FROM PREDATORY GAMBLING UNTIL WE REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!
FROM: Lyn Horan
We Are NOT Safe
From The Threat of a
HOLYOKE CASINO
Here's Why:
...
1. The Holyoke City Council has placed a
referendum question on the November
ballot asking if voters approve of placing a
casino in Holyoke.
2. Eric Suher, owner of Mountain Park, was
recently spotted meeting with a casino
executive.
3. Hard Rock Casino, who recently lost their
bid in West Springfield, is searching for
another location and already has a fully
developed plan to build a Holyoke casino at
Wyckoff Country Club on Easthampton
Road. Their plan is ready to go. All they
need is a receptive mayor.
4.Jeff Stanek has said that pursuing a casino
for Holyoke is a good idea. (Alex Morse
previously turned down Hard Rock and is
firmly opposed to bringing a casino to
Holyoke).
5. The Massachusetts gaming law gives the
Mayor sole power to negotiate a deal with
casino developers. They do not need
additional authority from other city entities.
6. There is over a billion dollars
($1,000,000,000) at stake. It would be
foolish to believe that developers, operators
and property owners would simply walk
away from the temptation of this kind of
money without putting up a fight.
7. With the junctions of I-91 and The Mass
Pike on our doorstep, many informed
people believe that Holyoke would be at
the very top of the Gaming Commission's
list – if it is back in play.
8. Any casino developer who has already paid
the $400,000 Phase I application fee to the
state, can pursue a casino in any
community which approves it, including
Holyoke. The Phase I application is NOT
location-specific.
9. Contrary to common misconception,
Springfield does NOT have a lock on the
casino. Just over a year ago everyone was
saying that Palmer had it sewn up and that
Springfield didn't stand a chance. NO ONE
has it locked in, because the final decision
rests entirely with the Gaming Commission
and no one knows which site they will pick.
10. The deadlines posted by the Mass. Gaming
Commission (MGC) are not absolute.
They are described as "likely" target dates.
If the MGC decides to shift the deadline by
just 90 days, Holyoke will be back in play
after this election. That shift is at the sole
discretion of the Gaming Commission.
11. If Palmer voters defeat Mohegan Sun on
November 5th; and if the MGC denies
MGM because of their Macau partnership
with daughter of organized crime leader
Stanley Ho (as happened in New Jersey); or
if the MGC recognizes that traffic on I-91
and the 3 bridges will be unmanageable –
Holyoke will be back in the running.
12. The threat to Holyoke will exist until the
day that the Mass. Gaming Commission
gives final approval to a developer to build
the casino elsewhere. Until that day comes,
we are not safe from the threat of a
Holyoke casino.
Presented by:
Citizens for a Better Holyoke
P.O. Box 6543
Holyoke, MA 01041
CitizensForABetterHolyoke@gmai
COMING SOON:
A VOTER’S GUIDE TO THE
CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE
A HOLYOKE CASINOSee More
We Are NOT Safe
From The Threat of a
HOLYOKE CASINO
Here's Why:
...
1. The Holyoke City Council has placed a
referendum question on the November
ballot asking if voters approve of placing a
casino in Holyoke.
2. Eric Suher, owner of Mountain Park, was
recently spotted meeting with a casino
executive.
3. Hard Rock Casino, who recently lost their
bid in West Springfield, is searching for
another location and already has a fully
developed plan to build a Holyoke casino at
Wyckoff Country Club on Easthampton
Road. Their plan is ready to go. All they
need is a receptive mayor.
4.Jeff Stanek has said that pursuing a casino
for Holyoke is a good idea. (Alex Morse
previously turned down Hard Rock and is
firmly opposed to bringing a casino to
Holyoke).
5. The Massachusetts gaming law gives the
Mayor sole power to negotiate a deal with
casino developers. They do not need
additional authority from other city entities.
6. There is over a billion dollars
($1,000,000,000) at stake. It would be
foolish to believe that developers, operators
and property owners would simply walk
away from the temptation of this kind of
money without putting up a fight.
7. With the junctions of I-91 and The Mass
Pike on our doorstep, many informed
people believe that Holyoke would be at
the very top of the Gaming Commission's
list – if it is back in play.
8. Any casino developer who has already paid
the $400,000 Phase I application fee to the
state, can pursue a casino in any
community which approves it, including
Holyoke. The Phase I application is NOT
location-specific.
9. Contrary to common misconception,
Springfield does NOT have a lock on the
casino. Just over a year ago everyone was
saying that Palmer had it sewn up and that
Springfield didn't stand a chance. NO ONE
has it locked in, because the final decision
rests entirely with the Gaming Commission
and no one knows which site they will pick.
10. The deadlines posted by the Mass. Gaming
Commission (MGC) are not absolute.
They are described as "likely" target dates.
If the MGC decides to shift the deadline by
just 90 days, Holyoke will be back in play
after this election. That shift is at the sole
discretion of the Gaming Commission.
11. If Palmer voters defeat Mohegan Sun on
November 5th; and if the MGC denies
MGM because of their Macau partnership
with daughter of organized crime leader
Stanley Ho (as happened in New Jersey); or
if the MGC recognizes that traffic on I-91
and the 3 bridges will be unmanageable –
Holyoke will be back in the running.
12. The threat to Holyoke will exist until the
day that the Mass. Gaming Commission
gives final approval to a developer to build
the casino elsewhere. Until that day comes,
we are not safe from the threat of a
Holyoke casino.
Presented by:
Citizens for a Better Holyoke
P.O. Box 6543
Holyoke, MA 01041
CitizensForABetterHolyoke@gmai
COMING SOON:
A VOTER’S GUIDE TO THE
CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE
A HOLYOKE CASINOSee More
From The Threat of a
HOLYOKE CASINO
Here's Why:
...
1. The Holyoke City Council has placed a
referendum question on the November
ballot asking if voters approve of placing a
casino in Holyoke.
2. Eric Suher, owner of Mountain Park, was
recently spotted meeting with a casino
executive.
3. Hard Rock Casino, who recently lost their
bid in West Springfield, is searching for
another location and already has a fully
developed plan to build a Holyoke casino at
Wyckoff Country Club on Easthampton
Road. Their plan is ready to go. All they
need is a receptive mayor.
4.Jeff Stanek has said that pursuing a casino
for Holyoke is a good idea. (Alex Morse
previously turned down Hard Rock and is
firmly opposed to bringing a casino to
Holyoke).
5. The Massachusetts gaming law gives the
Mayor sole power to negotiate a deal with
casino developers. They do not need
additional authority from other city entities.
6. There is over a billion dollars
($1,000,000,000) at stake. It would be
foolish to believe that developers, operators
and property owners would simply walk
away from the temptation of this kind of
money without putting up a fight.
7. With the junctions of I-91 and The Mass
Pike on our doorstep, many informed
people believe that Holyoke would be at
the very top of the Gaming Commission's
list – if it is back in play.
8. Any casino developer who has already paid
the $400,000 Phase I application fee to the
state, can pursue a casino in any
community which approves it, including
Holyoke. The Phase I application is NOT
location-specific.
9. Contrary to common misconception,
Springfield does NOT have a lock on the
casino. Just over a year ago everyone was
saying that Palmer had it sewn up and that
Springfield didn't stand a chance. NO ONE
has it locked in, because the final decision
rests entirely with the Gaming Commission
and no one knows which site they will pick.
10. The deadlines posted by the Mass. Gaming
Commission (MGC) are not absolute.
They are described as "likely" target dates.
If the MGC decides to shift the deadline by
just 90 days, Holyoke will be back in play
after this election. That shift is at the sole
discretion of the Gaming Commission.
11. If Palmer voters defeat Mohegan Sun on
November 5th; and if the MGC denies
MGM because of their Macau partnership
with daughter of organized crime leader
Stanley Ho (as happened in New Jersey); or
if the MGC recognizes that traffic on I-91
and the 3 bridges will be unmanageable –
Holyoke will be back in the running.
12. The threat to Holyoke will exist until the
day that the Mass. Gaming Commission
gives final approval to a developer to build
the casino elsewhere. Until that day comes,
we are not safe from the threat of a
Holyoke casino.
Presented by:
Citizens for a Better Holyoke
P.O. Box 6543
Holyoke, MA 01041
CitizensForABetterHolyoke@gmai
COMING SOON:
A VOTER’S GUIDE TO THE
CANDIDATES WHO OPPOSE
A HOLYOKE CASINOSee More
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment