Plainridge Myths: Repeating a Lie Makes It So

Those of us who attended the many meetings about the race track in the late 1990s were told — repeatedly — by Gary Piontkowski and others that slot machines were not in their plans.

So why, during recent discussions about allowing Plainville to become a racino town, have we been told that Plainridge "always planned to have slots?" Everyone from Joe Fernandes to Andrea Soucy (who voted against the track in 1997) to Gary Piontkowski has insisted that we are mistaken about what we heard. Their mantra that Plainridge "always intended to have slots" has been repeated and repeated in meeting after meeting of the selectmen and other boards in town. (That, of course, is how you get someone to believe a lie — say it enough times until it sounds like the truth.)

Well, here is a Sun Chronicle article from October 28th, 1997, that begins: "The owner of the company planning to build a Route 1 harness racing track to replace Foxboro Park says slot machines are not part of his plans."

At the very least, I hope the selectmen will stop perpetuating the lie.

 

Visit us:

https://www.facebook.com/NoPlainvilleRacino

https://twitter.com/NoRacino

 

 

 

Plainridge: Terrorizing the neighborhood for a Slot Barn

Please note: Pay attention! Coming to your neighborhood!

The disregard of Plainridge, in its quest to erect the Commonwealth's first Slot Barn to subsidize the DEAD horse racing industry, to the Peaceful Enjoyment of its abutters, their attempt to intimidate opponents with a Slapp suit and their history of abuse has been monumental, waving the banner of Predatory Gambling. 

[I know because unlike the Plainville Pickles, I have listened to what others have said.] 

The Plainville Pickles ignore the future of the small town, their inability to address the costs, impacts, increased crime that accompanies Slot Barns around the nation, the increased DUIs caused by FREE ALCOHOL,  and the Community Destruction.]

Plainridge's disregard for the environment and its abutters may be the first, but exemplify the secrecy, expectations, hubris and arrogance abutters might expect. 

Just as Bullying of Children has engaged public attention, BULLYING by Plainridge's Slot Barn has been ignored. 

  

Hi, Lindsay, 

Unfortunately, I'm out of town and can't be at the hearing tonight. I would like my comments to be read into the record, please:

I strongly support a finding by the Conservation Commission that the Plainville Wetlands Protection Bylaw should be applied fully to the construction of a service drive and utility upgrades at Plainridge. 

I fear that the construction of a behemoth garage and "upgrades" to the service road and utilities at Plainridge are being done now — before Plainville has a Host Community Agreement for a slot barn — in order to escape the stricter protections and mitigations that would inevitably have been negotiated under an HCA. I believe that whatever can be done by Ourway and Plainridge without having to recompense the town and its residents is being done now. Therefore, I urge you to strictly apply the Wetlands Protection Act and our by-laws to this project; it's our only chance to protect these wetlands. 

For months, I have been witness to and victim of the current construction at Plainridge. Our neighborhood endured a month of blasting, with more explosions scheduled to begin this week. In addition to the blasting, there has been almost-daily rock crushing and drilling. I worry about how the rock dust from the blasting debris and the rock crushing, as well as the runoff from the site during the wetting down of the rock dust, has already compromised the adjacent wetlands. This doesn't even begin to address how the noise has impacted the wildlife. 

The added traffic of 6,534 vehicle trips/day, into and out of the garage (estimated on Ourway's MEPA form:  http://www.env.state.ma.us/mepa/mepadocs/2012/060612em/nps/npc/11431npc.pdf), is bound to have a continuing negative impact on the wetlands. Added air pollution and runoff in the future is likely to compromise the health and effectiveness of the wetlands, as well. 

I believe that we must use every measure at our disposal to protect the wetlands adjacent to Plainridge. With so much construction, added traffic, and loss of open space in this area, we need all the help we can get to mitigate the pollution of our water.  Please keep our 100' buffer intact and protected. 

Thank you for all you do to protect our wetlands and our town. 

Respectfully,

Mary-Ann Greanier

19 Mirimichi Street

Plainville, MA 02762

508.695.2794

Ourway PLAINVILLE CONSERVATION COMMISSION REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY PUBLIC

Posted: 1 week ago
Ourway PLAINVILLE CONSERVATION COMMISSION REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY PUBLIC MEETING The Plainville Conservation Commission will hold a public meeting in accordance with M.G.L. c. 131, c 40, and the Plainville Wetlands Protection Bylaw for a Request for Determination of Applicability submitted by Ourway Realty, LLC. The request is for a determination as to whether construction of a service drive and utility upgrades within 100 feet of a bordering vegetated wetland at 301 Washington Street is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and the Plainville Wetlands Protection Bylaw. The public meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. in the Plainville Senior Center. Copies of the Request may be viewed at the Plainville Town Hall. Lindsay Martucci, chair Plainville Conservation Commission. 10:2

Location: 301 Washington Street

Plainridge attempts to intimidate opponent, ACLU defends

Numerous times each day, folks crawl over this blog searching Plainridge articles for something, anything, perhaps seeking a defamatory comment for which to slap me with a lawsuit as well. A little paranoid maybe?

Pity those folks haven't figured out how to program a 'google alert.'

The Plainville Board of Pickles has carefully prevented any consideration of the down-side of Predatory Gambling, including the increased CRIME that accompanies Gambling Addiction, the low wage jobs that drive down local wages and numerous surrounding issues.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and threatens the future economic survival of a small community.

Horse racing is a DEAD Industry that only survives with taxpayer subsidies.



ACLU comes to aid of Plainridge opponent
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:00 am | Updated: 12:22 am, Fri Sep 21, 2012.
[Note: There is no indication of the 'update.']

BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

MARK STOCKWELL

State racing commissioners toured Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville last month. Track President Gary Piontkowski, left, gives a tour of his facility to commissioners Gayle Cameron, Bruce Stebbins, Chairman Stephen Crosby and Enrique Zuniga. (Staff file photo by Mark Stockwell)

PLAINVILLE — The American Civil Liberties Union has intervened in a legal case involving a Plainville opponent of gambling at Plainridge Racecourse.
 
The race track is seeking a state license for 1,250 slot machines and Thomas Keen of Plainville

The race track has filed suit against Keen saying his web site defamed the track, its employees and customers.

The ACLU has sided with Keen and asked Norfolk Superior Court to dismiss the suit. A hearing has not yet been scheduled.

The legal trouble started back in March when Keen’s home was broken into. He posted a photo of the subject taken from his home security system on his anti-Plainridge web site. A reader of the web site posted the comment: “I wonder if they checked over at the racetrack, lol.”

Gary Piontkowski, president of the track, said he does not object to legitimate criticism of the plan for slot machines and has no problem with the opposition group and web site. However, he said the comment about the break-in suspect being at the track is false and damaging to the reputation of his business.

He said the track wrote to Keen asking him to take the defamatory comment down and when Keen failed to respond, the suit was filed.

“We thought that crossed the line,” he said.

The suit includes an affidavit by police Patrolman William Lamb, who investigated the break-in. He said that at the time of the investigation, Keen said he suspected the track might be involved.

“I would not be surprised that the track had someone do this break-in in retaliation for our anti-gambling stance,” Lamb testified about Keen’s statement.

The ACLU, however, contends the suit is an attempt to intimidate gambling opponents into keeping quiet.

“Residents of Plainville need to know that they have a lot of protection for their participation in important debates, for example, whether casinos and gambling have harmful effects on their community and neighborhoods,” lawyer Jeffrey Pyle of the ACLU said. “They should not be scared off by lawsuits like this, which have no merit and often are aimed at making people too afraid to get involved in local issues.”

Keen said he has been afraid to post anything on the web site since the suit. The ACLU also said the comment about the break-in has been taken down, but the Plainridge suit continues because the track wants Keen ordered to refrain from making comments relating crime to Plainridge.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/aclu-comes-to-aid-of-plainridge-opponent/article_b8a779bc-0279-11e2-b2d4-001a4bcf887a.html

Plainville: Where information is ignored!

NoPlainvilleRacino wrote: "By the way, last year, our dedicated and knowledgeable Energy Committee came to the town with a detailed proposal to become a Green Community. There were hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of grants that we could have to make our public buildings and schools more energy efficient. We could allow a solar farm on our old dump, with the excess electricity coming back to Plainville for free or a mere pittance. We could call ourselves a "Green Community" and become involved with a movement toward sustainability that attracts people and businesses to a town.

Even builders and developers who generally hate regulation coming down from the state encouraged the town to vote for the article. They made the observation that the regulations they'd have to abide by in a Green Community this year would be required everywhere in a couple of years anyway, so why not speed it up and reap the rewards — short term and long term?

Instead, after Andrea Soucy rose to talk about how much she hates "squiggly lightbulbs" and her ignorant fear-mongering about what Big Brother would come into our homes to make us do (ALL absent ANY facts), the town narrowly defeated the article.

Plainville has a long history of voting against its own best interests."

Gambling Addiction increases within a 50 mile radius. We are all neighbors!

Plainville's Poor Fiscal Management

NoPlainvilleRacino wrote: "For many years, Plainville was addicted to the money from the landfill. During those years, it seemed there was little effort to improve the town to attract new business, young families and single professionals who might be commuting to Boston, Providence, or Worcester, or to take advantage of the possibilities for sustainable growth that other towns seemed to attract.

When the landfill money dried up, the only solution the selectmen seemed to see was SLOTS SLOTS SLOTS at Plainridge. They lobbied and cajoled the legislature to add a slot barn to the list of three casinos and who-knows-how-many tribal casinos.

Even though Plainridge has not made a profit in more than twelve years, the selectmen have been slavering about expanded predatory gambling in Plainville since the track moved in.

So have the millionaires who have poured money into the failing an failed business of Plainridge for more than a decade, circling like vultures, waiting for Plainville to say yes to slots.

Any gambling recovery program will tell you that the worst time to gamble is if you are experiencing debt. You are more likely to ignore reality and the odds and to "chase your losses" if you are desperate for funds.

Plainville is like a problem gambler "jonesing" for their next win. They're willing to ignore the money that goes into the machine, as long as the money that comes out fools them into thinking they're "winning".

Many Painvillians regarded the landfill as a "free lunch", even though the resultant plume will someday (in the not-too-distant future) prove to be a disaster for the town's drinking water. The money from the slot barn is seen as a free lunch, as well.

The worst news? The people who support slots in Plainville really don't want to hear about from where their "free lunch" will come. They don't care if it comes off the tables and out of the mouths of their neighbors. Their appetite for geting money the haven't worked for (in the form of revenue to the town) is insatiable and without scruples."

Plainville: Trust us!

YOUR TURN: Trust, but verify on Plainville racino deal 
Posted: Thursday, June 7, 2012

YOUR TURN: Trust, but verify on Plainville racino deal

BY THOMAS KEENThe Sun Chronicle                                

Among the core principles of our government are checks and balances, inclusion, and transparency. Unfortunately, we saw very little of these at the recent Plainville town meeting relating to Article 43. The article petitioned the selectmen to obtain an independent cost/benefit analysis on the impact of a slot machine parlor at Plainridge Racecourse prior to, or concurrent with, negotiating a host community agreement and that the analysis be shared with the public. As none of the selectmen (or quite frankly most of Plainville's residents) are slot machine gambling experts, coupled with the fact that the analysis would come at no cost to Plainville (analysis would be paid by Plainridge Racecourse per the Massachusetts gaming legislation), it seemed like a reasonable request. Yet it did not pass.
As a citizen of Plainville, I was embarrassed at town meeting when Selectmen Andrea Soucy and Rob Rose commented that they "were insulted" by residents asking that some of the most basic values of our government be enforced. Instead of embracing inclusion and transparency, they did the opposite, essentially saying they did not need any checks and balances - just "trust us" was their common refrain.


http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/columns/your-turn-trust-but-verify-on-plainville-racino-deal/article_e58395d3-bc57-5b95-b27e-fbe579773431.html

Plainville: What are they afraid of?

The Pickles and misinformed prevailed in Plainville and the Boston Globe just commented!

The process in Plainville is reminiscent of Middleboro when town officials believed it appropriate to resort to name-calling and belittling Opponents.

And guess what? Those Opponents were RIGHT!

This is a race track that hasn't made money and is being subsidized.

Horse racing is DEAD! It's time to let it die a quiet death and stop taxpayer subsidies.

This from the area surrounding Aqueduct where Genting [the financial backers of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe] opened a Slot Barn:

Robberies are up 7% so far this year as compared to 2011 and grand larcenies have spiked 39%, the most current NYPD crime figures show.

http://middlebororemembers.blogspot.com/2012/06/is-aqueduct-faililng-to-protect-its.html 

 

Why would Plainville residents believe they're different?

 

What are the Plainville Board of Selectmen hiding? The TRUTH?

 

See also: Pickles Prevail in Plainville!

Plainville rejects anticasino group petition

By Jose Martinez

| Globe Correspondent June 07, 2012

Tempers flared at this week’s Town Meeting in Plainville over a petition urging selectmen to hire an outside consultant with no ties to the Plainridge Racecourse to study the pros and cons for the town should the state allow slot machines at the harness track.

The petition, presented by members of a local antigambling group, No Plainville Racino, was by far the most hotly debated measure during Monday’s four-hour Town Meeting.

After a half-hour of often terse discussion, the petition was defeated, 83-33, in the only vote of the night requiring a head count.

Town officials blasted the petition as redundant and insulting.

“There are all these inferences going around that we seem to be in Plainridge’s back pocket,” said Selectman Robert Rose. “Let me tell you something, I owe nothing to Plainridge.”

OH????

‘I am offended that the selectmen can’t understand that they should respect all of us who come to this meeting.’

‘Let’s call this what it is — this a maneuver by a group in town that doesn’t like any form of gambling.’

“I feel insulted, too,” said Selectwoman Andrea Soucy, the board’s chairwoman. “Plainridge has nothing to say about it.’’ The selectmen will choose a consultant, she said, “and when the whole thing is over, we will give Plainridge the bill. That is the only thing Plainridge is going to have to do with this study.”


Selectwoman Andrea Soucy launched into a personal Love Fest of Plainridge in violation of the Open Meeting Law while still sitting in her official capacity, refusing to excuse herself! Pity the poor woman who loves to have her ego stroked and refuses to abide by the law. Age might be a factor.



Plainridge Racecourse has notified the town of its intent to seek a Class 2 gaming license under the state’s new expanded gambling law, which calls for one slots-only venue along with a maximum of three full casino operations.

The legislation, passed last year, requires applicants to cover whatever expenses the host communities incur in drawing up required mitigation agreements.

If granted the license, Plainridge officials hope to add 1,250 slot machines to the track’s harness and simulcast racing operation as part of a $160 million makeover to the facility, which sits next to Route 1 and its interchange with Interstate 495.

Meanwhile, the state’s other horse-racing venue, Suffolk Downs, has unveiled a $1 billion plan to turn the thoroughbred track straddling East Boston and Revere into a full-scale casino resort.

Plainville residents on both sides of the gambling debate endured snickers and catcalls during their turns at the Town Meeting microphone Monday night.


How childish and disrespectful!

Marcia Benes called the atmosphere “poisonous.”

“As a citizen concerned about the welfare of this town, this community and what it is going to look like in the future, I want the selectmen to have an unbiased, neutral, and hopefully the best, most informative study that Plainridge’s money can buy, so they can do the negotiating on our behalf,” Benes said.

She went on to say that she opposed gambling as “damaging to society,” a comment that triggered such an uproar in the auditorium that Moderator Andrew Martin had to intervene.

“The selectmen said they are offended,” she continued, “and I am offended that the selectmen can’t understand that they should respect all of us who come to this meeting with different points of view. No one should be offended by requests for transparency in government.”

Some residents sought a middle ground on the polarizing issue.

“I think one thing we can all agree on is that money is tight,” said Steve Melanson. “The state’s passed a thing saying we have the possibility of getting a racino. Hire the consultant like you are doing and put it to a vote. This is a chance finally to get some income coming into our community instead of fighting over budgets. A little while ago we were talking about shutting down the Recreation Department.”

Ned Merrick, a retired Plainville police chief, minced no words in urging a no vote on the petition during his turn at the microphone.

“Let’s call this what it is — this a maneuver by a group in town that doesn’t like any form of gambling,” he said. “That’s fine, I get that. But don’t use us as your pawns.”

Merrick cited the likelihood the measure would be struck down as an illegal attempt by Town Meeting to order the Board of Selectmen to act, which he considers a violation of the separation of powers at the town level.  

[Too lazy to conduct his due diligence prior to Town Meeting! He's wrong! It's amazing what ignorance prevails unchallenged. A Citizens' Petition was accomplished in Middleboro that resulted in PUBLIC meetings, raising numerous issues that would not otherwise have been considered.]

“I’m not interested in getting a dope slap from the attorney general,” Merrick said.

Plainridge president Gary Piontkowski said the track had taken no position on the petition, and did not wish to comment on its defeat.

“That is the democratic process,” Piontkowski said. “We are going to follow the letter of the law. The town will too. There are a lot of bright people there and they are going to do what they have to do.”


Mr. Piontowski has attended most of the Massachusetts Gambling Commission meetings and is fully aware that this will be a 2-step process, unlike the Plainville Selectman or Town Manager.

Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said the measure raised a moot point, since local officials have been planning to hire an outside consultant all along.

Ultimately, he said, Plainville residents would get the opportunity to vote on the host community agreement.

Fernandes said selectmen would discuss hiring a consultant at their meeting next week. He said he expects to begin soliciting bids for the study within weeks, and to have a consulting firm hired by mid-July.

Mr. Fernandes has discussed this matter with a tainted source!


Jennifer Crimmins Keen, who offered up an amendment to the original No Plainville Racino petition to require a public disclosure of how the consultant is chosen, later handed out fliers citing recent anticasino votes in Foxborough, Middleborough, Lakeville, and Freetown to residents filing out of the meeting.

“Slots are coming, dear,” one woman commented as she walked by.

Keen shook her head as she stood in the lobby of the Beatrice H. Wood School, just up the hall from the auditorium and gymnasium where the Town Meeting was winding down.

“Through these doors pass the greatest children in the world,” proclaimed a sign on the wall behind her.

“This school is a mile from the racino — the proposed racino,” Keen, a mother of two, said. “The kids take the bus and go right past it. They’ll go by it every day. I don’t get this town. All these other towns are voting this down. Maybe they care about their towns more than just the bottom line.”

Keen said the public criticism of her and the other members of No Plainville Racino has been grueling.

“I just got yelled at by the selectmen,” she said. “We weren’t trying to be insulting in any way. We just wanted to make sure they do it right.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2012/06/06/plainville-rejects-anticasino-group-petition/Ys1QicNm0UXYIRPRqMwnaI/story.html

Plainville: The Face of Ignorance

“I am so angry, like Glenn Beck would say, the blood is shooting out of my eyes,” said Selectman Andrea Soucy, who can see no rhyme or reason to deny slot machines to the racetracks.

Andrea Soucy displayed her ignorance in the statement above almost 2 years ago.

In the intervening 2 years, it seems that no town official, including Ms. Soucy, has conducted any due diligence, no research, no exploration of the industry, studies, NOTHING!

They were suddenly frazzled, sputtering and confused about conducting their own cost analysis.

Horse racing is a DEAD industry. That can't be amended with window dressing or slot machines.
No one goes!

Has anyone read these? :

Massachusetts: 53 horses dead, 14 drug positive

Animal Cruelty

Racing Commission's 2010 report does not include deaths of horses:
http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/docs/src/annual-report2010.pdf


Town officials livid over stalled casino bill, worried about track
Country Gazette
Posted Aug 12, 2010


PLAINVILLE —

When it looked like the state Legislature might pass a casino bill that included slot machines at the state’s racetracks, the management at Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville took a gamble.


“We started out with site work and some architectural plans (to expand),” said racecourse General Manager Steve O’Toole, noting the Rte. 1 business wanted to “be ready to jump on this thing, because everything looked so promising.”


But after Gov. Deval Patrick last week refused to budge on the issue of slot machines, and the casino bill stalled, the track has been forced to lay-off 54 of its full- and part-time employees, and has cancelled 103 subcontracts.


“We’ve never made layoffs here, and we probably should have because our handle has gone down 23 percent,” said O’Toole. “But we really didn’t want to hurt our workforce and wanted to keep them employed as long as we could.”


Last week the stakes were raised on the track’s game of survival, O’Toole said, and the only chips management had to throw down were the lay-offs and contract cancellations.


“We took the necessary steps to make it to the end of our live season,” he said.


The season finishes in early December. O’Toole said the business does plan to apply for racing dates for next year, “but we will actually make a decision about what we’re going to do next year depending on the political landscape.”


The situation has left local officials seeing red, and a little worried about the future of a significant revenue source for the town. About $500,000 in tax revenue and host community funds from the track goes into the town’s coffers every year.

“I am so angry, like Glenn Beck would say, the blood is shooting out of my eyes,” said Selectman Andrea Soucy, who can see no rhyme or reason to deny slot machines to the racetracks.

The way she and fellow selectmen see it, allowing slot machines would keep the businesses competitive and maintain existing jobs.


“I’m disappointed at the governor’s decision not to sign the casino bill,” said Board of Selectmen Chairman Robert Fennessy. “It would have meant jobs for people in the Commonwealth, especially in areas where the slots would go, such as Plainville.”


Selectman Rob Rose said town officials “are concerned about Plainridge on numerous levels.” He is certain that, some day, casino gambling will become a reality in Massachusetts, as the debate has been recurring for more than eight years now. But whether or not provisions will be made for the racetracks is another question.


“The issue will be back in January and if it doesn’t become a reality in that session it will emerge again and again until some form of gambling is enacted,” Rose predicted. “Of course, Plainridge may not be (in business) when that occurs.”


He pointed out that, beyond the revenue, “people don’t realize that they are very community oriented and provide a lot of support to town organizations.”


Losing the revenue would be a significant blow to the town, Soucy said, noting that, as it is, Plainville operates on a “knife thin edge.”


“I don’t know where the cuts would come from (if the town lost the track revenue),” she said. “There is no fat in our budget. We are amputating limbs at this point. And they don’t give a damn in Boston. They really don’t care. Patrick has never even been down here to see Plainridge and see what it’s about.”


“We’ve made major cuts over the last several years and this (the slot machine provision) was the hope that an influx of both property taxes on the facility, as well as host community fees, would help the town and the area to rebound from the recession that we’re in,” Fennessy added.


Meanwhile, Soucy said, she is livid about the loss of jobs that have already resulted from Patrick’s refusal to sign the casino bill because he doesn’t agree with the slot provisions.


“There are 54 jobs, and those are all local people. Plainville, North Attleboro, Wrentham, Foxborough. And there are 103 companies that the track does business with, for grain, for feed, for hay and machinery and everything … they’ve had to contact them and tell them for the immediate future they can’t keep their contracts,” Soucy said.


She called the lay-offs, which were announced last week, “a heartbreaker.”


“I know these people. One of the girls who was working up there for a while, it was her third job. She was just trying to make ends meet,” Soucy said. “Now you can’t tell me she’s lazy, because she’s working three jobs and she’s still not making it in Massachusetts. These aren’t people who are looking for a handout. They’re just trying to make it.”


And town officials, she said, “have done everything. We have sent letters, we have gone to Boston, we have lobbied, everything we could possibly do.”


While racecourse executives are also anxious, O’Toole said they are not preparing to color in their bets just yet.


“We do remain hopeful maybe something could get worked out,” he said. “Maybe we’re still in the game. We don’t think we’re dead just yet … but it’s not the brightest it’s looked.”


Read more: Town officials livid over stalled casino bill, worried about track - Plainville, MA - Wicked Local Plainville http://www.wickedlocal.com/plainville/news/x905707661/Town-officials-livid-over-stalled-casino-bill-worried-about-track#ixzz1tziHjQqs

Plainville: Richard Sabin supports illegal gambling

(jpeg of the ticket)

Fearing retribution from the ignorant rabble that seems to populate Plainville, several parents brought the 'raffle tickets' to the attention of Mary-Ann Greanier, a Plainville resident.

This explains the genesis and the statutes, posted on facebook, noplainvilleracino page:

Janet, this isn't about the Lions or about PAL — both great organizations. Last week, I received a call from a friend with kids in PAL. "John" is a gambling addict, and he had just found 10 raffle tickets stapled to his child's PAL membership folder. When they paid the $70/child to become members, no one ever mentioned that $10 would go to raffle tickets for wagers on the Kentucky Derby. After nearly destroying his life and his family with his addiction, "John" has been in recovery for less than a year. He does not need his child's athletic league sending home the opportunity to gamble on a horse race.

"John" wasn't the only parent to call me. Others did, as well. Why didn't they write to the paper or go to the Board of Selectmen? Because they were afraid of being smeared in the papers, as I was today, or ignored by the BoS. They were afraid of how their kids would be treated. They were afraid of being singled out. So they asked me to speak for them.

Because a licensed gambling establishment is involved — Plainridge's name is the ONLY name on the raffle tickets — I called the Attorney General's office, just to find out exactly what the laws are regarding race tracks, charitable gambling (and raffles, in particular), so I wouldn't go off half-cocked, making accusations that weren't true or founded. It was based on my questions that the Attorney General became concerned and decided to investigate, but I wasn't going after the Lion's Club or any other club. I was simply asking questions.

To my mind, it doesn't matter how much money an organization gives away if they are involved in raising money in a way that isn't sanctioned and regulated by our laws. I don't know what the AG will find, but if they find that this raffle needs to change in order to be within the law, then so be it. To know the laws and adhere to them when it comes to charity gambling seems like the best way to protect everyone, especially the most vulnerable among us.

Rest assured, no organization was targeted. That said, no one is above the law.

Andrea Soucy went on about the Lions at the Board of Selectmen's meeting; they are one of the clubs that has been participating in the Plainridge raffle for years. Or perhaps Ms. Kennedy is responding to the letter in the paper today. I don't know.

Raffles are considered gambling, Ms. Kennedy. You can go to this URL to read about the law: http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter271/Section7A

General Laws: CHAPTER 271, Section 7Awww.malegislature.gov
“Raffle”, an arrangement for raising money by the sale of tickets, certain among which, as determined by chance after the sale, entitle the holders to prizes.

You can also go the Attorney General's website to get more information:http://www.mass.gov/ago/doing-business-in-massachusetts/public-charities-or-not-for-profits/soliciting-funds/raffles-and-other-gaming-activity/faqs-about-nonprofit-gaming-events.html

It reads, in part:
"Q: What kinds of gaming activities are regulated?

A: Raffles, in which a chance to win is sold to participants and the winner or winners are selected from the chances actually sold, are regulated by law. Whenever money is charged for the ticket or chance, the raffle can be legally operated only by a qualified nonprofit organization. The funds received must be used only for the purposes specified in the law. If no money is charged, anyone may legally operate a raffle, and businesses often do so for promotional purposes. Consumer protection laws apply to all raffles, however."

Gaming is interchangeable with gambling in the language of the law.

Chairman of Selectmen, Andrea Soucy, who seems to be experiencing age-related confusion, pronounced herself ruler and rendered her own decision during a Selectmen's meeting, supporting and promoting what may be determined to be ILLEGAL GAMBLING by the Attorney General. 

Part of the defense by the ignorant rabble seems to be 'we've done it this way for 12 or 14 years,' rather than acknowledge that just maybe, they should have questioned this sooner or reviewed the statute. 

Now comes Richard Sabin, who seems to feel the need to defend possible illegal gambling and express his own ignorance for the 2nd time --

 Attack on league, track unconscionable

To the editor:

I have read just about enough from Mary-Ann Greanier. Her recent attack on the Plainville Athletic League and Plainridge Racecourse is unconscionable ("Keep wagering out of youth league fund-raising", April 19). The Kentucky Derby Charity Giveaway she refers to has fueled the area non-profit organizations coffers for the past 12 years to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Plainville Athletic League is just one benefactor of the event, others include the Plainville Lions Club, breast cancer, credit counseling, Altzhiemer's, diabetes, youth foundations, etc. None of these charities were forced to do anything, as her letter suggests. It is a fundraising event generously sponsored by the track and any local charity may participate and most anxiously do.

Plainridge Racecourse donates the prizes, and the charities keep every dollar they raise through the ticket sales. Plainridge Racecourse has continually given financial support to all our local community projects. The athletic league is one of the most well-run youth organizations in the area. All of a sudden after 12 years, now that Plainridge is applying for expanded gaming and Mary-Ann Greanier opposes them, this event is a problem? And she uses the Plainville Athletic League to grind her ax. Despicable.

Finding and then thriving on the negativity of each and every situation that arises in our town has become excruciating and exhausting to say the least. When was the last time Mary-Ann Greanier contributed positively to our community or our community's needs? This recent submission is just more of the same. Enough. Richard Sabin

Plainville

During the April 24th Massachusetts Gambling Commission meeting, during which Mr. Piontowsky and his entourage were present, the Commission reviewed 'Charitable Gaming,' the provisions and procedures under the law.

Under provisions of the Predatory Gambling legislation passed in 2011, the Commission is mandated to review the matter.

As the procedure was explained, it was indicated that a permit was required from the town clerk, proceeds were to be forwarded to the state's treasurer who then disbursed the funds. 

Since the 'raffle tickets' name a for-profit organization and charitable gambling can only be conducted by a non-profit organization, that seems puzzling. 

In addition, the 'prizes' are wagers on the Kentucky Derby which also seems puzzling.

It would seem that Richard Sabin is promoting and supporting illegal gambling, regardless of the law.

It would seem prudent that rather than attack Ms. Greanier regarding this issue, the ignorant rabble should educate themselves regarding the law, ask questions and finally, reserve judgement pending the determination of the Attorney General.

Note to Chairwoman Andrea Soucy: Please inform yourself of the LAW

Charitable Gambling was discussed during today's meeting of the Massachusetts Gambling Commission and the statute is CLEAR - simply written.

(The Gambling Commission is charged in the hastily passed legislation with 'reviewing' the statute.)

[Meeting minutes should be posted here shortly: http://www.mass.gov/gaming/]

MGL Chapter 271, Section 7A is the governing statute, found here:
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIV/TitleI/Chapter271/Section7A

Mr. Piontowski and his entourage were present during that meeting. Please take the time to enlighten yourself before you take any side in this issue that the Attorney General is currently investigating.

Chairwoman Andrea Soucy chose to defend something without researching the statute.

Read the law, learn the facts, inform yourself before choosing sides.

Gambling debate gets heated in Plainville

BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Track threatens to sue resident; claims made in track's charity raffle role

PLAINVILLE - The town's polite debate over expanded gambling at Plainridge Racecourse got a lot less civil Monday.


The track is now threatening to sue a local resident for defamation, while another resident contends the state attorney general is looking into an annual charitable raffle held by the track.


Taunton Street resident Thomas Keen told selectmen Monday a lawyer for the racetrack has sent him a cease and desist letter threatening to sue for defamation.


The issue involves a website and Facebook page he operates opposing proposed slot machine gambling at the Route 1 track.


In addition to information about gambling, he said he posted on Facebook a photograph of a man who recently broke into his house, hoping someone would recognize the suspect.

Another person wrote a comment under the photo, stating: "I wonder if they checked over at the racetrack. LOL."


The letter from the track's lawyer said the photo and comment are "objectionable, unprofessional and actionable."

Strong arm tactics by Mr. Piontowski?

The lawyer demanded that the "reckless" items be taken down and that Keen apologize. If he does not comply within 10 days, the track would file suit, the letter states.


Keen read the letter aloud at the selectmen's meeting.

He said later he just received the letter Monday, so he did not yet know what he would do, but suspects the track is trying to silence his opposition to the slot machine license it intends to apply for.

Was this Strong Armed Tactic necessary, especially when the comment didn't originate with Mr. Keen?

Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said the issue has nothing to do with the town and selectmen should not comment.

Reached by phone after the selectmen's meeting, track President Gary Piontkowski said he has no problem with critics speaking out against his attempt to get a slot machine license for the track.

"This is America," he said, adding that he respects the right of people to disagree publicly.

However, he said he could not tolerate Keen trying to link a crime that had nothing to do with the track and the slot machine issue.

"To imply we're seedy people or criminals" goes too far, he said.

He said the posting hurts the reputation of his business, where there has never been an arrest.

The second track-related issue that blew up at the selectmen's meeting involved gambling opponent Mary-Ann Greanier claiming the track is operating a raffle in violation of state law.

She said the Attorney General's Office has been contacted.

Greanier got into a flare-up with selectmen Chairwoman Andrea Soucy when Soucy explained that the Lion's Club has been involved in the raffle with the track for years to raise money for local charities.  

She accused Soucy of being a "commercial" for the track. Greanier said only a charity or a non-profit agency can run a raffle, and the track is neither.

When elected officials take office, they receive a copy of the Open Meeting Law and sign an acknowledgement with the Town Clerk. It seems apparent that Selectwoman Soucy has not read the statute. Maybe it's time for her to do so before the Town ends up in really hot water.

Piontkowski said his track is "fully in compliance" and has been helping charities for 14 years.

The Plainville Lion's Club has the permit for the raffle and the track puts up the prizes, he said.

The raffle involves local organizations such as Plainville Athletic League selling tickets in conjunction with the Kentucky Derby, which the track airs on its simulcast televisions. Greanier said some parents involved with the athletic league object to selling raffle tickets related to gambling.

Piontkowski said the charities handle all the money. [which seems inconsistent with the statute]

As evidence of its legality, he said state racing commission officials have bought raffle tickets in the past. [Why would anyone purchasing a 'raffle ticket' research the issue? This seems a specious defense.]

The state Attorney General's Office called Plainville police after receiving a complaint about the raffle and the police came down to the track and were given all the records of the proceeds, he said.

Posted on the NoPlainvilleRacino facebook page:

NoPlainvilleRacino

Here is the letter I wrote in response to this morning's Sun Chronicle article about the selectmen's meeting- Mary-Ann:

The "flare up" between chairwoman Soucy and myself did not originate in our difference of opinion about the philan...thropic activities of Plainridge, but rather over Ms. Soucy's behavior in the selectmen's meeting ("Gambling debate gets heated in Plainville", Tuesday, April 24).

During an update regarding the response of the town to the impending application for slots at Plainridge, Ms. Soucy brought up the Plainridge Racecourse $10,000 Charity Give-Away drawing for Kentucky Derby wagers. She heard there had been a complaint to the Attorney General, so she invited Plainridge General Manager Steve O'Toole to talk about the raffle, the philanthropic activities of Plainridge, and how much money they have donated to town charities.

Mr. O'Toole said he could not speak about the raffle because of the complaint, but said he would take the opportunity to tell how much Plainridge does for the town.

When Ms. Soucy spoke about her own experience with the Lions and the raffle, I raised a point of order, asking Ms. Soucy if she was speaking as a private citizen or from her privileged position as chairwoman of the Plainville Board of Selectmen. She said she was speaking as a private citizen. I suggested she make that clear. She did not hand the gavel to another selectmen while giving her opinion, but continued to speak about Plainridge and the raffle. That is when I asked if she was doing a commercial for Plainridge, and then asked if she is familiar with the laws governing charity raffles in Massachusetts. She said she was not.

Ms. Soucy often goes off-agenda and off-topic at selectmen's meetings, rambling on with personal stories, opinions, and reminiscences. My frustration last night was that Ms. Soucy used her position as chair to bring up a topic not on the agenda, to express a private, unsolicited opinion, and to give preferential treatment to an individual business in town.

In the future, I would ask Ms. Soucy to adhere to the open meeting laws of Massachusetts and not veer off the agenda to suit her own purposes. If she cannot do that, I would suggest she step down as chair and allow one of the other selectmen to run the meetings.

Also, for the record, I did not say that Plainridge is in violation of the law; simply that there were enough questions about the raffle to make enquiries. Apparently the AG agreed, as they are investigating the raffle.

Mary-Ann Greanier

For those too lazy to click the link, the text of the Law:

Section 7A. In this section the following words shall have the following meanings:

“Raffle”, an arrangement for raising money by the sale of tickets, certain among which, as determined by chance after the sale, entitle the holders to prizes.

“Bazaar”, a place maintained by the sponsoring organization for disposal by means of chance of one or both of the following types of prizes: (1) merchandise, of any value, (2) cash awards, not to exceed twenty-five dollars each.

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, raffles and bazaars may be promoted, operated and conducted under permits issued in accordance with the provisions of this section.

No organization, society, church or club which conducts a raffle or bazaar under the provisions of this section shall be deemed to have set up and promoted a lottery and nothing in this chapter shall authorize the prosecution, arrest or conviction of any person connected with the operation of any such raffle or bazaar; provided, however, that nothing contained in this section shall be construed as permitting the game commonly known as “beano” or any similar game regardless of name.

No raffle or bazaar shall be promoted, operated or conducted by any person or organization, unless the same is sponsored and conducted exclusively by (a) a veterans’ organization chartered by the Congress of the United States or included in clause (12) of section five of chapter forty of the General Laws; (b) a church or religious organization; (c) a fraternal or fraternal benefit society; (d) an educational or charitable organization; (e) a civic or service club or organization; and (f) clubs or organizations organized and operated exclusively for pleasure, recreation and other nonprofit purposes, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any member or shareholder. Such organization shall have been organized and actively functioning as a nonprofit organization in the commonwealth for a period of not less than two years before it may apply for a permit. The promotion and operation of the raffle or bazaar shall be confined solely to the qualified members of the sponsoring organization and no such member shall receive remuneration in any form for time or effort devoted to the promotion or operation of such raffle or bazaar. All funds derived from any raffle or bazaar shall be used exclusively for the purposes stated in the application of the sponsoring organization which purposes shall be limited to educational, charitable, religious, fraternal or civic purposes or for veterans’ benefits. An organization which meets the qualifications required by this section and which desires to conduct or operate a raffle or bazaar within the commonwealth shall apply for a permit to conduct raffles and bazaars from the clerk of the city or town in which the raffle will be drawn or the bazaar held. The application form shall be approved by the commissioner of public safety and shall include the name and address of the applicant, the evidence on which the applicant relies in order to qualify under this section, the names of three officers or members of the organization who shall be responsible for the operation of the raffle or bazaar, and the uses to which the net proceeds will be applied. Unless otherwise established in a town by town meeting action and in a city by city council action, and in a town with no town meeting by town council action, by adoption of appropriate by-laws and ordinances to set such fees, a fee of ten dollars shall accompany each such application and shall be retained by the city or town, but in no event shall any such fee be greater than fifty dollars. Upon receipt of such application, the clerk shall determine whether it is in conformity with this section. If the clerk so determines, he shall forward the application to the chief of police of the city or town, who shall determine whether the applicant is qualified to operate raffles and bazaars under this section. If the chief of police so determines, he shall endorse the application and return it to the clerk, who shall forthwith issue a permit, which shall be valid for one year from the date of its issuance. The clerk shall retain a copy of the application and shall send a copy to the commissioner of public safety. If there is any change in the facts set forth in the application for a permit subsequent to the making of such application, the applicant shall forthwith notify the authority granting such permit of such change, and such authority shall issue such permit if the applicant is qualified, or, if a permit has already been issued and the change in the facts set forth in the application disqualify the applicant revoke such permit.

If an application is not acted upon within thirty days after it is submitted, or if the organization is refused a permit, or if a permit is revoked, any person named on the application may obtain judicial review of such refusal or revocation by filing within ten days of such refusal or revocation or within ten days of the expiration of such thirty day period a petition for review in the district court having jurisdiction in the city or town in which such application was filed. A justice of said court, after a hearing, may direct that such permit be issued, if he is satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for refusing such permit, and that the applicant was not prohibited by law from holding raffles or bazaars.

An organization issued a permit under this section shall within thirty days of the expiration of its permit submit a report on a form to be approved by the commissioner of public safety. Such form shall require information concerning the number of raffles and bazaars held, the amount of money received, the expenses connected with the raffle or bazaar, the names of the winners of prizes exceeding twenty-five dollars in value, the net proceeds of the raffles and bazaars, and the uses to which the net proceeds were applied. The organization shall maintain and keep such books and records as may be necessary to substantiate the particulars of such report, which books and records shall be preserved for at least one year from the date of such report and shall be available for inspection. Such report shall be certified to by the three persons designated in the permit application as being responsible for such raffle or bazaar and by an accountant. Two copies of said report shall be filed with city or town clerk. The clerk shall send one copy to the commissioner of public safety. Failure to file said report shall constitute sufficient grounds for refusal to renew a permit to conduct raffles or bazaars. The fee for renewal of such permit shall be ten dollars.

The authority granting any permit under this section shall immediately revoke the same for a violation of any provision of this section and shall not issue any permit to such permittee within three years from the date of such violation. Any person aggrieved by the action of such authority revoking such permit may appeal to the district court having jurisdiction in the city or town where the permit was issued; provided that such appeal shall be filed in such court within twenty days following receipt of notification by said authority. The court shall hear all pertinent evidence and determine the facts and upon the facts so determined annul such action or make such decision as equity may require. The foregoing remedy shall be exclusive.

Any organization conducting or operating a raffle or bazaar under this section shall file a return with the state lottery commission, on a form prepared by it, within ten days after the raffle or bazaar is held and shall pay therewith a tax of five per cent of the gross proceeds derived from such raffle or bazaar.

All sums received by said commission from the tax imposed by this section as taxes, interest thereon, fees, penalties, forfeitures, costs of suits or fines, less all amounts refunded thereon, together with any interest or costs paid on account of such refunds, shall be paid into the treasury of the commonwealth.

Whoever violates any provision of this section or submits false information on an application or report required under this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than one year, or both.

No person who prints or produces tickets, cards or any similar article used in the conduct of a bazaar or raffle pursuant to a permit issued under the provisions of this section shall be subject to any penalty therefor, provided that a certified copy of such permit was presented to him prior to his undertaking to print or produce such tickets or cards.

No organization issued a permit under this section shall conduct more than three bazaars in any single calendar year nor shall such organization conduct more than one bazaar in any single calendar day. The operation of a bazaar shall be limited to five consecutive hours.