This was discovered too late for tonight's
meeting, but
if you know of anyone in surrounding communities, please SHARE!
We
all knew this would progress from Slot Barn to Casino, but Penn Nattional is proposing more impact.
Comments may be sent to the MGC.
This
highlights why REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL is the
only option to keep communities safe.
Dear Wrentham Board of Selectmen:
Plainville selectman Rob Rose refers to the area
of Plainville that includes Plainridge (and my neighborhood) as “almost not in
Plainville.” Well, if it's almost not in Plainville, it has to be somewhere. And
that somewhere is in the neighboring towns of Wrentham and Foxborough. The ill
effects of a casino do not stop at the town lines.
I am writing to you today about the Penn National
RFA-2 application submitted to the MA Gambling Commission (MGC) and how it
differs from the information provided to the people of Plainville before the
referendum vote. While I am including only information about the enormous
outside events being planned by Penn National, one can draw the conclusion that
the numbers of people they're talking about advertising to and getting to the
casino are much greater than anything Ourway/Plainridge ever proposed before the
referendum, and therefore, all of the ills that accompany a casino facility are
increased.
I recently contacted the Plainville planning board
with my concerns that the RFA-2 application submitted to the MGC by Penn National Gaming
differs significantly from what was presented to the people
of Plainville, our planning board, water and sewer commission, conservation
commission, board of health, police department, and fire department
during the planning board
permitting process and prior to the vote on September 10th. The Host Community
Agreement, the planning board’s
Amended Special Permit, and the report from the
gambling consultant hired by the selectmen
were all predicated on information and applications submitted and negotiated by
Ourway/Plainridge, NOT Penn National. I'm sure you would agree that Penn
Nation and Ourway are very,
very different companies.
We have been told that we needn’t be concerned about the Special Permit because Penn National will “adopt the building plans, design concepts and traffic plan that have already been developed by Plainridge for the site" should they win the slots license. After watching Penn National’s presentation to the MGC on October 7th, and after studying their RFA-2 application and what attachments we were allowed to see, we know there is actually much cause for worry.
I offer only a few examples of many:
• After the September 10th Referendum, Penn National changed the name of the proposed facility from "Plainridge Park" to "Plainridge Park Casino." During the planning board hearings regarding the Change of Use and the Amended Special Permit, we were told, over and over again, that the site would host "a RAcino, NOT a CAsino" (they always stressed the first syllable as though it signified something). Representatives of Ourway, Plainville town administrator Joe Fernandes, and even one member of the planning board admonished me and others whenever we used "casino" instead of "racino," assuring us that a racino would not create the same problems that a casino would bring.
Now Penn National has proposed a CAsino — in name and scope — without affording anyone the opportunity to study and plan for the ways in which the Penn National RFA-2 application differs from the original application submitted to the selectmen by Ourway.
• Penn National plans to use their database of "4.3 MILLION active customers" to attract people to the facility. The impact studies done by the Town of Plainville did not take into account this massive marketing database because, when the studies were done in the spring, Penn National was not the company looking to open a casino in Plainville. For example, the studies done by the town showed that area residents should expect an additional 3,071 vehicle per day to and from the casino (http://www.plainville.ma.us/ Pages/PlainvilleMA_EmerNews/S03C0E1F7-043140B1.4/Traffic%20Generation %20Report.pdf). If the facility is marketing to 4.3 million patrons, there will likely be a much larger number of people visiting daily, thus impacting things such as public safety, crime, traffic, property values and the character of our communities.
• During the planning board hearing, every time anyone brought up concerns about outside events — and we brought it up quite a lot — we were told that outside events were NOT a big part of the plan. I guess no one told Penn National, because outside events seem to be quite a large part of their plans:
In
the presentation given by Penn National to the gambling commission on October
7th (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXD7jVfxvrw), PNG said they
want Plainridge Park Casino to become the “entertainment hub” for the area
through, among other things, hosting ticketed events. In this excerpt from
the October 7th transcript (http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-10.7.13.pdf),
Jay Snowden from Penn National states: “...we have 90 acres of land. And so, we
have the ability to put on outdoor festivals, whether that's in the infield of
the racetrack itself or some of the adjacent lands. We've been very successful
in the past of putting up outdoor sprung or tent structures and offering
simulated game shows. We just did this at our Charlestown facility. The Price is
Right, we offered five shows over three nights, 2,000 people per show. All of
them sold out. Let's Make a Deal, Family Feud. These are the type of
things that we can do that, again, will be complementary, they're not done in
the area today”(p. 83).
These types of events were never mentioned in meetings held prior to the September 10th vote, nor were they ever mentioned by Ourway/Plainridge in the permitting process before the planning board. If Penn National is allowed to hold those events, by how much will the traffic exceed the numbers in the consultants’ traffic studies — the ones that assured us there would be a mere trickle of cars throughout the day, fewer than what Lowes or Target sees? What does it mean that thousands of people might be arriving all at once and leaving all at once — many of them under the influence of alcohol — for “five shows over three nights, 2,000 people per show?" Ten thousand people over three days? How many times a year?
Town officials have tried to assuage our concerns by telling us that Penn National would have to apply to the selectmen to get permits for outdoor events, and that residents would have the opportunity then to argue against large-scale outdoor events in our neighborhood. The fact of the matter is, the Plainville selectmen have never said no to Plainridge, and we don’t believe that will change with new owners and a casino. In addition, the Plainville selectmen and the town administrator have spoken quite eloquently about their utter lack of concern for the impact of the casino on our neighboring towns of Wrentham, Foxborough, and North Attleborough. They don't give a damn what happens when those cars leave the land of "almost not in Plainville" and clog our neighbors' roads.
These types of events were never mentioned in meetings held prior to the September 10th vote, nor were they ever mentioned by Ourway/Plainridge in the permitting process before the planning board. If Penn National is allowed to hold those events, by how much will the traffic exceed the numbers in the consultants’ traffic studies — the ones that assured us there would be a mere trickle of cars throughout the day, fewer than what Lowes or Target sees? What does it mean that thousands of people might be arriving all at once and leaving all at once — many of them under the influence of alcohol — for “five shows over three nights, 2,000 people per show?" Ten thousand people over three days? How many times a year?
Town officials have tried to assuage our concerns by telling us that Penn National would have to apply to the selectmen to get permits for outdoor events, and that residents would have the opportunity then to argue against large-scale outdoor events in our neighborhood. The fact of the matter is, the Plainville selectmen have never said no to Plainridge, and we don’t believe that will change with new owners and a casino. In addition, the Plainville selectmen and the town administrator have spoken quite eloquently about their utter lack of concern for the impact of the casino on our neighboring towns of Wrentham, Foxborough, and North Attleborough. They don't give a damn what happens when those cars leave the land of "almost not in Plainville" and clog our neighbors' roads.
Our planning board has addressed our
concerns about the inadequacies of the amended special permit this way: "The
Board has issued a permit for this site, and you have a copy of the approved
decision. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, the Building
Inspector will have to make a determination on the submitted information as
to whether the application conforms to the issued permit or not. If a
determination is made that the activity filed for is non-compliant then it will
be up to the applicant to re-submit to the Planning Board for a revision in
order to proceed."
I know that's the process set forth in our bylaws. But, I also know that our town recently ended up in Land Court and Superior Court because a building inspector didn't do his job, and we nearly had an asphalt plant open in town in spite of by-laws forbidding it. Granted, our current building inspector is very different from his predecessor; still, given the complexity of permitting and overseeing the building and running of a CAsino in our little town, one might understand why so many people are worried — especially those of us who live within a few hundred feet of the facility and the towns who sit so close to the proposed casino site.
I know that's the process set forth in our bylaws. But, I also know that our town recently ended up in Land Court and Superior Court because a building inspector didn't do his job, and we nearly had an asphalt plant open in town in spite of by-laws forbidding it. Granted, our current building inspector is very different from his predecessor; still, given the complexity of permitting and overseeing the building and running of a CAsino in our little town, one might understand why so many people are worried — especially those of us who live within a few hundred feet of the facility and the towns who sit so close to the proposed casino site.
Please, make certain you know what Penn
National is planning in its RFA-2 application before you sign any agreements,
because the Host Community Agreement and the Amended Special Permit do not give
an accurate picture of what's down the road should Penn National get the slots
license at Plainridge.
Best regards,
Mary-Ann Greanier
19 Mirmichi Street
Plainville, MA 02762
508.695.2794
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment