When a casino deal isn’t really a deal

The Brockton Enterprise, as usual, has gotten the facts and issues incorrect, yet it's nice to know they're awake!

OPINION: When a casino deal isn’t really a deal
The Enterprise
Posted Mar 18, 2012


Middleboro officials are correct when they say the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe shouldn’t be moving “from one community to another” in an attempt to get the best deal possible for a casino.

It is unseemly; it smacks of greed and opportunism; and it is unfair to the cities and towns that take the bait, then get tossed back into the water when the Wampanoags move on to the next community blinded by $$.

But that is beside the point. The tribe’s endless wandering – now playing in Taunton! – may look bad, but that is their right and privilege as a sovereign nation. For now, they are trumped by Middleboro’s media blitz to try to get more money from the tribe after it was spurned at the altar.

Town officials are angry that the Wampanoags walked away from a 2007 agreement to build a $1 billion casino complex– a deal that fizzled when Gov. Deval Patrick said he wouldn’t approve casinos in Massachusetts.

But the political landscape has changed a lot in five years and Patrick not only enthusiastically supports three casinos and a slot machine parlor, he has set aside one casino license for an Indian tribe if they can come up with an agreement with the state by July 31. After that, all bets for preferential treatment are off.

So the Wampanoags, after making and breaking a deal with Fall River, cozied up to Taunton and got the City Council to schedule a June 9 referendum. A “no” vote kills any deal and may leave the tribe out in the cold as Patrick’s July 31 deadline gets closer.

As for Middleboro, the town should be happy the tribe paid it $1 million in mitigation funds for a deal that never went anywhere. It was a big payday for, essentially, nothing. Sure there are hurt feelings, but the tone the selectmen have adopted in pushing Patrick to force the Wampanoags to either pay more money to the town or build their casino there is over the top.

The tribe, despite this, is still willing to work with Middleboro to possibly develop the land where the casino complex was to be built. Middleboro officials should look at that as a sign of good faith.

As for the casino itself? We have serious doubts it will be built in Taunton or that the Wampanoags will take care of the extensive local, state and federal requirements needed before it can receive the license.

Middleboro officials are correct when they say the Mashpee Wampanoag Indian tribe shouldn’t be moving “from one community to another” in an attempt to get the best deal possible for a casino.

It is unseemly; it smacks of greed and opportunism; and it is unfair to the cities and towns that take the bait, then get tossed back into the water when the Wampanoags move on to the next community blinded by $$.

But that is beside the point. The tribe’s endless wandering – now playing in Taunton! – may look bad, but that is their right and privilege as a sovereign nation. For now, they are trumped by Middleboro’s media blitz to try to get more money from the tribe after it was spurned at the altar.

Town officials are angry that the Wampanoags walked away from a 2007 agreement to build a $1 billion casino complex– a deal that fizzled when Gov. Deval Patrick said he wouldn’t approve casinos in Massachusetts.
But the political landscape has changed a lot in five years and Patrick not only enthusiastically supports three casinos and a slot machine parlor, he has set aside one casino license for an Indian tribe if they can come up with an agreement with the state by July 31. After that, all bets for preferential treatment are off.

So the Wampanoags, after making and breaking a deal with Fall River, cozied up to Taunton and got the City Council to schedule a June 9 referendum. A “no” vote kills any deal and may leave the tribe out in the cold as Patrick’s July 31 deadline gets closer.

As for Middleboro, the town should be happy the tribe paid it $1 million in mitigation funds for a deal that never went anywhere. It was a big payday for, essentially, nothing. Sure there are hurt feelings, but the tone the selectmen have adopted in pushing Patrick to force the Wampanoags to either pay more money to the town or build their casino there is over the top.

The tribe, despite this, is still willing to work with Middleboro to possibly develop the land where the casino complex was to be built. Middleboro officials should look at that as a sign of good faith.

As for the casino itself? We have serious doubts it will be built in Taunton or that the Wampanoags will take care of the extensive local, state and federal requirements needed before it can receive the license.

By now, any city or town that tries to do business with them should understand that the tribe and its billionaire backers will do what is best for themselves and don’t give much thought to the feelings of local residents.

But that is business. And it is especially endemic in the gambling industry. Partnerships are created almost solely on the basis of how much money can be made. That was the case in Middleboro in 2007 and in Taunton in 2012.

By now, any city or town that tries to do business with them should understand that the tribe and its billionaire backers will do what is best for themselves and don’t give much thought to the feelings of local residents.

But that is business. And it is especially endemic in the gambling industry.

Partnerships are created almost solely on the basis of how much money can be made. That was the case in Middleboro in 2007 and in Taunton in 2012.


Read more: http://www.enterprisenews.com/topstories/x770710244/OPINION-When-a-casino-deal-isn-t-really-a-deal#ixzz1pT2q11XH

Brockton Emptyprise Censors!

In response to an article in the Brockton Enterprise that few read, the comment below was posted:

MiddleboroReview
Big Sigh, matty!

You're a paid casino clown who doesn't even live in this state or this part of the country. You make tooo tooo many factual errors and have no idea what you're talking about - well, other than to repeat 'canned' and scripted casino rhetoric.

Matty, you simply must do better than the fantasy you post. Try a few facts, like that both CT Slot Parlors had to recruit overseas because they were unable to fill the low wage, dead end jobs they offer, causing those low wage workers to resort to 'hot bedding' - a practice that cause folks to be crammed into sub-standard and unsafe housing, sometimes sleeping in shifts in the same bed.

Massachusetts residents are smarter than you are, are learning the facts and who wants a Slot Parlor in their town?

Polling numbers drop precipitously when folks are asked if they want a Slot Parlor near them - 24/7/365 noise, traffic and drunks?

Lincoln, RI voters voted overwhelmingly AGAINST 24/7 operations and got stuck with it via the bankruptcy court - nothing like losing ALL local control with these BIG GAMBLING BUSINESSES!

A recent Boston Globe poll indicated that only 3% of respondents supported slots at tracks.

Job creation? You're just jealous because you're probably sitting in some Las Vegas office watching the numbers of house foreclosures explode and the homeless population overwhelm resources.

The more people learn about the costs and impacts of this predatory industry, the greater opposition grows.

For $600 million, you get 'Slots in a Box,' not some elegant facility as proposed.

90% of 'casino' profits originate from 10% of patrons.

That's Gambling Addiction without which the Industry would not exist.

The Industry itself uses the figure of 6% of the population becoming addicts.

That's 308,000 Massachusetts residents and families who will be harmed.

If a child's toy ONLY injured 6% of the children who played with it, would we consider that reasonable?
Toyota recalled 8 million vehicles because 89 people died.

Those Gambling Addicts increase personal bankruptcies, crime, embezzlements, public safety costs, child abandonment, spousal abuse - all costly to the taxpayer.

A federal study determined that for every $1 in tax revenue provided by gambling, the cost to taxpayers was $3.

The poster children for Casino Gambling are:

Atlantic City --
http://middlebororemembers.blogspot.com/search/label/Atlantic%20City

And Las Vegas --
http://middlebororemembers.blogspot.com/search/label/Las%20Vegas

Former Attorney General Scott Harshbarger wrote about the surrounding issues here:
http://boston.com/community/blogs/upon_reflection/2010/07/before_we_expand_gambling_part.html

And concludes with:

The BOTTOM LINE: My friends, readers, and fellow citizens, in the words of John Gardner (the founder of Common Cause), 'Democracy is NOT a spectator sport!' Now is the time for your voice to be heard. Call on the Governor to stop this dramatic and irreversible expansion of gambling in Massachusetts at least until we understand exactly what the odds are AND what we are betting on!

Please consider some of the information available here:
www.uss-mass.org/

The comment was subsequently removed, surely to create the false illusion that casino opponents are non-existent.

One might wonder where the little Brockton Gremlins are.

Removing anything that appears informed and contains factual information in defense of the Casino Investors?

This is a pervasive practice that allows the few to pretend that the opposition is negligible.

Sorry, little gremlin! The grassroots opposition is growing as more folks figure out what this will cost them.

Below is the post that was removed --

And the post was again replaced.

Upon further consideration, the entry below was posted:

To the Gremlins,

The comment above does not seem to violate your posted policy.

Delete it again and you will leave me no choice other than to blog about it.

Your articles have been clearly one-sided. Pity!

It's widely known that Gambling Interests pay people to post inflammatory comments based on their talking points - zealots and anti-gambling moralists seems to be the phrase du jour.

To have a factual post (composed in response to one of these Shills) deleted simply to reaffirm the one-sided offering of a poor quality newspaper is pretty disappointing.

Brockton Enterprise: Gambling Opposition: Last time I checked ...

The Brockton Enterprise offered a poll on their front page and the last time I checked, the responses were overwhelmingly OPPOSED in this category --

Vote it down -- no gambling at all

So, the Poll was REMOVED.

So much for impartial journalism when a poll that fails to produce the desired results for the editors is removed!

Poll

How should the gambling debate on Beacon Hill end?

Set up resort casinos and slots at racetracks
Set up resort casinos, but no racetrack slots
Vote it down -- no gambling at all

Oh, Mr. Rabbit ......

When I read the Brockton Enterprise article, written by a journalist who usually thoroughly researches his topic and includes both sides, I knew that he had found Alice's Rabbit Hole and written a fairy tale.

“Some of the groundwork has already been done,” said Middleboro Selectman Muriel Duphily. “It would be to their advantage to do (a state-licensed casino) here, rather than somewhere else.”

Oh?

Mrs. Duphily is a really nice person, very talented and creative, but generally uninformed by choice. She is a single issue candidate who hasn't figured out that the groundwork that was laid never included analysing the impacts.

Mrs. Duphily believed the JOBS, JOBS, JOBS and has refused to consider little else.

Like --

Low Paying Jobs With "Racinos" or The Mad Hatter's Tea Party
.... a new study has found that facilities that provide both racing and casino activities create low-paying jobs that depress salaries in surrounding areas.

Or the issues raised by WMCAT.

In fairness, the one thing for which Selectwoman Duphily, like Selectwoman Brunelle can be credited for is the ability to make up their minds without the facts, refusing to listen to the comments of others and the stubborn refusal to do any research. Bravo!

Middleboro voters have already approved bringing a casino to the town, Duphily said.

Did they?

One might consider the BMG entry, but instead of reading any lengthy newspaper article or blog entry, allow my reassurances that NO! MIDDLEBORO VOTERS DID NO SUCH THING!

The journalist and the Brockton Enterprise provide a disservice to report that comment without correction.

Middleboro voters were rushed to accept a deal AFTER land had been sold cheaply, at a poorly advertised auction, knowing that casino investors were interested in the location.

Middleboro voters were told that if they didn't accept the Agreement with the convicted rapist and felon, they would get a casino and no $$$$.

Middleboro voters voted on an AGREEMENT WITH THE MASHPEE TRIBE.

And, Mimi Dear, you just might want to consider the results of the opinion question that asked voters if they wanted a casino. That was the little noticed Question 3 wasn't it? Wasn't the vote unanimous?

Since everyone seems confused about the vote that was NOT 2/3, unanimous is unanimous isn't it?

Such an approval would likely be required for any casino under state legislation, said Clyde Barrow, a UMass-Dartmouth gambling researcher.

And who would expect a media report without an uninformed comment from our resident casino shill?

Footnote to casino supporters: In case you haven't figured it out and are salivating for the provisions in the poor Agreement negotiated with the Tribe, you don't have one with the commercial developers. Those developers have filed in federal bankruptcy court and are asking for what they want. They'll get it! It will include 24/7 gambling which Lincoln, RI voters opposed, and they will dump greyhound racing. They have more money than some piddly little town like Middleboro. They WILL get what they want.