Massachusetts residents and animal‑welfare advocates press committee to tighten review of racetrack and simulcast proposals

BOSTON — Dozens of residents, veterinarians and animal‑welfare advocates urged the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure to advance legislation that would require more upfront review and local control over proposals to build horse racetracks or simulcasting facilities, and would expand animal‑welfare protections for racing horses.

Supporters of House Bill 356 said current law allows racetrack developers to seek local governing‑body approval without providing the engineering, traffic, environmental and public‑health studies that accompany most large developments. “This bill gives Massachusetts communities the support needed and the transparency required by horse racing and simulcasting developers to make educated informed decisions,” said Janelle Manoa of New Marlborough, who testified in support.

Barbara Kellogg and other local activists described multiple proposed projects since the 2019 closure of Suffolk Downs that, they said, lacked adequate land, environmental review or traffic planning. Kellogg said one proposal in Leominster described a 1‑mile track requiring about 55 acres, but developers were proposing a 40‑acre site that included capped landfill and plans the developers acknowledged would not meet typical needs. “H 356 takes these proposals and requires the developers to do the studies and the plans that they would be required to do in any large development,” Kellogg said.

Several animal‑welfare witnesses, including Nicholas Dodman, professor emeritus, Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, and Pam Youngquist of Great Barrington, urged the committee to consider harm to horses. Dodman described “extraordinary” breakdowns, use of drugs and the industry’s limited pathways for retiring horses. Multiple witnesses cited deaths at existing venues as evidence of systemic welfare problems.

Supporters also said H 356 would require municipal planning‑board and conservation‑commission review and would add a resident ballot requirement for new racetracks and simulcast facilities—steps they said would prevent communities from bearing the cost and uncertainty of late‑stage permitting.

Representatives of the New England Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association and other industry‑aligned witnesses opposed legislation that would effectively end or sharply curtail racing or extend simulcasting restrictions. Paul Umbrello, executive director of the New England Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, said racing supports farms, veterinarians, transportation and college equine programs and that industry reforms and federal measures, including the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act, have increased regulatory oversight. “We are the only equine discipline out there that is now heavily regulated at the state and federal level,” Umbrello testified.

The committee heard sharply divergent claims about slaughter and mortality rates, and witnesses disputed each other’s numbers and characterizations of industry reform. Several witnesses urged the committee to consider reforms that would require developers to present completed environmental impact statements, traffic studies and engineering plans prior to any municipal vote.

No committee action was taken on the bills during the hearing.