As Holyoke election looms, mayoral candidate Jeff Stanek says his casino opposition has been consistent, which Mayor Alex Morse disputes
Mayoral candidate Jeff Stanek, right, said Friday he has "consistently opposed" a casino here despite assertions to the contrary about his position by Mayor Alex Morse, left. (The Republican [file])
HOLYOKE — Mayoral candidate Jeffrey A. Stanek said Friday he has "consistently opposed" a casino here despite assertions to the contrary about his position by Mayor Alex B. Morse.
"I will not seek or entertain a casino for Holyoke if I am elected. We cannot allow this issue to divide our city," Stanek said in a press release.
"I have consistently opposed casino development for Holyoke. Statements from my opponent to the contrary are simply not true," Stanek said.
Holyoke appears to be out of the hunt for the sole gaming-resort license that the state Gaming Commission will grant for Western Massachusetts. But the issue's zombie-like ability to keep rising is underscored by a nonbinding question voters here Tuesday will face on the Election Day ballot asking, "Should the city of Holyoke have a resort style gaming casino?"
Voters approved similar casino questions here in 2002 and 1995.
Where Morse has wrongly presented his position on casino gambling, Stanek said in an email, is by saying that Stanek's vow to at least to listen to Holyokers who favor a casino means a Stanek administration would welcome a gaming resort here.
"I am personally against it, I will still not seek a casino developer. Listening does not mean I'm accepting casino gambling. We must make sure Holyoke is at the table for any spin-off benefits from Springfield or Palmer. It is going to one of two cities, not Holyoke. What is the point of allowing citizens to vote if our elected officials are close-minded?" Stanek said.
But, Morse said, Stanek himself has made statements that leave the door open to considering a casino proposal.
At an Oct. 30 debate on WWLP TV 22, Stanek reiterated his opposition to a casino here, but also said, "... the reality of it is, you know, we need taxable jobs here in the city of Holyoke. We need to increase our taxable base, and we can't be closed-minded to things either."
Morse said, "I’m glad my opponent agrees with my position, one that has remained clear and unchanged all campaign. However, I would challenge that his position has been consistently opposed to a casino development in Holyoke."
Stanek has said casino gambling is one of the issues on which Morse has flip-flopped. Morse a year ago announced he would consider casino proposals, after having won the 2011 election opposing a casino. But Morse said the brief consideration was exploratory and he remains opposed to a casino here.
Stanek's statement that he would be willing to listen to voters if Tuesday's casino question passes, said Morse, "seems to be a classic flip flop."
Morse said Stanek was wrong in saying Holyoke has been uninvolved in talks to ensure the city participates in a surrounding-community agreement to benefit from a neighboring casino.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/as_holyoke_election_looms_mayo.html
"I will not seek or entertain a casino for Holyoke if I am elected. We cannot allow this issue to divide our city," Stanek said in a press release.
"I have consistently opposed casino development for Holyoke. Statements from my opponent to the contrary are simply not true," Stanek said.
Holyoke appears to be out of the hunt for the sole gaming-resort license that the state Gaming Commission will grant for Western Massachusetts. But the issue's zombie-like ability to keep rising is underscored by a nonbinding question voters here Tuesday will face on the Election Day ballot asking, "Should the city of Holyoke have a resort style gaming casino?"
Voters approved similar casino questions here in 2002 and 1995.
Where Morse has wrongly presented his position on casino gambling, Stanek said in an email, is by saying that Stanek's vow to at least to listen to Holyokers who favor a casino means a Stanek administration would welcome a gaming resort here.
"I am personally against it, I will still not seek a casino developer. Listening does not mean I'm accepting casino gambling. We must make sure Holyoke is at the table for any spin-off benefits from Springfield or Palmer. It is going to one of two cities, not Holyoke. What is the point of allowing citizens to vote if our elected officials are close-minded?" Stanek said.
But, Morse said, Stanek himself has made statements that leave the door open to considering a casino proposal.
In a Sept. 12 interview with The Republican, Stanek said: "What's it hurt to try to get a good plan to see what it's like? But I think that's going to be a little bit of the difference with me. I'm going to put some personal feelings aside and do what the voters asked for. At least do my research and my due diligence on it, and see what happens from there."
I am personally against it, I will still not seek a casino developer. Listening does not mean I'm accepting casino gambling.
- Jeff Stanek
- Jeff Stanek
At an Oct. 30 debate on WWLP TV 22, Stanek reiterated his opposition to a casino here, but also said, "... the reality of it is, you know, we need taxable jobs here in the city of Holyoke. We need to increase our taxable base, and we can't be closed-minded to things either."
Morse said, "I’m glad my opponent agrees with my position, one that has remained clear and unchanged all campaign. However, I would challenge that his position has been consistently opposed to a casino development in Holyoke."
Stanek has said casino gambling is one of the issues on which Morse has flip-flopped. Morse a year ago announced he would consider casino proposals, after having won the 2011 election opposing a casino. But Morse said the brief consideration was exploratory and he remains opposed to a casino here.
Stanek's statement that he would be willing to listen to voters if Tuesday's casino question passes, said Morse, "seems to be a classic flip flop."
Morse said Stanek was wrong in saying Holyoke has been uninvolved in talks to ensure the city participates in a surrounding-community agreement to benefit from a neighboring casino.
http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/11/as_holyoke_election_looms_mayo.html
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment