Preserve Brimfield Group Questions Non-Binding Vote at Town Meeting

For Immediate Release
Contact: Paul Adams, 413-262-7380, padams6199@charter.net
or Sharon Palmer, palmera5@charter.net

Preserve Brimfield Group Questions Non-Binding Vote at Town Meeting

Brimfield, MA – February 10, 2012 – Preserve Brimfield, an ad hoc community group that is investigating the effects of a proposed casino development in Brimfield, Massachusetts, has raised concerns about the wisdom and practicality of a non-binding vote on the casino project at the 2012 Town Meeting in May.

“There are lots of reasons to question the timing and the motives behind the attempt to hold a ‘non-binding’ vote at Town Meeting,” said Sharon Palmer, a Brimfield resident and a Preserve Brimfield Steering Committee member. “Despite numerous meetings with town boards and committees, neither the land owner nor the casino development company has provided any information to the town about the size, scope, and impact of the project, other than ‘You’ll barely know it’s there,’” Palmer said.

On February 9, a petition was presented to the Brimfield Board of Selectmen requesting that an article be included on the Town Warrant. The item for the proposed vote would read: “To see if the Town will vote to support a resort casino development from the Massachusetts Turnpike, and located in the secluded northwest corner of the Town (north of the Turnpike), which will generate millions of dollars annually in tax revenues for the Town. This article is non-binding.”

“The wording of the article is prejudicial and misleading,” said Paul Adams, also a member of Preserve Brimfield. “The developers have already contradicted themselves on the issue of the Mass Pike ramp; the reference to additional revenue conveniently omits any reference to the new and potentially enormous costs the town will incur; and although the land may in fact be ‘secluded,’ the effects on the town will be widespread and permanent. Beyond that, the effects will be reflected – in greater costs – on virtually every line item in the town’s budget.”

The petition included 25 signatures, and Diane M. Panaccione, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, has said that 24 signatures are required to put the item on the agenda for the 2012 Town Meeting. The petition was apparently originated by a group of pro-casino supporters calling themselves ‘Brimfield First,’ but according to a news article in the Springfield Republican and posted on the newspaper’s MassLive.com website, “several of the people who signed the petition that were contacted said they had not heard of the group.”

“The land owner and MGM have told boards and committees that it’s too early for them to answer questions,” said Adams. “They’ve provided us with absolutely nothing about the impact of the development on the town’s water and sewer resources, school population, roads and infrastructure, housing, crime, and other issues. If it’s too early for them to answer reasonable questions, it’s too early to ask the town to vote on this project, even if it’s non-binding. The town won’t have a clue what it’s voting on, or information will be provided by the developer just before the Town Meeting and too late to consider carefully and thoughtfully.”

A non-binding vote seems also to fly in the face of the recommendations by Steven Crosby, the new chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, who has said that neither developers nor towns should move ahead “under a sense of urgency to generate money, to generate jobs, to meet the developer’s wishes, or to meet a community’s wishes.”

Preserve Brimfield was formed to provide information to Brimfield residents about a casino development proposed by MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. in Las Vegas in partnership with Rolling Hills Estates Realty Trust. More information about Preserve Brimfield is available at www.preservebrimfield.org.

###