHf/Section%205%20 Mitigation/PPE%205-05-02%20Summ%20of%20Host%20 Comm%20Ag.pdf [Copy in Addendum A] As noted earlier, Springfield voters approved an HCA which contained an obligation by the City to share in a portion of the costs of mitigation caused by MGM to surrounding communities, a provision that is buried in the fine print of the HCA without mentioning it in the ballot summary. Similarly, the ballot summary referred to MGMs agreement to pay the City a sum in lieu of taxes, omitting that this provision represented a multi-million dollar tax break to MGM at

-24-

taxpayer expense.7 Springfield voters were also kept in the dark about the serious traffic congestion and air quality problems at the intersection where the MGM Springfield casino would be placed, whose impacts have been long apparent and acknowledged to regulators, but which, now, suddenly seem not being addressed or even questioned by anyone.8 Not until January 2014, long after the referendum, was a report on health issues presented to MGC that described how the casino would exacerbate the congestion and pollution issues, including more driving under the influence and increased risk for collisions and increased likelihood of associated injury and fatalities as well as an increase in regional air pollution. The report stated: Vulnerable populations that will experience disproportionate effects include children, elderly, and those with
7

MGM/Springfield RFA2 Attch 05-04-01, HCA Exhs. D & U, https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ VT3bIdQXW9/Section%205%20Migation/MGM%205-0401%20HCA.pdf See MGC Public Meeting, April 1, 2014, Transcript, pp. 200-205, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/ Transcript-4.1.14.pdf; MGC Public Meeting, March 3, 2014, Transcript, pp. 161-165, http://massgaming.com/ wp-content/uploads/Transcript-3-3-14.pdf.
8

-25-

pre-existing conditions. . . Hispanics and African-Americans will be disproportionately impacted as they experience high rates of asthma and cardiovascular disease hospitalizations when compared to non-Hispanic Whites. In particular, a large number of Hispanics live within 200 meters of the likely local casino access routes and would be exposed to the increases in near roadway air pollution.9 Perhaps the most troubling misconception that voters have suffered was the characterization of the proposed casinos as destination resorts that would attract tourists good to Massachusetts For example, and the create thousands of

jobs.

Springfield

Ballot

Summary stated: If approved by the voters of Springfield, the Host Community Agreement . . . requires MGM to develop a destination casino resort in the downtown area of Springfield. (emphasis added).10

Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc., Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report, January 2014, pp.53-60, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf
10

See, e.g., MGM Ballot Summary, https://www.dropbox.com/ sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/G6ELuzyE/Section%205%20Mitigation/MGM %205-05-02%20HCA%20Summary%20Ballot.pdf [Copy in Addendum A]

-26-

As the casino applications now confirm, however, none of the proposed facilities remotely resemble

destination resorts. In fact, all the proposals are scaled-down derive most to convenience of their gambling revenues by facilities inducing than they that local have

residents

gamble

more

frequently

done before and spend more of their money at these facilities elsewhere that in the would local otherwise economy. have See been spent 290

R.A.

262,

(Exh.17), [UMass/Dartmouth Center for Policy Analysis, New England Casino Update, 2013, p.13] MGM Springfield projects 8.1 million visits 2.6 million (32%) from Hampden Co. residents [18+pop. 399,528]11, 781,000 million (10%) from Berkshire, Franklin and Hampshire Co. residents [18+pop.

200,451] and 4.1 million from other Day-Trippers (51%). Overnight guests at MGM Springfields

resort hotel will make up only 3% (116,000) of the total visits. R.A. 192-193 (Exh.13)12

11

U.S. Census Bureau,quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/ states/

Blue Tarp RFA-2 Attachment 3-01-01 (HR&A Advisors, pp.28-29),https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0xm7izslcu15iqi/ sA3NIwBJDT/Section%203%20Economic%20Development/MGM %203-01-01%20HRA%20Impacts%20Study.pdf [Copy in Addendum B]

12

-27-

Wynn MA predicts 44% of its revenue from 3 million Local Market visits by residents living less than 30-minutes away and another 15% from about 1 million other Local Market residents living 30 to 60 minutes away, whom Wynn predicts will gamble at the casino, on average, 10 to 11 times per year. Only 9% of revenue is expected to come from 1,427 high yield international gamers and another 5% from other tourism. R.A. 197-199.13 Mohegan Sun projects 8.1 million visits to a Revere casino. Of the total visits, 2.0 million (25%) are predicted to be residents of Revere and the three other towns in Suffolk Co. (Boston,

Wynn RFA-2 Attach 3-01-03(TMG Consulting Report, pp.57-58,71), https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vrqj2y9n64 tipkn/KFabU0tSqR/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Wynn%203-01-03 %20TMG%20Report.pdf [Copy in Addendum B] Steve Wynns dependence on local gambling explains why he (the only casino applicant that did not join in opposing the Plaintiffs lawsuit), acknowledged in honest candor that he actually considers putting the repeal of the Gaming Law on the ballot a positive, since he would not want to build a casino in a state whose citizens were against it. B. Mohl, Steve Wynn Puts His Cards on the Table, COMMONWEALTH MAGAZINE (Spring 2014), http://www.commonwealthmagazine.org/ Voices/ Conversation/2014/Spring/001-Dont-bet-againstme.aspx#.U0snX6IdySo

13

-28-

Chelsea & Winthrop). Another 4.2 million visits (51%) will be residents of neighboring Norfolk, Essex and Middlesex Cos combined. Only 3% of total visits are predicted to come from anywhere outside New England. R.A.186-187 (Exh.12)14 Similarly, the RFA2 applications filed show that the good jobs promised by the proponents are a handful of top spots in the executive suite as well as a few hundred others, while many jobs will be entry level positions that will not even pay enough to constitute a livable wage.15

14

Mohegan Sun RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report.p.19) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic %20Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact. Pdf [Copy in Addendum B]
15

The top nine (9) executives at Mohegan Sun Revere will earn an average of $157,642. Average pay for all other Mohegan Sun Revere employees is set at $18,380 (plus tips, for some, that Mohegan Sun claims will average $42,000 for beverage workers, $21,000 for dealers and $2,400 for hospitality staff). Mohegan Sun Massachusetts, LLC, RFA-2 Attachment 3-02-02(Tourism Economics Report. P.13) https://www.dropbox.com/sh /wkascadjn9ddq6x/vzKdy4Gqb0/Section%203%20Economic%20 Development/Mohegan%203-02-02%20Economic%20Impact.pdf The Mashpee Tribe plans to pay its Taunton Casino top executive $434,000 and other senior executives an average $198,540. By comparison, the starting pay for other casino workers will range from $9,043 plus tips for beverage workers to $23,513 a year for cage workers, with the starting pay for administrative jobs

-29-

In the Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report filed with MGC in January 2014, the following conclusions were reached about jobs at the proposed Springfield casino: The Crittendon Womens Economic Independence Index Report provides estimates of the. . . the amount needed for a single parent family with one child . . . . to be self-sufficient was $40,296 if the child was pre-school age, and $36,804 if the child was school age. The line level and administrative positions do not meet this threshold . . . . [A]t least 28% of positions would not provide an income that would allow self-sufficiency for a single parent family with one child in Hampden County, Massachusetts. . . . Evidence suggests that turnover rates may be as high as 40% for entry-level unskilled casino positions. Casino employees have been found to have a higher prevalence of health risk behaviors (smoking, alcohol, and problem gambling), which negatively impact health. It is unclear the extent to which MGMs stated policy that employees are not allowed to gamble onsite will affect the likelihood of increased risk of problem gambling. A large proportion of resort casino employees will work non-standard work hours, or shiftwork, which has been associated with an increased risk for at $18,087. HR&A Advisors, Economic Impacts of Project First Light (May 30, 2012), pp. 16-17, filed at www.taunton-ma.gov/Pages/TauntonMA_Mayor/ destinationresortupdates [Copies of these data are attached in Addendum B] (The 2014 federal poverty level is $19,530 for a 3person family and $23,850 for a 4-person family.2014 HHS Poverty Guidelines, 79 F.R. 3593, January 22, 2014)

-30-

chronic disease, cancer, and mental health conditions through 1) increased sleep disturbance and circadian rhythm disruption, and 2) negative impacts on family cohesion. Best available evidence suggests that 23-40% of casino gaming positions will work night shift-work, which has the most risk for negative impacts due to circadian rhythm disruption.16 Unfortunately, Springfield voters did not have the benefit of any of this analysis at the time they voted on the HCA. The unvarnished truth about casino math is not hard to grasp. This came through with the clarity that no expert could have provided when a Springfield seventh grader stepped up to speak to the MGC at a recent public meeting on the MGM casino plan: My name is Tynesha Andrews . . . Im here today because Im the future and I am deeply concerned with the type of world you are creating for my generation. I dont fully understand all the long-term effects and pros and cons of gambling. You call it gaming but I do understand that gaming is designed to take peoples money and not give it back. . . . Now Im hearing of . . . how my future is geared towards . . . jobs that are designed around gambling. . . . Instead of using big and fancy words, if you look at casino gaming in a simpler picture and for what it truly is or look at things in a kids point of view, maybe you
16

Partners for a Healthier Community, Inc. Western Massachusetts Casino Impact Assessment Report, January 2014, pp. 27-30, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Commissioners-Packet-1-23-14.pdf

-31-

will see things differently and will understand. . . . Like I said earlier, I might not understand everything but I do know gaming is designed to take peoples money and not give it back. MGC Public Meeting #116, April 3, 2014, pp.149-151, http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript4.3.14.pdf. C. When Voters Had Sufficient Time and Information Such As Afforded Under the Initiative Process A Majority Consistently Rejected the Prospect of Commercial Casino Gambling.____________________ The debate about allowing commercial casino gambling in the Commonwealth has been a contest that pits money against time. When voters in a community have had enough time to be educated on the issues, more often than not, they have rejected the overtures of casino developers. Only when voters have been forced to a rush to judgment and have not been afforded the time to learn all the facts, have the tantalizing offers of jobs and revenue and proponents blizzard of advertizing money bought the casino developers a victory. See e.g., MGC Public Meeting #93, Transcript, pp. 174-179, 184-189, http:// massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-12-3-13HC.pdf (speakers reviewing the short window provided

-32-

for voter review on Leominster proposal during summer vacation for many and asking for another vote) It is no coincidence that, in mid-summer (July) 2013, Springfield voters approved the HCA with MGM by a 15% margin in favor, while, in September 2013, West Springfield voters, with two more months to become educated, rejected the HCA with Hard Rock by a 10% margin against that proposal. See http://massgaming. com/wp-content/ uploads/Applicant-status.pdf This pattern carries through all of the other referenda, save for Leominster and Revere: Everett Raynham Plainville W.Springfield Leominster East Boston Palmer Revere-1 Milford 6/22/2013 8/24/2013 9/10/2013 9/10/2013 9/24/2013 11/05/2014 11/05/2013 11/05/2013 11/19/2013 HCA HCA HCA HCA HCA HCA HCA HCA HCA Approved Approved Approved REJECTED Approved REJECTED REJECTED Approved REJECTED

See http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/ Applicant-status.pdf. A similar trend also appears to be emerging in the voter polling that has been conducted. WBUR Poll: Public Opinion In Mass. Shifts

Rapidly On Casinos, Marijuana, http://www.wbur.org/ 2014/03/19/wbur-poll-casinos-marijuana

-33-

Indeed, casino proponents tactics to keep voters in the dark is manifest even in the proceedings before this Court, where belated intervention has pushed the resolution of this matter to the latest possible date, thus, truncating the period for waging an active educational campaign. The amici believe that each day that the uncertainty about the fate of the Initiative Petition lingers truncates the amount of time available to the task of voter education and, thus, continues to tilt the playing field in the casino developers favor. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, a statewide vote under the provisions of the Initiative to give all the people the right to decide whether or not to permit commercial casinos to be constructed within the Commonwealth should be allowed to proceed. Unless this question appears on the November 2014 ballot, the choice of whether to suffer the potentially adverse and irreversible effects of introducing these facilities will have been decided by a few selfinterested and well-financed parties at the expense of the rights of the majority of the people who live and

-34-

work in the Commonwealth and have a stake, but no vote, in the matter as it now stands.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/____________________ Nicole Micheroni BBO#68022 Attorney At Law 256 Marginal Street Boston, MA 02128 (617) 567-0508 nichole.micheroni@gmail.com

-35-

PROOF OF SERVICE I, Nicole Micheroni, hereby certify under the penalty of perjury that I served the within brief by causing two copies thereof to be mailed on April 16, 2014, via first-class mail to: Thomas O. Bean, Esq. Verrill Dana LLP One Boston Place Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02108 Peter Sacks, Esq. State Solicitor One Ashburton Place 20th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Carl Valvo, Esq. Cosgrove, Eisenberg and Kiley, P.C. One International Place Boston, MA 02110 Paul Capizzi, Esq. City of Revere Law Department 281 Broadway Revere, MA 02151 Edward M. Pikula, Esq. City of Springfield Law Department 36 Court Street Springfield, MA 01103 Frank E. Antonucci, Esq. Antonucci & Associates 83 State Street, Suite 204 Springfield, MA 01103

/s/____________________ Nicole Micheroni BBO#680222

-36-

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I, Nichole Micheroni, hereby certify that this brief complies with the rules of court that pertain to the filing of briefs.

/s/_____________________ Nicole Micheroni, BBO#680222

-37-

ADDENDUM A
A1-A7 A8-A11 A12-A16 A17-A19 A20-A23 WYNN/EVERETT HCA BALLOT SUMMARY MGM/SPRINGFIELD HCA BALLOT SUMMARY PPE/LEOMINSTER HCA BALLOT SUMMARY PLAINVILLE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY SUFFOLK DOWNS/REVERE HCA BALLOT SUMMARY

ADDENDUM B
B1 EXCERPTS MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-02-02 TOURISM ECONOMICS MARKET PROJECTIONS EXCERPTS WYNN RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-03 TMG CONSULTING MARKET PROJECTIONS EXCERPTS MGM/BLUE TARP RFA-2 ATTACH 03-01-01 HR&A ADVISORS, INC MARKET PROJECTIONS EXCERPT MOHEGAN SUN RFA-2 ATTCH 03-02-02 TOURISM ECONOMICS PAYROLL PROJECTIONS EXCERPT FIRST LIGHT/TAUNTON HR&A ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY PAYROLL PROJECTIONS

B2-B5

B6-B7

B8

B10

ADDENDUM C
C1-C4 EXCERPTS CORDISH/LEOMINSTER POST-REFERENDUM PRESENTATION TO MGC OCTOBER 7, 2013 EXCERPTS PPE/LEOMINSTER RFA-2 APPLICATIONOCTOBER 4, 2013

C5-C7

ADDENDUM D

D1-D4

Constitution of Massachusetts, Amend Art. XVIII, The Initiative, Sections 1-3 Constitution of Massachusetts, Amed. Art. LXXIV G.L.c. 23K, 1 G.L.c. 23K, 2 G.L.c. 23K, 3 G.L.c. 23K, 15 G.L.c. 23K, 17 G.L.c. 23K, 18 G.L.c. 23K, 19 G.L.c. 23K, 20 G.L.c. 53, 18B G.L.c. 54, 53 G.L.c. 54, 54

D5 D6-D9 D9-D12 D12-D13 D13-D17 D17-D19 D19-D22 D22-DD23 D23-D24 D25-D27 D28-D29 D29