Massachusetts HHR plan opposed by casinos and Tribe

Opponents say the terminals would lack the oversight that slots have.

Key takeaways

• Developer Richard Fields says the Suffolk Downs project could create 1,200 jobs and attract hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and renovation investment.
• Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Chairman Brian Weeden says the terminals resemble slot machines and could undermine tribal sovereignty by bypassing existing gambling rules.
• Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino also oppose the plan, arguing that the current limited-licence system supports accountability and long-term investment.

U.S.- Massachusetts’ plan to authorise historical horse racing terminals at Suffolk Downs and Raynham Park has drawn opposition from casino operators and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. They argue that the proposal could weaken gambling protections and increase competition.

The Massachusetts House approved the licensing measure in July, opening the way for a new form of wagering that supporters say could generate jobs, construction investment and funding for healthcare programmes. Richard Fields, the developer who has spent years pursuing the redevelopment of Suffolk Downs, has backed the proposal.

In an interview with The Boston Globe, Fields said the project could create 1,200 jobs and attract hundreds of millions of dollars in construction and renovation investment. Supporters also estimate that the expansion could contribute more than US$100m annually to the state’s Health Safety Net Trust Fund, which helps provide affordable healthcare to people with limited financial resources.

However, the proposal has generated friction with established gaming operators and tribal representatives, who say the potential economic benefits should not come at the expense of consistent oversight or stakeholder consultation.

Casinos and tribal leaders question the regulatory framework

Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Chairman Brian Weeden has argued that historical horse racing terminals closely resemble slot machines and could undermine tribal sovereignty by bypassing existing gambling rules. “The Commonwealth is considering a proposal that would dramatically expand gaming without the protections and oversight that apply to everyone else,” Weeden said, urging lawmakers to reject the measure and ensure that stakeholders receive equal treatment.

The state’s three regulated gaming venues, Encore Boston Harbor, MGM Springfield and Plainridge Park Casino, have also opposed the proposal. They argue that Massachusetts’ limited-licence system provides accountability and supports long-term investment, while historical horse racing would operate under a separate regulatory framework.

Historical horse racing terminals use the results of previously run races to determine outcomes. Although the races are anonymised and wagers are placed through pari-mutuel pools, the machines resemble traditional slot machines, prompting concerns over whether they should face comparable regulatory requirements.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

• What are historical horse racing terminals? They are machines that use the results of previously run races to determine outcomes. The races are anonymised, and wagers are placed through pari-mutuel pools, but the machines resemble traditional slot machines.
• How much could historical horse racing generate for Massachusetts? Supporters estimate more than US$100m a year for the Health Safety Net Trust Fund, which helps provide affordable healthcare to people with limited financial resources. Developer Richard Fields also projects 1,200 jobs.