Holyoke voters face nonbinding questions on casino gambling, needle exchange on Election Day ballot
HOLYOKE -- It's not just politicians on the Election Day ballot here Nov. 5 as voters also will be asked to vote on nonbinding questions regarding casino gambling and needle exchange.
Question 1 asks, "Should the city of Holyoke have a resort style gaming casino?"
Question 2 asks, "Should the city of Holyoke have a needle exchange program?"
Voters approved nonbinding casino questions here in 2002 and 1995, and rejected needle exchange in a nonbinding question in 2001.
City councilors voted in January to put the casino question on the ballot and in June to add the needle exchange question. Councilors said voters deserved a say on casino gambling and needle exchange despite decisions by Mayor Alex B. Morse.
Under a November 2011, licenses will be issued for up to three casino resorts in the state, including one in Western Massachusetts.
The gaming law requires that a developer reach a host-city agreement with a mayor or other community leader in order for such a project to proceed to a community vote. Morse wavered in November when he briefly said he would consider casino plans, but remains opposed -- and that means a casino project cannot move forward here as long as he is mayor.
Springfield voters approved the host community agreement between the city and MGM Resorts International for a gaming resort there on July 16. Palmer voters will decide a similar question on Nov. 5 regarding Mohegan Sun's plan off the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Councilors said Morse's opposition was unfair to Holyokers who wanted to give their current opinion about casino gambling, so they voted to offer the nonbinding question.
"It's a good opportunity for the citizens of Holyoke to have their voices be heard," Ward 2 Councilor Anthony Soto said during the Jan. 15 meeting.
Ward 7 residents have been vocal in fighting a casino here because previous plans have envisioned a gaming resort on the Mount Tom range.
John Epstein, of Harvard Street, said he is among those hoping Holyokers vote down the nonbinding casino question. The same negatives apply, he said: A casino would increase traffic and reduce property values. And, with two casinos permitted elsewhere in Massachusetts and casinos in adjoining states, revenue would be scarce, he said.
"They're just pulling the money out of the local economy," Epstein said.
Despite Holyoke currently being out of play, casino foes remain concerned. What if, they've asked, MGM fails the state Gaming Commission background check and is rejected, and then Palmer voters say no on the casino question there? Would that scenario put a Holyoke proposal back in play?
“In the unlikely event that no Western Mass. applicant made it to the commission’s final application phase, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission would start the process over again in Western Massachusetts," commission chairman Stephen P. Crosby said in an interview Friday.
While Crosby initially told a reporter, "We don't anticipate that being the case," he went on to explain: "We just have no anticipation one way or the other. We have no data on what the vote is going be like in Palmer. We don't have a background check yet on MGM, so we have no expectations one way or the other."
MGM officials have said they are confident that the company will be found "suitable" by the commission, passing its background check.
Mohegan Sun officials have also said they are confident their plan will be approved by Palmer voters, though they are not taking the vote for granted.
The state deadline for developers to submit a final resort casino application is Dec. 31.
Under the law's current timeline, communities must allow a 60- to 90-day window between the signing of a host community agreement and the community referendum vote, which is a prerequisite for the final application.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/holyoke_voters_face_nonbinding.html
Question 1 asks, "Should the city of Holyoke have a resort style gaming casino?"
Question 2 asks, "Should the city of Holyoke have a needle exchange program?"
Voters approved nonbinding casino questions here in 2002 and 1995, and rejected needle exchange in a nonbinding question in 2001.
City councilors voted in January to put the casino question on the ballot and in June to add the needle exchange question. Councilors said voters deserved a say on casino gambling and needle exchange despite decisions by Mayor Alex B. Morse.
Under a November 2011, licenses will be issued for up to three casino resorts in the state, including one in Western Massachusetts.
The gaming law requires that a developer reach a host-city agreement with a mayor or other community leader in order for such a project to proceed to a community vote. Morse wavered in November when he briefly said he would consider casino plans, but remains opposed -- and that means a casino project cannot move forward here as long as he is mayor.
Springfield voters approved the host community agreement between the city and MGM Resorts International for a gaming resort there on July 16. Palmer voters will decide a similar question on Nov. 5 regarding Mohegan Sun's plan off the Massachusetts Turnpike.
Councilors said Morse's opposition was unfair to Holyokers who wanted to give their current opinion about casino gambling, so they voted to offer the nonbinding question.
"It's a good opportunity for the citizens of Holyoke to have their voices be heard," Ward 2 Councilor Anthony Soto said during the Jan. 15 meeting.
Ward 7 residents have been vocal in fighting a casino here because previous plans have envisioned a gaming resort on the Mount Tom range.
John Epstein, of Harvard Street, said he is among those hoping Holyokers vote down the nonbinding casino question. The same negatives apply, he said: A casino would increase traffic and reduce property values. And, with two casinos permitted elsewhere in Massachusetts and casinos in adjoining states, revenue would be scarce, he said.
"They're just pulling the money out of the local economy," Epstein said.
Despite Holyoke currently being out of play, casino foes remain concerned. What if, they've asked, MGM fails the state Gaming Commission background check and is rejected, and then Palmer voters say no on the casino question there? Would that scenario put a Holyoke proposal back in play?
“In the unlikely event that no Western Mass. applicant made it to the commission’s final application phase, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission would start the process over again in Western Massachusetts," commission chairman Stephen P. Crosby said in an interview Friday.
While Crosby initially told a reporter, "We don't anticipate that being the case," he went on to explain: "We just have no anticipation one way or the other. We have no data on what the vote is going be like in Palmer. We don't have a background check yet on MGM, so we have no expectations one way or the other."
MGM officials have said they are confident that the company will be found "suitable" by the commission, passing its background check.
Mohegan Sun officials have also said they are confident their plan will be approved by Palmer voters, though they are not taking the vote for granted.
The state deadline for developers to submit a final resort casino application is Dec. 31.
Under the law's current timeline, communities must allow a 60- to 90-day window between the signing of a host community agreement and the community referendum vote, which is a prerequisite for the final application.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/holyoke_voters_face_nonbinding.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment