Leominster needs facts – not promises
To the editor:
When Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature approved gaming expansion in November 2011, our state leaders pledged no community and its residents would ever find themselves in the unenviable position of approving or rejecting a gaming referendum without first knowing all the facts. Unfortunately, that simple pledge is not being kept in Leominster.
Please do not mistake the reality of this situation. There is no doubt that a proposed slots parlor will have an impact on the City of Leominster. This is the reason why the gaming industry, unlike any other business, pays a municipality such a high premium to conduct business in the community.
Given the pending referendum, the question for the citizens of Leominster is essentially a balancing act – do the promised revenues from the proposed slots parlor outweigh any negative impact the venture will have on the community?
Leominster is the fourth community in Massachusetts that the Cordish Companies have approached to build a slots parlor. In Boxboro, Danvers and Salisbury before us, for one reason or another, residents and community leaders made it clear that a slots parlor was not welcome.
The debate as to whether or not to allow a slots parlor in Leominster should be driven by an analysis of the potential costs and benefits to having a gaming establishment in the community. We know that there is a significant upside to a slots parlor as outlined in the host community agreement. However, in order to truly weigh the costs vs. benefits of gaming coming to our community we need independent studies covering a range of potential impacts on our community.
A critical issue for those communities who turned away the slots proposal was having a comprehensive set of studies examining the consequences of hosting a slots parlor. This essential step has been ignored in Leominster. These studies would give the Leominster community and business leaders a sense of how our community’s quality of life will be affected - not just how many jobs will be created for our residents, or how much new tax revenue might be generated for the city, but other critical issues that establish who we are and what we value for our community and our families.
These studies would provide insight into many important factors, including the potential social stigma of a slots parlor in the community; the impact on traffic and transportation in the City; the effect on our local restaurants, pubs and other businesses; the effect on property values in the City; and the effect on crime and addiction in the community.
Yet, as we all know, the studies that would help us to derive critical answers so as to judge whether it is worth it for Leominster to wager its future on a slots parlor are not being supplied to us as residents, taxpayers and business owners. Inexplicably, nor were any of these studies required by the Mayor’s office prior to unilaterally entering into a written agreement with the developer.
I am neither pro nor anti-slots parlor. But I am pro-Leominster, and in my ongoing discussions with residents and local business owners, they want to know what they’re being asked to vote on before they vote.
Why should Leominster residents approve a slots parlor on a promise from the Mayor and an out of state developer without first examining their proposal thoroughly? After all, Boxboro, Danvers and Salisbury all said “no” to the slots parlor before the developer “discovered” Leominster.
The Mayor, with funding from the Cordish Companies, should go back to the drawing board and, under state guidelines, issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a whole variety of impartial cost-benefit studies. Once concluded, the Mayor should present these impartial and fact-driven studies to Leominster residents in public forums prior to the September 24 referendum.
The clock is ticking.
Susan Chalifoux Zephir
President, Leominster City Council
http://www.leominsterchamp.com/news/2013-08-30/Opinions_(and)_Editorial/Leominster_needs_facts__not_promises.html
When Governor Deval Patrick and the Legislature approved gaming expansion in November 2011, our state leaders pledged no community and its residents would ever find themselves in the unenviable position of approving or rejecting a gaming referendum without first knowing all the facts. Unfortunately, that simple pledge is not being kept in Leominster.
Please do not mistake the reality of this situation. There is no doubt that a proposed slots parlor will have an impact on the City of Leominster. This is the reason why the gaming industry, unlike any other business, pays a municipality such a high premium to conduct business in the community.
Given the pending referendum, the question for the citizens of Leominster is essentially a balancing act – do the promised revenues from the proposed slots parlor outweigh any negative impact the venture will have on the community?
Leominster is the fourth community in Massachusetts that the Cordish Companies have approached to build a slots parlor. In Boxboro, Danvers and Salisbury before us, for one reason or another, residents and community leaders made it clear that a slots parlor was not welcome.
The debate as to whether or not to allow a slots parlor in Leominster should be driven by an analysis of the potential costs and benefits to having a gaming establishment in the community. We know that there is a significant upside to a slots parlor as outlined in the host community agreement. However, in order to truly weigh the costs vs. benefits of gaming coming to our community we need independent studies covering a range of potential impacts on our community.
A critical issue for those communities who turned away the slots proposal was having a comprehensive set of studies examining the consequences of hosting a slots parlor. This essential step has been ignored in Leominster. These studies would give the Leominster community and business leaders a sense of how our community’s quality of life will be affected - not just how many jobs will be created for our residents, or how much new tax revenue might be generated for the city, but other critical issues that establish who we are and what we value for our community and our families.
These studies would provide insight into many important factors, including the potential social stigma of a slots parlor in the community; the impact on traffic and transportation in the City; the effect on our local restaurants, pubs and other businesses; the effect on property values in the City; and the effect on crime and addiction in the community.
Yet, as we all know, the studies that would help us to derive critical answers so as to judge whether it is worth it for Leominster to wager its future on a slots parlor are not being supplied to us as residents, taxpayers and business owners. Inexplicably, nor were any of these studies required by the Mayor’s office prior to unilaterally entering into a written agreement with the developer.
I am neither pro nor anti-slots parlor. But I am pro-Leominster, and in my ongoing discussions with residents and local business owners, they want to know what they’re being asked to vote on before they vote.
Why should Leominster residents approve a slots parlor on a promise from the Mayor and an out of state developer without first examining their proposal thoroughly? After all, Boxboro, Danvers and Salisbury all said “no” to the slots parlor before the developer “discovered” Leominster.
The Mayor, with funding from the Cordish Companies, should go back to the drawing board and, under state guidelines, issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to conduct a whole variety of impartial cost-benefit studies. Once concluded, the Mayor should present these impartial and fact-driven studies to Leominster residents in public forums prior to the September 24 referendum.
The clock is ticking.
Susan Chalifoux Zephir
President, Leominster City Council
http://www.leominsterchamp.com/news/2013-08-30/Opinions_(and)_Editorial/Leominster_needs_facts__not_promises.html
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment