The Dumbest Location in the Commonwealth

Maybe you weren't paying close attention to the backroom deals, secret promises and typical Massachusetts corruption....or even that the Gambling Industry crafted the legislation. Maybe you even wrongly believed it wouldn't effect you.

Those schemes and promises resulted in the line on the Slot Barn map being moved to reward Bob Kraft, generous campaign donor. Maybe you didn't notice.

Bob Kraft managed to find Steve Wynn, currently being investigated for FCPA violations (bribing foreign officials), and we won't  re-hash how Drexel Lambert a la Michael Milken made Steve Wynn rich and screwed everyone else.

We won't dally about Gregory Bialecki sleeping with Bob Kraft, nor his investment in Gambling stocks that Governor Slot Barns defended.

The clowns wrongly believed Kraft/Wynn was a Slam Dunk. How'd that go for ya?

An owner of Suffolk Downs contributed to ruling Mayor Menino's secret charity that doesn't have public reporting requirements.

An owner of Suffolk Downs contributed to Senator "Amnesia" Petrucelli's secret charity that doesn't have reporting requirement. (And his charity wasn't even legal.)


Senator Petrucelli commissioned a report, then claimed it wasn't really a report, he's very confused with the lies he has told. What is clear is that his lying will cost Massachusetts taxpayers + $500 million to fund this "Something for Nothing Scheme" for his buddies.  

As candidate, he lied about his college graduation - he didn't even finish college!

It's time to retire Mr. Petrucelli to count the money he's been promised and manage his charitable endeavors.

What else don't we know?

This one tops them ALL! The dumbest location in the Commonwealth!

There are two roads that go in and out of Winthrop. Which one of them would you take to avoid Suffolk Downs traffic? — in Winthrop, MA.

One of the phony arguments used to promote Gambling is the $$$ flooding across state lines.

Every day, Massachusetts residents are forced to travel to other states for flights because MassPort and the short-sighted Political Elites refuse to divert flights to Worcester, turning neighborhoods into polluted parking lots.

Enough already!    

This Boston-centric universe can reward $46.5 million for a Boston development, but abandoned tornado-ravaged communities.

Chronicle aired a segment on the abandonment of Western Massachusetts and the community destruction:

Friday, May 4: After the Storm

These are OUR tax dollars that are being mis-spent by goose-stepping politicians that are betraying us and allowing their already over-inflated egos to be stroked by Lobbyists and Campaign Contributors, ignoring facts and their constituents.  

Time for change!

Dance of the Slot Barn Shills!

Thursday, April 26th, the Boston Globe hosted the Dance of the Slot Barn Shills!

It was an adventurous evening, sorry you missed it! 
  
First, we need to step back in history to enlighten.

Once upon a time in Middleboro, the Chairman of the Board of Selectmen was Wayne Perkins who made the statement during a 2007 BOS meeting:

Chairman Perkins noted that towns in Connecticut that have casinos don't pay taxes.

NOTE: TOWNS - plural

Wow! That potential was so impressive, scads of us began researching this MIRACLE! What's not to love about that prospect?

We spoke to town officials, reviewed information online, reviewed the agreement the Tribe has with the Town of Montville that provides for annual payments of $500,000, with no escalation and no share of revenue.

We found no evidence of that statement.

FAST FORWARD to April 26th, 2012:

During the Dance of the Slot Barn Shills, Father McGowan stated that there was a community in Connecticut that paid no real estate taxes! Huh?

So, in 2007, this was Wayne Perkins source of misinformation!

After the event that blessed the death knell of many communities if it moves to fruition, I attempted to determine to what community Father McGowan's comment referred. Although there were numerous other inaccuracies in McGowan's statements, that was my focus.

As I waited to ask McGowan to name the community, he concluded his conversation with Jo Fernandes, Town Whatever from Plainville [God help Plainville if this is the source of their information because they're too blind or lazy to inform themselves!].

When I asked which community, McGowan simply said Mohegan Sun without naming the community. (It is Montville. The Agreement mandates annual payments of $500,000 with no escalation, no participation in revenues, negotiated by Town Counsel, noted in the SEC filing by Mohegan Sun.) He volunteered that there was another unnamed community north of Chicago.

I was so stunned by the revelation, I said that they only receive $500,000 per year.

At that, McGowan's demeanor changed and he lashed out at me with unwarranted attack, as well as an attack on the ONLY Opponent on the evening's panel.

During his Vampire Routine, McGowan blurted that the town didn't pay taxes the first few years. I don't know what it is now.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID ON CAMERA!

When I pointed out that that was NOT what he said, the Bully got really hostile, told me he wasn't going to talk to me any more and turned his back!

Folks, this is the problem with Slot Barn Cheerleaders who have consumed too much KoolAid.

Gambling is a Predatory Industry that creates NEW Gambling and creates NEW Gambling Addicts. Even Massachusetts Secretary Bialecki was forced to acknowledge that the 'Administration' calculated that 50% of the profits would originate from  GAMBLING ADDICTS. [Harrah's, now known as Caesars, determined that 90% of their profits came from 10% of their patrons.]


This is not a talisman that wards off arrogance and dishonesty --

Please provide information indicating what TOWNS do NOT pay real estate taxes.

I'm waiting!

Background:
Perkins said the Mashpee tribe offered an economic engine for the region, giving Middleboro 2 percent of the net gaming revenue, annually.
[It never happened!]

From: To Talia: Casino Corruption #4
http://middlebororecall.blogspot.com/2008/01/to-talia-casino-corruption-4.html

SELECTMEN'S MEETING

MARCH 5, 2007

Casino

Chairman Perkins said he was in favor of forming an exploratory committee in response to a news release by the Wampanoag of Mashpee who are looking for about 200 acres in Southeastern Massachusetts for a casino.  He said he had been approached by a number of residents.

Selectman Bond agreed.  He asked if the economic impact of having a casino was known.

Mr. Healey said he didn't know, but noted it would significantly change the character of the town.

Selectwoman Brunelle said the economic impact would be whatever was negotiated with the group.[Huh?]

Chairman Perkins noted that towns in Connecticut that have casinos don't pay taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncasville,_Connecticut
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montville,_Connecticut
budget - 1st bond payment in Rand Whitney settlement - page 2 http://www.townofmontville.org/FormRepository/processDownload.asp?ID=4443
Line 49080 page 11 Mohegan contributions $500,000

The Foxborough Propaganda

Just a reminder of the past --

Bridge goes nowhere
BY FRANK MORTIMER SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
Thursday, November 17, 2011

FOXBORO - A controversial planned pedestrian bridge over Route 1 at Patriot Place/Gillette Stadium has been denied funding a second time.

When applying in September for a state grant, Town Planner Sharon Wason said the field was crowded with applicants from across the state.

She said Foxboro's application for $8 million was a long shot, if only because that sum would have gobbled up most of the 2011 MassWorks Infrastructure Grant budget.

On Tuesday, the town's application, which was prepared with engineering assistance from the Kraft Group, was denied.

During this funding round, the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development (EOHED) received 158 applications totaling over $400 million in funding requests, according to secretary Greg Bialecki. The next MassWorks Infrastructure Program Grant Round will be held in September 2012, he wrote.

"I recommend you review the Massworks Infrastructure Program guidelines and consider ways to increase the project readiness or consistency with our spending goals," he wrote.

Bialecki wrote that the EOHED and its partner agencies were "pleasantly surprised to find that a great number of applications met both our minimum readiness standard and were consistent with our MassWorks Infrastructure Program spending goals. Therefore, we selected those projects that were most ready and most closely aligned with our priorities. I regret to inform you that we are unable to fund the Washington Street (Route 1) Pedestrian Bridge at this time."

Stadium legislation in 1999 called for a pedestrian bridge to keep patrons safe from highway traffic.

The Kraft Group more recently has sought the bridge to link the Gillette Stadium-Patriot Place complex with the company's planned high-tech office park on the opposite side of Route 1, where parking lots are located. A planned commuter rail station also would be located across the highway.

The bridge plan hit a federal funding roadblock a couple of years ago when questions surfaced over use of public funds to enhance the private stadium and shopping/entertainment complex with a handy walkover to Kraft-owned parking. The Kraft Group did engineering work for the bridge in 2009 at the request of the state, which at the time was releasing federal stimulus money for such infrastructure projects.

Police Chief Edward O'Leary, state police and other state and local officials have long said the proposed bridge is an important public safety feature in an area that draws tens of thousands of fans on event days.




Wynn, Kraft make case for casino in Foxborough
By Casey Ross and Noah Bierman Globe Staff December 06, 2011


Steve Wynn and Robert Kraft said a casino in Foxborough would be an economic engine for the town and region. [Name a community that has prospered 5 years after a Slot Barn opens in its midst.]

A $1 billion casino resort across from Gillette Stadium would include a luxury hotel, gambling hall, shops, restaurants, and convention space that its developers insisted would still feel as if it “fits in the woods’’ of Foxborough.

That was the pitch from casino mogul Steve Wynn and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who made a joint appearance in Foxborough yesterday to argue that the casino would be an economic engine for the town and region.

Unlike his skyscraper-high casinos in Las Vegas, Wynn said, the Foxborough resort would contain low- to midrise buildings no taller than the 200-foot high Gillette Stadium. “What is appropriate for Las Vegas would be completely out of scale and inappropriate in Massachusetts,’’ he said.

However, since there are few tall buildings in the surrounding area, a casino 200 feet tall would tower over the surrounding suburban landscape, which includes mostly one- and two-story retail shops and parking lots along Route 1.

Kraft had initially tried to develop an office complex for life sciences and technology companies on the property, but failed to move forward with that plan. That caused him to begin looking at other options, and he said the partnership with Wynn offers the best opportunity to create jobs.

‘What is appropriate for Las Vegas would be completely out of scale and inappropriate in Massachusetts.’

Steve Wynn, casino mogul
Wynn, who owns and operates massive casinos in Las Vegas and in Macau off mainland China, said he originally approached Kraft about the idea about six months ago. [and is currently under investigation by the SEC for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.]

Under the new casino law in Massachusetts, developers must get approval from their host communities to build gambling facilities, and that may be one of the biggest obstacles facing the Wynn-Kraft team.

In an interview with the Globe yesterday, the two executives seemed intent on addressing the concerns of Foxborough’s 16,865 residents more than any other audience. Kraft and Wynn held interviews with several news organizations in a television studio inside Gillette Stadium, and the sessions with reporters were filmed by The Kraft Group, the business entity negotiating the casino proposal. A spokesman said the company intends to have the footage aired on Foxborough’s local cable channel or used in other efforts related to the project.

The two executives promised to build a facility that would generate business activity and tax dollars for the community, while protecting what they called Foxborough’s bucolic character.

“We see this as a destination resort that will attract people from all over America and all over the world that will want to come here and have conventions and have meeting spaces and have a good time,’’ [Fat chance!] Kraft said, adding that visitors would “leave a lot of revenue here that will spill over to both Foxborough and the surrounding towns.’’

The town of Foxborough has been skeptical of gambling for years, and some residents held a protest over the weekend to express concern about hosting a casino. Foxborough’s Town Meeting would need to approve any zoning changes for a casino by a two-thirds vote.

But Kraft promised that local residents “and their offspring’’ would have a priority in getting a job at the new resort. He made a personal appeal, saying that Foxborough is “like my hometown’’ and that he had a special message for the mothers of the town.

“We’ve had a 25-year relationship,’’ he said. “Unless we can satisfy the mothers and the people here that this is in the best interest in the community, then we don’t want to do it.’’

During their 30-minute interview with the Globe, Wynn and Kraft only took four questions. Kraft cut off a fifth question about whether the National Football League’s image would be tarnished by the association with a casino. “Now we’re 10 minutes late,’’ he said, declining to answer.

NFL rules prohibit teams from owning or operating casinos, but Kraft suggested that his arrangement with Wynn would not violate those policies. He said he would be leasing his land to Wynn at a fixed rent, so his company, The Kraft Group, would neither benefit nor be harmed by the casino’s performance.

“It’s just like Staples coming in and renting space from us,’’ said Kraft, [This is the funniest thing ever said! Do you 'mitigate' for Staples?] who is chief executive of The Kraft Group, which owns businesses in real estate, sports, paper and packaging, philanthropy, and other sectors.

The NFL said in a statement that it has not received a proposal from Kraft, but will review it for compliance with league policies if and when it does.

Wynn - who mixed his casino pitch with reminiscences of boyhood visits to Revere, where his parents were born - took pains to downplay the role of gambling in his company. He focused instead on how that part of his business gives him the opportunity to build extravagant entertainment facilities.

“The casino helps pay for it,’’ he said “That’s really what casinos have meant to me for the past 40 years, a chance to build dancing waters and fountains and volcanoes that erupt, tigers and sharks that swim behind the front desk.’’

Wynn’s casinos have set new standards for opulence in the industry. One of his latest projects, Wynn Las Vegas, is set in a 50-story tower that features 22 restaurants, a long list of luxury clothiers, a Maserati and Ferrari dealership, and a water spectacle called “The Dream.’’

As he described it, a casino in Foxborough would include a long promenade lined with shops and restaurants, convention and meeting rooms, and a luxury hotel. He said the casino would be tucked behind “a blind at the door so that children and families . . . can’t see the equipment.’’

“In talking with some of the people in Foxborough, I noticed that that they were frightened’’ by gambling facilities, Wynn said, promising that his casino would be unlike anything they have ever seen. He also stressed that the success of his facilities is based on treating his employees well, because that translates into treating customers well.

“We build beautiful places, but it isn’t about chandeliers and hand-woven carpets or marble or onyx,’’ he said. “What really creates success in the hospitality business are people.’’

Kraft said he is not proposing a casino to build his personal wealth, but to leave a legacy that will benefit the community.

“I’m not driven by making money, because basically whatever money I make from here on in is going to charity or the US government is going to take it,’’ he said. He added later: “I’d like to see this town win in every way, not just Super Bowl championships. I want it to have the best school system. I’d like to think that housing values here will continue to appreciate and that this special bucolic town, stays special. You can’t do that if you don’t have economic vitality.’’

Kraft emphasized that he will drop the proposal if he and Wynn are not able to resolve concerns of residents. “If we can’t solve them, then we shouldn’t do this deal,’’ he said. “We’ll walk away, because both of us have plenty to do.’’ [Steve Wynn can move on to get tossed out of more communities! It's becoming a lengthy list.]

The Prostitution of Beacon Hill

You know the bad joke?

The one where a guy says 'will you sleep with me for a million buck?'
Female says 'Of course.'
Man says 'Will you sleep with me for a quarter?'
Outraged female says 'What do you think I am?'
Man says 'We've already determined what you are. Now we're just dickering about the price.'

That bad joke comes to mind remembering the back room deals and phony Gambling hearings conducted by Beacon Hill. Excluding the public. Limiting the time opponents could speak.

Remembering Senator Stanley Rosenberg's grinning face "Trust me!" even as he profited from his Gambling investments....after frittering taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on Gambling Industry studies, telling Gambling Opponents they should pay for their own report...and Secretary Bialecki's inability to answer even the simplest questions as he, too, profited from Gambling investments....

Phony assurances 'We'll get it right!' knowing they were too busy crafting Krafty legislation that moved the lines on the map.

And the cherubic-faced Governor Slot Barns assurance 'Move Along! No Corruption here!'


So the bought and paid for media, too lazy to accurately report or research, led the charge for PREDATORY GAMBLING, never presenting the available facts, never reporting that an INDEPENDENT COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS was NEVER conducted, NEVER reporting the community degradation that accompanies SLOT BARNS by whatever phony name you call them.


The Boston Globe was one of the biggest cheerleaders, infrequently reporting anything negative about the enslavement of GAMBLING ADDICTION. Doing its best to ignore opponents.

Everyone it seems is circulating the article below as if it means something beyond the Prostitution of Beacon Hill.

The Gambling Industry spent ~ $60 MILLION in Pennsylvania to buy the votes to get legislation passed at midnight on the 4th of July.

The Gambling Industry spent ~ $50 MILLION in Ohio getting Industry crafted legislation passed after numerous attempts.

And in Florida and New York, they're spending far more stroking the egos of little men willing to behave like sheep.

Massachusetts sold itself CHEAP! Just like the Bad Joke!

If the purpose of government is the Common Good, how can Government Sponsored Addiction represent that goal?



Casinos industry spent millions lobbying in Mass.
Steve LeBlanc, Associated Press

When Beacon Hill lawmakers finally adopted a bill to legalize casino gambling, it wasn’t just a victory for would-be high rollers or Massachusetts’ cash-strapped cities and towns.

It was also a long-awaited — and pricey — win for a casino industry that had longed hoped for a toehold in the state.

To press its case at the Statehouse and win over wavering lawmakers, the industry hired a small army of lobbyists who, year after year, steadily made the argument for expanded gambling in Massachusetts.

In just the past five years, the tally for all that lobbying topped $11.4 million, according to a review of state lobbying records by The Associated Press.

Overall spending on lobbying steadily increased year after year as the pressure built to approve a bill.

In 2007, the total lobbying tab on the casino issue was nearly $1.3 million. By 2011, that grew to more than $3.1 million.

Many of the companies that lobbied hardest for the expanded gambling law are now actively pursuing the three casino licenses created by the legislation.

The company that easily spent the most on lobbying was Sterling Suffolk Racecourse, which runs the Suffolk Downs racetrack and is hoping to turn the East Boston facility into a destination casino.

From 2007 to 2011, the track spent more than $2.8 million on lobbying, according to the AP review.

Another big spender was the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which also is hoping to win one of the three casino licenses. During the past five years, the tribe spent nearly $850,000 on lobbying expenses.

The law gives federally recognized tribes like the Mashpee Wampanoags until July 31 to negotiate a gaming compact in the southeast part of the state.

There was plenty of out-of-state lobbying money flowing into Massachusetts.

Development Associates, LLC, a Las Vegas-based subsidiary of casino and hotel developer Steve Wynn, spent more than $863,000 on lobbying in just the past three years.

Wynn is hoping to win one of the licenses. He’s teamed with New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft to propose a casino in Foxborough.

Las Vegas Sands Corporation, another casino company, has spent nearly $473,000 on lobbying during the same time period.

Two other companies hoping to land casino licenses also doled out hefty sums on lobbying.

Pennsylvania-based Penn National Gaming Inc. spent nearly $197,000 on lobbying during the past five years while Las Vegas-based MGM Resorts International, which is eyeing a casino for Brimfield, spent $60,000.

The money spent on lobbying went to a range of activities.

Of the $850,600 that Sterling Suffolk Racecourse spent on lobbying just in 2010, about half — or $426,960 — went to pay the salary of lobbyists including seven separate firms and two individuals.

The remaining money — about $423,640 — went to such items printing and public relations consulting to advertising, cellphone bills, bus rentals, hats and T-shirts and the creation of a website to support the casino push.

William Mulrow, chairman of Suffolk Downs Board of Directors, defended the lobbying push, saying the 77-year-old track wants to maintain its legacy “as the state’s premier gaming destination.’’

“Suffolk Downs continues to work with community groups, neighbors and others to answer questions and provide information on how a world-class resort casino here would create thousands of jobs, boost the local economy and invest in local transportation improvements,’’ Mulrow said in a statement.

Pols to profit from casinos? Not so Massachusetts

Pols to profit from casinos? No dice, says Gov. Cuomo
Exclusive: Language in budget proposal would forbid lawmakers from having hand in gaming companies
By Glenn Blain / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS


ALBANY — There is one group that definitely won’t be cashing in on Gov. Cuomo’s push to legalize casino gambling in New York — politicians.

Tucked inside the 2012-13 budget proposal Cuomo released last week is language forbidding lawmakers from having a hand in the till in an industry the governor wants to better regulate.

Elected officials, government employees and political party types would be barred from owning any stake, including stock, in licensed gaming companies.

Politicos would also be blocked from having more than a 10% stake in any business that sells goods or services to a gambling enterprise.

“Given the many recent scandals involving public officials, it’s great the governor is telling our public officials and party leaders to keep their hands off,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens Union.

The prohibitions are part of legislation included in Cuomo’s budget proposal. The bill would merge the state Lottery Division with the Racing and Wagering Board to create a new state gaming commission. If the measure is approved, the commission would control licensing of gaming companies — and woe to the politico who gets caught in a deal.

Cuomo said the move is needed to both modernize and streamline the regulation of gaming in the state, telling the Daily News Editorial Board last week that the state’s approach to the industry is “ugly, sloppy and ineffective.”

A Cuomo spokesman said that similar safeguards now apply to the racing industry.

The regulatory move could help the governor as he drives for a constitutional amendment to legalize casino gambling.

The need for greater oversight was highlighted in 2010 when the Aqueduct Entertainment Group’s bid to run a racino at Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens fell apart because of behind-the-scenes influence from lawmakers.

gblain@nydailynews.com

ALBANY — There is one group that definitely won’t be cashing in on Gov. Cuomo’s push to legalize casino gambling in New York — politicians.

Tucked inside the 2012-13 budget proposal Cuomo released last week is language forbidding lawmakers from having a hand in the till in an industry the governor wants to better regulate.

Elected officials, government employees and political party types would be barred from owning any stake, including stock, in licensed gaming companies.

[Not so in Massachusetts where Secretary Bialecki and Senator Stanley Rosenberg profited from Gambling Stocks at the same time they were cheerleading for EXPANDED GAMBLING.]

Politicos would also be blocked from having more than a 10% stake in any business that sells goods or services to a gambling enterprise.

“Given the many recent scandals involving public officials, it’s great the governor is telling our public officials and party leaders to keep their hands off,” said Dick Dadey, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens Union.


The prohibitions are part of legislation included in Cuomo’s budget proposal. The bill would merge the state Lottery Division with the Racing and Wagering Board to create a new state gaming commission. If the measure is approved, the commission would control licensing of gaming companies — and woe to the politico who gets caught in a deal.

Cuomo said the move is needed to both modernize and streamline the regulation of gaming in the state, telling the Daily News Editorial Board last week that the state’s approach to the industry is “ugly, sloppy and ineffective.”

A Cuomo spokesman said that similar safeguards now apply to the racing industry.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/pols-profit-casinos-dice-gov-cuomo-article-1.1010142#ixzz1kHmUneLd

Hold your nose!

No matter how you describe it, this smells! Closed door meetings.....secret promises....genuflecting to the Gambling Industry......this is not pretty....unsubstantiated assurances from Senator Rosenberg that "we'll get it right" (even as the 2010 version contained pages of ERRATA: translation: hastily concocted crap)

"Pro-casino Senator Stan Rosenberg, the Senate's 'casino guru' bought gambling stock in 2010 and could theoretically profit from all four proposed Mass. gambling venues. Governor should veto this bill." facebook

Worth reading in its entirety and reviewing the links --

Sen. Rosenberg to Sec. Bialecki: I’ll See Your Casino Stock and Raise You My Casino


It turns out that Patrick administration Secretary of Housing & Economic Development Greg Bialecki is not the only big player in the push to bring casinos to MA whose financial portfolio includes interests who stand to benefit if the casino legislation becomes law- Stan Rosenberg, who touts to constituents his status as the gambling guru (p.6) of the State Senate also owns stock in a company that could benefit tremendously if three casinos and a slot parlor are allowed in the Bay State. While Bialecki owned stock in some casinos themselves, Rosenberg, according to his 2010 Statement of Financial Interests disclosure (p.3, courtesy of the excellent Commonwealth Magazine), owns stock in Harris Corp- a major casino vendor.

You can file an online complaint with the Ethics Commission: HERE

Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

Flawed casino bill leaves public interest too vulnerable

FOUR YEARS ago, when Governor Patrick resurrected the idea of legalizing casinos in Massachusetts, it seemed conceivable that doing so could work out to the state’s advantage. For most Bay State residents who visit Connecticut from time to time to play roulette and see a favorite comedian, gambling is harmless entertainment and nothing more. For that reason, authorizing Foxwoods-style destination casinos looked like an easy way to recapture hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenues and satisfy public needs from transportation to local aid - and generate thousands of new jobs to boot.

The key question, though, was whether the governor and state lawmakers could expand gambling in a manner that maximizes the economic benefits for the state and minimizes the potential for political intrigue. While a Beacon Hill conference committee is still reconciling the measures that passed the House and Senate this fall, it’s become quite clear that the political system in Massachusetts isn’t well-equipped to withstand the intense pressure that legalized gambling will place upon it.

The public interest is highly vulnerable on some of the nitty-gritty issues now before House and Senate negotiators. For instance, under which circumstances will voters in the state’s largest cities get a vote on a proposed gambling facility in their communities? For how long should lawmakers be prohibited from working for gambling companies after they leave office? On both issues, the Senate bill is better than the House bill - which would deny most Bostonians a vote on a casino in the city and provides no cooling-off period before a lawmaker could take a job with a gambling operator. But neither bill’s provisions are adequate.

Still more telling are key issues that are no longer on the table. While Patrick’s original vision was for three destination casinos, House Speaker Robert DeLeo, who has long shown a special interest in Suffolk Downs, wanted to let the state’s ailing racetracks have slot machines. Last year’s negotiations stalled on the issue. This year, Patrick, DeLeo, and Senate President Therese Murray agreed on a plan to license three casinos and a slots parlor - and to set aside some of the proceeds to prop up the racing industry. At this point, writing this kind of favoritism into law isn’t even up for debate, and there are ample grounds for public cynicism. Is there much doubt that Suffolk Downs will come away with either a casino or a slots license, no matter what?

Sadly, there’s little evidence that Beacon Hill has taken recent scandals to heart. When former state senator Dianne Wilkerson pleaded guilty in a bribery scheme over a liquor license, it foreshadowed the danger of corruption on casino licensing decisions, where exponentially more money is at stake. When former House Speaker Sal DiMasi was convicted of taking kickbacks to fix a multimillion-dollar insurance contract, it highlighted how even a seasoned lawmaker could view self-dealing as part of how things are done on Beacon Hill.

Yet at the point in the legislative process when the public most needs reassurance, the signs are particularly grim. Recently the lead House negotiator, Representative Joseph Wagner, maintained that denying politicians the ability to be hired right out of the Legislature and into casino jobs would “preclude the best and brightest’’ from working in the industry. Meanwhile, the Globe recently reported that a key Patrick aide on the gambling issue, economic-development chief Greg Bialecki, owned $17,000 in stocks in companies that hope to build casinos in the state. Most people on Beacon Hill barely shrugged.

When Patrick offered a casino plan four years ago, he did so cautiously, and the bill as it now stands is still farther from his ideals. Yes, the conference committee can and should strengthen ethics protections and local-control provisions in the bill. Yet unless the basic outlines are changed to conform to Patrick’s initial vision, it simply shouldn’t pass, and Patrick should veto it if it does. If Massachusetts marries the casino industry on these terms, it will be stuck with the consequences forever.

Massachusetts: The Greatest Show on Earth!

Ladies and Gentlemen... and children of all ages!

You are invited to a front row seat to watch the unfolding very public corruption brought to you by Governor "Slot Barns," the cherubic faced politician who has been allowed to get away with pathetic performance.





Commitment is easy to pretend. Especially for one who worked for Ameriquest and pens an autobiography that proclaims the importance of SOCIAL JUSTICE.

How dare you question? How dare you oppose?

After all, look at the price Sal DiMasi is paying for his casino opposition. Governor 'Slot Barns' carried that grudge like the petulant child he is.

Here's the Johnny Come Lately of public scandals because he hasn't been doing his job:

“Boiling is the word. It’s an outrage."

Well, Governor, I felt much the same way when it became publicly known that the Trust Funder made a generous profit on Casino stocks as he was testifying in Gardner Auditorium and you failed to request his resignation.


A recent article (Council to huddle with developers on casino) aroused my curiosity about registered lobbyists.

The named 'Gambling Interests' salivating over New Bedford are KG Urban and Foundation Gaming.

KG Urban is registered with the Secretary of State in the category of 'real estate' which makes sense - when we allowed our steel industry to move overseas, KG partnered with Sands to promote Gambling Addiction in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

We'll return to KG in a moment.

Foundation Gaming on the other hand is curious.

A quick search:

http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20110404006805/en/Joseph-L.-Billhimer-Jr.-Joins-MTR-Gaming

Web site - UNDER CONSTRUCTION? You're kidding, right?

http://www.foundationgaminggroup.com/

http://www.casinoman.net/gambling-news/article/foundation-gaming-group-announces-the-successful-completion-of-it.9716.asp#

They're also not registered as lobbyists or as a corporation with the Secretary of State. All very confusing!


Then there's the article below, in its entirety, linking Steve Norton (whose companies have filed for bankruptcy elsewhere solely to re-negotiate terms) to the Foundation Gaming location.

Then there's this gem found here in its entirety in a clear attempt to escape campaign contribution limits:

Democrat Deval L. Patrick, who regularly decries what he calls a "Big Dig culture" on Beacon Hill, collected thousands of dollars in campaign money at a fund-raiser this month hosted by O'Neill and Associates, a firm that lobbies for the Big Dig's project manager.

The breakfast, which raised more than $20,000, took place Oct. 3, hours before Patrick complained at a debate in Springfield about the state's "inward-looking political establishment" and referred to special interests as "people who get to play, no matter who the governor is."

"I bring that outsider perspective," Patrick said at the debate. He has also aired a television ad vowing to clean up the "Big Dig culture" and cited the Big Dig as "an example of what's wrong with Beacon Hill today." Oh?

Andrew Stern, SEIU leader, and Andy Pavin, KG Urban mouthpiece, disclosed some pricey meals - here.

And then there's a disclaimer about the Big Dig - clearly absent is the Gambling Industry. Hmm.

Here's Andrew Paven, a lobbyist employed by O'Neill and Associates, and who works on behalf of Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff, explaining how supposedly there's no actual conflict of interest at work here.


"We raise money for many candidates," said Andrew Paven, a spokesman for Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. ``We had a breakfast fund-raiser for [US Representative] Barney Frank today. The contributors are a matter of public record."

Paven said that at Patrick's request, no one associated with the consortium nor any other Big Dig contractor was invited to the Oct. 3 fund-raiser or allowed to contribute. He said that he is the only person at O'Neill and Associates who works with Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff and that he did not attend.

"Nobody who works for any company with any work on the Big Dig was invited," he said. "They're not taking money from the Big Dig, which is why I didn't make a contribution."


Paven quite clearly asserts that he did not make a contribution, beause there would be a conflict of interest if a lobbyist for the Big Dig were to contribute to a candidate who, in his elected capacity, would have oversight responsibilities on that project.

File under: Yeah, no kidding.


Second city casino plan in the works
By Steve Decosta
December 05, 2009

NEW BEDFORD — Through the last 2½ years of economic turmoil and political uncertainty over the expansion of gambling, the city has been flirting with not just one but two potential developers of waterfront casinos.

One plan, for a casino in the Hicks-Logan neighborhood, has been prominently reported almost since it was proposed by Northeast Resorts of East Longmeadow.[Steve Norton]

The other continues to fly just under the radar. While Mayor Scott W. Lang acknowledged the efforts of a second suitor to build a casino at the site of the old NStar power plant on the city's harbor, he would not identify the developer.

The mayor said the developer is working on acquiring the property, owned by NStar and Sprague Energy. "I think that's one thing they've been spending a lot of time on, the assembly of parcels they would need."

Andy Paven, who identified himself as a contracted spokesman, said KG Urban Enterprises is involved in negotiations for the NStar site, but would not confirm that it is for a casino. "It's a really complicated real estate deal," he said.

KG Urban Enterprises is registered with the secretary of state's office as a foreign limited liability company with offices on 42nd Street in New York City. Its principals are listed as managers Barry M. Gosin and James D. Kuhn, who also are CEO and president, respectively, of Newmark Knight Frank, a New York-based real estate services firm.

A Google search for KG Urban Enterprises produced a site that said only "Web site coming soon." [At least this reporter conducted a quick google search. For Foundation Gaming Group or Joseph Bilhimer, there is no record of corporate registration, nor is there one in the lobbying section. Who is New Bedford negotiating with? And who is asking?]

Lang said the proposed developers of the NStar site have "been involved in casino development in other parts of the country. They have, in fact, developed a casino in another urban area."

"They've been working on the design and they're close to final drawings. I'd say it's something equal to or exceeds the proposal that's been presented for Hicks-Logan."

That Hicks-Logan proposal, called Revere Landing, would front New Bedford Harbor on 35 acres just south of Interstate 195.

The $1 billion, 2½-story, 230,000-square-foot casino would include 4,000 slot machines and 150 table games.

Flanked by a 600-room hotel tower, it eventually would employ more than 4,000 permanent workers [don't count on it!], Northeast Resorts has said. [Northeast is/was Steve Norton]

The mayor, who said he has seen drawings of the proposed casino on the NStar site, professed no preference for either location. "I don't at this time," he said. "There's going to have to be an awful lot of vetting of both proposals before I can support either one."

He said he would insist that any casino built in the city "has to be done correctly for an urban area. It has to be melded together with what the city already has."

"If a casino is done right, the city has many attributes that they don't have to replicate," Lang said. [Mayor, With all due respect, find one community in which it has been 'done right.' That community doesn't exist.]

"We told both developers that we have theaters. They don't need to re-create a theater. We have the Zeiterion Performing Arts Center. We would want them to help us maintain it. We want them to help us with the renovation of the Orpheum Theater. We have the Capital Theater in the North End. They don't have to spend money building new structures. If they come in and replicate what the city already has, that's a net loss. If we work together to renovate or refurbish what we have now, that will benefit the community as well as the developer." [Dream on, Mayor!]

Legislation to allow casino gaming is being developed by the House and Senate leadership, and House Speaker Robert DeLeo has promised a vote on the issue early next year.

A proposal by Gov. Deval Patrick to allow three resort casinos in three different parts of the state was torpedoed last year, but "it appears the leadership is now aligned in a positive way to support gaming," Lang said.

Even if the Legislature agrees to expand gaming, there is no guarantee a casino would be located in New Bedford. "I'm sure there will be a tremendous vetting process not only by the state but by the city," Lang said. [The City is currently entertaining Foundation, an unidentified group, not registered with the Secretary of State. That's 'vetting'?]

Massachusetts: Rushin' roulette

Rushin' roulette

It’s hard to know what the right metaphor is to capture all the absurd gyrations and policymaking-on-the-run that have characterized the mad dash to casinos and slots. Sometimes it seems a balloon is the right image, with every effort to squeeze some sense into this thing merely causing another area of the casino balloon to bulge toward the breaking point. Or maybe it’s the sweater metaphor, where each tug at a knot in the knitting only unravels things a little more.

First was earmarking a cut of the house’s take to programs that try to stop compulsive gamblers from betting away the keys to the family car. (With compulsive gamblers responsible for as much as third of all casino revenues, it would present a problem for all the revenue and jobs projections if these programs were wildly effective, but that’s probably not a worry.) Then came the effort to protect existing concert venues, theaters, and other cultural institutions that are likely to take a hit when Donnie and Marie roll in for a week on a casino hall stage.

Now on tap are questions surrounding what’s on tap. The casino bill would allow gambling halls to hand out free or reduced-price drinks. The Senate included language in its version of the bill that would level the playing field by having any such provisions apply to all licensed establishments statewide. In other words, gone would be the nearly three-decade-old state ban on “happy hours.” CommonWealth’s Paul McMorrow, in his Boston Globe column last week, explained how the “happy hour” amendment was yet another effort to try to patch up a problem that casinos will cause -- in this case the hit to the local restaurant and bar economy.

“Happy hours” have been banned in Massachusetts since 1984 -- and, it turns out, with good reason. State House News Service reporter Andy Metzger recounts in graphic detail the bad old days of happy hours in the Bay State. With drunk driving fatalities piling up faster than empties in the Red Sox clubhouse, the story that finally did in happy hour involved a group of young people who got plastered on a September 1983 afternoon at a Braintree bar. One of them, a 20-year-old woman, ended up riding on top of a car through a parking lot. She fell under the car and was dragged 50 feet, sustaining fatal injuries, according to the SHNS story. The driver of the car had downed at least seven beers, according to the state Alcoholic Beverages Control Commission. “I guarantee you that if happy hours are restored, dozens of people will be killed or maimed on our highways because of it,” former Gov. Michael Dukakis, who signed the ban in 1984, told Metzger.

Allowing the statewide happy hour ban to be lifted would defy any sound public policy rationale -- such a proposal would never be under serious consideration on its own merits. Pulling the Senate amendment from the final bill, however, would put restaurants and bars at a further disadvantage. The amendment sponsor, Sen. Robert Hedlund, who claims he’s only interested in maintaining an even playing field for local businesses (including, presumably, the Braintree restaurant he is part owner of), said his first choice would be to ban free drinks from casinos, an idea that fell flat with his colleagues. That would seem to be the policy that makes the most sense. But good sense is not necessarily what’s carrying the day in this debate. Taking free drinks off the table would mean casinos have to rely on patrons who are in their right mind, and that, apparently, is the last thing the gambling moguls and their State House sponsors want.

--MICHAEL JONAS

BEACON HILL

Speaking of casinos, Greg Bialecki, the state’s top economic development official, bought stock last year in two casino companies while he was pushing for expanded gambling here. Bialecki sold the stocks last week following questions about the investments from the Globe.

Massachusetts: Cozy Relationship Exposes Rotten Onion

Casino opponent blasts `cozy relationship’ between state officials and gaming industry
By Todd Wallack , Globe Staff


A prominent casino opponent sharply criticized the “cozy relationship” between state officials and the gaming industry following a report in The Globe today that Governor Deval Patrick’s top economic development aide bought stock in two Las Vegas gaming companies last year.

Former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger, president of Citizens for a Stronger Massachusetts, said “the cozy relationship between our elected and appointed officials, casino bosses, and their hired guns is deeply troubling, and today’s Boston Globe expose just peels back another layer of this rotten onion.”

“The more we learn about the insider dealing that shrouds this entire issue, the more red flags it should wave for all of us, including legislators and the Governor,” Harshbarger said.

The Globe reported today that Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, held more than $17,000 stock last year in Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Wynn Resorts Ltd., both of which have expressed interest in building casinos in Massachusetts.

Bialecki said the stocks were bought by a financial advisor in August 2010 without his knowledge. When he later learned of the purchases, Bialecki said, he did not think the holdings posed a problem because he didn’t pick the stocks ; they accounted for only a small percentage of his portfolio; and he doesn’t expect to award any of the casino licenses. Bialecki sold the stocks last week after the Globe questioned him about the investments.

The House and Senate have approved legislation to allow casinos in the state, but must still agree on a compromise bill to send to Patrick for final approval.

Massachusetts: Doesn't Pass the Smell Test

Trusted adviser to Governor "Slot Barns" Patrick and Perennial Casino Cheerleader holding casino stock and failing to disclose?

Governor "Slot Barns" Patrick accepting Gambling Industry campaign contributions until he gets caught? Promising an INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS until re-elected.....meeting with Native Americans and promising a Freetown Slot Barn.....promising a Foxborough Slot Barn....

http://wampaleaks.blogspot.com/

And then there's Doug Rubin...... the Ropes and Gray connection.... and much else.

Surrounded by scandals, indictments, corruption and cronyism, backroom deals, sleazy promises abound.

The process smells.


State economic chief's casino holdings raising questions
By Todd Wallack Globe Staff

Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, said he sold his stock in the Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Wynns Resorts Ltd. last week after conflict of interest inquiries by The Globe.

The state’s top economic development official, who has pushed lawmakers to legalize gaming and touted the economic benefits of resort casinos, bought stock in two Las Vegas gaming companies last year, according to financial disclosure records filed with the State Ethics Commission.

Gregory Bialecki, secretary of housing and economic development, said he held more than $17,000 in stock in Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Wynn Resorts Ltd., both of which have expressed interest in building casinos in Massachusetts and together spent more than $1 million lobbying the issue. Bialecki said he sold the stock last week after The Globe raised questions about the appearance of a conflict of interest.

In an interview, Bialecki said his financial adviser bought the shares on his behalf, without his knowledge, and he only learned of the purchases when he filled out his annual financial disclosure form May 1.

At the time, Bialecki said, he did not believe the investments created the appearance of a conflict because he had not selected the stocks; his role in setting gaming policies was limited; and the shares represented only a tiny portion of his financial holdings, worth more than $1 million.

“I made a decision myself,’’ said Bialecki, a commercial real estate lawyer before joining the administration in another post in 2007. “The better thing for me to have done would have been to talk to other people in the administration.’’

Kimberly Haberlin, spokeswoman for Governor Deval Patrick, said the governor expects officials to adhere to state ethics laws. Bialecki, she said, acted with “an abundance of caution’’ by selling the stock well before the administration would have to implement a gaming law. The House and Senate recently passed different casino bills, and must still negotiate and pass compromise legislation to send to Patrick for final approval.

Massachusetts law prohibits public employees from acting in a manner which would cause a reasonable person to conclude they were unduly influenced by outside ties. They can avoid that problem by filing a separate disclosure form explaining the situation to dispel the appearance of a conflict. Bialecki did not file such a form.

“He absolutely needed to file,’’ said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, an advocacy group that supports strong ethics rules.

David Giannotti, a spokesman for the Ethics Commission, declined to comment on whether Bialecki’s actions violated the law.

Regardless, said ethics specialists, government officials should avoid any appearance of conflicts - or risk undermining public confidence by raising suspicions about their motives. Frank Anechiarico, a professor of government and law at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y., said many government officials go beyond legal requirements to ensure they avoid even the hint of impropriety, such as putting investments in blind trusts.

Even though Bialecki eventually sold the gaming company stock, “his credibility is going to be seriously undercut,’’ Anechiarico said.

Bialecki, named economic development secretary in 2009, has championed the economic benefits of casino gambling and its potential to create thousands of jobs. [Except he could provide no solid economic information when a group of opponents met with him.]

Three days after Bialecki said he learned of his stock in Wynn and Las Vegas Sands, he testified before a legislative hearing on legalizing casino gambling.

Wynn Resorts and Las Vegas Sands are considered among the contenders to build casinos in the state. Wynn spokesman Michael Weaver said the company has explored opportunities to build an “unparalleled gaming and entertainment complex’’ in Massachusetts. Through a subsidiary, Wynn has spent nearly $700,000 lobbying here since 2009, according to state records.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. spokesman Ron Reese confirmed last week that his company remains interested in building a casino in Massachusetts. The firm has spent nearly $400,000 lobbying here since 2009.

“Gaming is an entertainment option that is being safely enjoyed by over a million Massachusetts residents every year in Connecticut and other New England states,’’ Bialecki told the Joint Committee on Economic Development and Emerging Technologies May 4. “Any well-crafted proposal would make those entertainment options available here in Massachusetts.’’

Bialecki downplayed his role in shaping the casino debate. He said the legislation is similar to the governor’s original proposal in 2007, when he had no part in gambling policies. In addition, he said, the legislation would likely create an independent gaming commission and he does not anticipate any role deciding which companies receive licenses. “The primary role I was playing was to be the person who articulated the administration’s positions,’’ Bialecki said. “I had little or no role in policy-making on the bill.’’

Bialecki, 51, said he originally set up an investment account in March 2010 for a financial adviser to manage without his involvement. He said the adviser bought the casino shares in August 2010 and sold the stock last week for $17,100, when Bialecki liquidated the account. The value of the casino shares increased by more than $5,000, but not enough to offset losses from other components of the portfolio, Bialecki said.

Bialecki said he plans to discuss with his adviser how to handle his investments to avoid similar issues in the future.

Several observers said Bialecki’s decision to hold gaming stocks as the state considered legalizing casinos could be potentially embarrassing to the administration, giving ammunition to gambling critics and potentially affecting the legislation.

“It’s not appropriate politically in that it’s going to create a problem for the governor,’’ said Marty Linsky, a longtime instructor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government and chief secretary under former Governor William Weld.

“You don’t want to put your boss in a position where, because of your actions he has to hold a press conference and explain something that is a diversion from his agenda. It doesn’t make good political sense.’’