Plainville wrong place for slot machine parlor

Plainville wrong place for slot machine parlor

To the editor: I attended the Plainville Board of Selectmen meeting Monday. Among the many agenda items, two stood out. One was a report from Julie and Jeff Kinney regarding the status of the old Falk building. The second was a proposal for a slot machine license at Plainridge by Plainridge president Gary Piontikowski. I was struck by the contrast between these two presentations. Julie and Jeff Kinney are doing something to improve the town of Plainville. They are interested in either restoring a landmark building or, if that is not possible, creating a similar building to improve the downtown area of Plainville. They clearly are not doing this for financial gain. Instead their focus is on enhancing the character of Plainville. They are proceeding in a manner that is in the best interest of Plainville.

Gary Piontkowski, on the other hand, is motivated by his company's best interest. As he stated several times at the meeting, Plainridge is a business and they are doing what they can to survive. The only possible benefit to the town of Plainville is monetary.

I believe that the negative impact of slot machines in Plainville would far outweigh any financial gain. The neighborhood which is in the closest proximity would suffer the most, but the entire town would be affected. Does anyone really want a slot machine parlor as a neighbor? Gary Piontkowski mentioned that he has a horse farm in Belchertown. Would he favor a slot machine parlor next to his horse farm?

Plainville now enjoys a reputation of being a rural community, a good place to raise a family. Wouldn't this reputation be dramatically changed if Plainville became home to a slot machine parlor? Is this the type of community we want to be a part of? Gary Piontikowski's proposal is not in the best interest of Plainville

Libby Jensen, Plainville