Testimony
Plainville Host Community Public Hearing
January 21st, 2014
Dear Commissioners:
I write to you today to present an alternative view about the agreements struck between Penn National (Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment, LLC) and surrounding communities, particularly Foxborough. I say “alternative” because the opinions of Plainville’s selectmen, town administrator, and certain other town officials do not represent my views nor the views of many other Plainville residents.
More than a year and a half ago, Thomas Keen and I met with Joe Fernandes and his then-assistant Dave Gagnon to present our well-researched 13-page paper about what we felt needed to appear in the RFP for a Plainville gambling consultant. One of the issues we highlighted was a need to meet with our neighbors — Wrentham, North Attleborough, and Foxborough, especially — to discuss the impact of an expanded gambling facility on their borders. Both Mr. Fernandes and Mr. Gagnon dismissed the need for Plainville to consider the concerns of our neighbors, equating whatever impact might come from a casino with the impact on Plainville from Gillette Stadium and the Wrentham Outlet Mall; they were utterly dismissive of the needs of the surrounding towns because, they said, Plainville never received mitigation for the projects built in other communities. (Interestingly enough, Mr. Gagnon is now town administrator in West Bridgewater, for which he negotiated a rather comprehensive Surrounding Community Agreement with Raynham Park.)
As Selectman Rob Rose famously said when dismissing the concerns of Plainville residents about a casino in our neighborhood, “[Plainridge] almost isn’t even in Plainville.” Extrapolating from Rob’s snide remarks, it seems only reasonable that Plainville would support the efforts of its neighbors to protect themselves from the vagaries of a casino on their doorstep, especially because — due to their proximity — Foxborough and Wrentham are as likely to deal with the casino’s negative aspects of traffic, DUIs, and criminal behavior as Plainville is. Instead, the attitude of Mr. Fernandes, Ms. Soucy, and Mr. Rose toward our neighbors is to dismiss their concerns and to treat their representatives deplorably in public meetings, often with mean spirited, vindictive, and embarrassing comments.
At your October 22nd "Public Input Meeting" in Wrentham, Plainville Treasurer and Tax Collector Kathleen Parker demonstrated the ignorance and “magical thinking” prevalent among Plainville officials when it comes to the impact of a casino on our town and our neighbors towns. Speaking about the danger of drunk driving, Ms. Parker said, “... I don't remember ever hearing of a drunk driving accident coming out of Plainridge. I know we have our current Chief here, Police Chief as well as our current Fire Chief and our prior Police Chief. They would correct me if I am wrong. We have a very well-trained professional police department. We have people in the facility and we will continue to have more people in the facility if we are lucky enough to be granted this license. They are not going to let drunk drivers out onto our streets, their streets. Because not only are they our police officers, they are also our residents, if not within the town, in the neighboring towns. Their children, their neighbors are on the same streets that we'll all be using and that we have been using.”
As I pointed out in an email to Ms. Parker, “Plainridge has seen a relative handful of people in and out of their facility over the years, while the Plainridge Park Casino — should they receive the license and withstand the court challenge regarding equal protection — plans to have thousands of people there every day, for 24 hours a day, with alcohol (some of it free or cheap) served for 18 of those 24 hours. Plainville’s own gambling consultant’s report says there will most likely be an increase in both DUIs and fatalities. To think that a handful of cops can catch every drunk as he exits, or will stop every drunk driver before she leaves the town limits is simply a fantasy. To assure townspeople they have nothing to worry about is irresponsible.”
Regarding the “social ills,” Ms. Parker has faith that Plainville will be able to do what no other town in America has been able to do when expanded gambling moves in. She doesn’t think that the surrounding towns should be worried because she’s “... Thrilled to hear about the amount of money that's available for problem gambling... All of these things are addressed in the right and proper ways. We're not irresponsible in Plainville that we're going to allow any of the things to all of a sudden erupt like a volcano in our community and not have them addressed.”
In my email to her, I suggested that she might want to reconsider her “thrill” that there is money "available for problem gambling.” The money allotted to treat gamblers who are addicted to the Lottery, Keno, and horse racing is already not enough. Worse news, the amount casinos will eventually be required to pay each year toward problem gambling treatment has dropped by more than $20 million since Governor Patrick first rolled out his plans for casinos in 2007. Massachusetts legislators axed $560,000 from this fiscal year's budget for the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, which, in turn, has put a big dent in the Council's plans to prepare for the four casinos in the commonwealth. (http://www.telegram.com/article/20130324/NEWS/103249834/0)
Even if the amount of money for treatment and prevention approached the amount necessary to treat every citizen who needs treatment, none of the monies set aside can or will be applied to the actual costs of the damage done by people struggling with gambling addiction: bankruptcies, child neglect, divorce, job loss, foreclosures, evictions, embezzlement, theft, arrests, homelessness … There are no sums set aside to feed or house families when a mother or father spends the grocery or rent money on slots, or when an elder uses her savings or her limited income on the "crack cocaine of gambling."
Plainville Host Community Public Hearing
January 21st, 2014
Dear Commissioners:
I write to you today to present an alternative view about the agreements struck between Penn National (Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment, LLC) and surrounding communities, particularly Foxborough. I say “alternative” because the opinions of Plainville’s selectmen, town administrator, and certain other town officials do not represent my views nor the views of many other Plainville residents.
More than a year and a half ago, Thomas Keen and I met with Joe Fernandes and his then-assistant Dave Gagnon to present our well-researched 13-page paper about what we felt needed to appear in the RFP for a Plainville gambling consultant. One of the issues we highlighted was a need to meet with our neighbors — Wrentham, North Attleborough, and Foxborough, especially — to discuss the impact of an expanded gambling facility on their borders. Both Mr. Fernandes and Mr. Gagnon dismissed the need for Plainville to consider the concerns of our neighbors, equating whatever impact might come from a casino with the impact on Plainville from Gillette Stadium and the Wrentham Outlet Mall; they were utterly dismissive of the needs of the surrounding towns because, they said, Plainville never received mitigation for the projects built in other communities. (Interestingly enough, Mr. Gagnon is now town administrator in West Bridgewater, for which he negotiated a rather comprehensive Surrounding Community Agreement with Raynham Park.)
As Selectman Rob Rose famously said when dismissing the concerns of Plainville residents about a casino in our neighborhood, “[Plainridge] almost isn’t even in Plainville.” Extrapolating from Rob’s snide remarks, it seems only reasonable that Plainville would support the efforts of its neighbors to protect themselves from the vagaries of a casino on their doorstep, especially because — due to their proximity — Foxborough and Wrentham are as likely to deal with the casino’s negative aspects of traffic, DUIs, and criminal behavior as Plainville is. Instead, the attitude of Mr. Fernandes, Ms. Soucy, and Mr. Rose toward our neighbors is to dismiss their concerns and to treat their representatives deplorably in public meetings, often with mean spirited, vindictive, and embarrassing comments.
At your October 22nd "Public Input Meeting" in Wrentham, Plainville Treasurer and Tax Collector Kathleen Parker demonstrated the ignorance and “magical thinking” prevalent among Plainville officials when it comes to the impact of a casino on our town and our neighbors towns. Speaking about the danger of drunk driving, Ms. Parker said, “... I don't remember ever hearing of a drunk driving accident coming out of Plainridge. I know we have our current Chief here, Police Chief as well as our current Fire Chief and our prior Police Chief. They would correct me if I am wrong. We have a very well-trained professional police department. We have people in the facility and we will continue to have more people in the facility if we are lucky enough to be granted this license. They are not going to let drunk drivers out onto our streets, their streets. Because not only are they our police officers, they are also our residents, if not within the town, in the neighboring towns. Their children, their neighbors are on the same streets that we'll all be using and that we have been using.”
As I pointed out in an email to Ms. Parker, “Plainridge has seen a relative handful of people in and out of their facility over the years, while the Plainridge Park Casino — should they receive the license and withstand the court challenge regarding equal protection — plans to have thousands of people there every day, for 24 hours a day, with alcohol (some of it free or cheap) served for 18 of those 24 hours. Plainville’s own gambling consultant’s report says there will most likely be an increase in both DUIs and fatalities. To think that a handful of cops can catch every drunk as he exits, or will stop every drunk driver before she leaves the town limits is simply a fantasy. To assure townspeople they have nothing to worry about is irresponsible.”
Regarding the “social ills,” Ms. Parker has faith that Plainville will be able to do what no other town in America has been able to do when expanded gambling moves in. She doesn’t think that the surrounding towns should be worried because she’s “... Thrilled to hear about the amount of money that's available for problem gambling... All of these things are addressed in the right and proper ways. We're not irresponsible in Plainville that we're going to allow any of the things to all of a sudden erupt like a volcano in our community and not have them addressed.”
In my email to her, I suggested that she might want to reconsider her “thrill” that there is money "available for problem gambling.” The money allotted to treat gamblers who are addicted to the Lottery, Keno, and horse racing is already not enough. Worse news, the amount casinos will eventually be required to pay each year toward problem gambling treatment has dropped by more than $20 million since Governor Patrick first rolled out his plans for casinos in 2007. Massachusetts legislators axed $560,000 from this fiscal year's budget for the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, which, in turn, has put a big dent in the Council's plans to prepare for the four casinos in the commonwealth. (http://www.telegram.com/article/20130324/NEWS/103249834/0)
Even if the amount of money for treatment and prevention approached the amount necessary to treat every citizen who needs treatment, none of the monies set aside can or will be applied to the actual costs of the damage done by people struggling with gambling addiction: bankruptcies, child neglect, divorce, job loss, foreclosures, evictions, embezzlement, theft, arrests, homelessness … There are no sums set aside to feed or house families when a mother or father spends the grocery or rent money on slots, or when an elder uses her savings or her limited income on the "crack cocaine of gambling."
There is no money set
aside to replace money lost in businesses when addicted employees resort to
petty theft, when the addicted CEO loses the payroll, or to pay hospital bills
resulting from domestic violence. There are no funds dedicated to help when a
family member, addicted to gambling and drowning in debt, commits suicide. And,
of the pittance set aside to deal with the addicted gamblers in the
host communities, there are even fewer resources set aside for surrounding
towns, even though none — NONE — of the impact of expanded gambling stops at
the town line. To think is does is simply insane.
Ms. Parker’s thoughts on the casino — representative of the views of most town officials here in Plainville — are nothing more than wishful thinking. They see a wad of cash and they’re willing to believe anything to get it. Somehow, they have convinced themselves (or been convinced?) that Plainville will not suffer the ill effects that other towns around the world suffered when a casino moved in. Moreover, they have convinced themselves (or been convinced?) that surrounding towns won’t experience any ill effects from the casino. Worse news, they resent and belittle the efforts of our neighbors to try to protect their residents. How pathetic and sad is that?
Therefore, I urge you to disregard Plainville town officials when they challenge the right or the amount of the surrounding community agreements. They are people for whom reality and facts have little meaning. They have told themselves a fairytale, and a fairytale it shall be. Until the dragon shows up...
Respectfully submitted,
Mary-Ann Greanier
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment