Ignoring Experience: Plainville Slot Barn will spur economic development?

Plainville has a long history of making DUMB decisions! 

Many betting Plainridge Park Casino will spur economic development

Posted: Monday, June 22, 2015 

BY RICK FOSTER SUN CHRONICLE STAFF 

PLAINVILLE - Everyone knows that when Plainridge Park Casino opens officially Wednesday, it will ring in the era of casino gambling in Massachusetts.

But, will it also bring benefits in the form of economic development to an area thirsty for jobs and additional tax revenue?

Eric Schippers is betting it will.

"We've seen in other jurisdictions where we've invested in a casino that it's created growth in businesses like restaurants and hotels," said Schippers, vice president of government affairs for Plainridge parent Penn National Gaming. "Real estate values have gone up. Wherever we've gone, it's been a real shot in the arm for the local economy."

Schippers said Penn National has also sought to spread the benefits of additional customer traffic and consumer dollars throughout the area by signing cross promotional agreements with local businesses and attractions like Wrentham Village Premium Outlets and Patriot Place.

Other backers of the 100,000-square-foot slot parlor also see dollar signs - from additional tax revenues and fees to a potential catalyst for a building boom along Route 1.

Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said revenues to the town are estimated at a minimum of $4.3 million per year for the first five years of operation. And, that doesn't include meals taxes from the venue's restaurants, which could reach $100,000 annually.

But Fernandes says other businesses likely will be attracted to locate in the area to share in customers the casino presumably would bring. 

Jack Lank, president of the United Regional Chamber of Commerce, also foresees a "ripple effect" as restaurants and retail stores seek to capitalize on additional consumer traffic.

But Clyde Barrow, a former University of Massachusetts professor who extensively studied gaming in the Northeast, isn't so bullish.

Barrow said the casino likely will provide a boost to local business because of the 500 or so employees who will be working there, but he doesn't see a big spillover of economic benefits from spending by casino patrons elsewhere in the community.

"You will see a little spending on gasoline and fast food as casino patrons come and go from the casino, but that's about it," he said.

There's no question that the casino will bring additional economic activity to the area. According to a study performed for the town of Plainville by Cummings Associates, Plainridge is forecast to take in $175.4 million in its first year.

The same study predicted that the number could jump by an additional $25 million or so the following year. However, Cummings says the take likely will fall somewhat as more casinos begin to open across the state.

Plainridge's slots and video table games are expected to attract about 6,000 people each day.

The same study, however, also pointed to a possible increase in demand for police and fire services, as well as social impacts like an increase in problem gambling.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/many-betting-plainridge-park-casino-will-spur-economic-development/article_6a31f497-3946-5de8-b622-453d2e62df93.html

Plainville La La Land! Joseph Fernandes is SIMPLY WRONG!

Don't allow Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes to balance your checkbook!

How any literate person can make such outrageous statements based on the Gam[bl]ing Legislation Revenue SECTION is breathtaking!

Folks, Don't base your decision on WRONG INFORMATION!





Plainville town manager joins others in opposing anti-gambling question
Question 3 supporters say casinos will hurt state lottery

Posted:Tuesday, October 14, 2014

BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

The Sun Chronicle

PLAINVILLE — Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes, along with a group of casino supporters, is fighting back against claims that expanded gambling in Massachusetts would badly hurt the state lottery.

Opponents of gambling have put a question on the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters to repeal the state’s casino law. They said last week that casinos would cause state lottery recipients to drop by nearly 22 percent, taking away $130 million in aid for cities and towns.

The lottery is a major source of state aid to cities and towns.

Fernandes said the study the opponents cite is way off from all the studies he has seen. He said he has read lottery revenue would temporarily dip by 8 percent, but then rebound.

Also, he said, any loss to the lottery would be more than offset by aid to cities and towns that come from gambling revenue.

Fernandes was joined by Everett Mayor Carlo DeMaria, and Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno in denouncing the study by the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign, the group trying to revoke the law.

Casino licenses have been awarded for both Everett and Springfield. A slot-machine parlor called Plainridge Park Casino is already under construction at a harness horse-racing track on Route 1 in Plainville.

They were speaking for a pro-casino group called Protect Massachusetts Jobs.

The anti-casino group said last week that local communities will be badly hurt by casinos financially, as well as socially. It predicted Attleboro would lose $1.1 million a year, Mansfield $434,000, North Attleboro $560,000, and Plainville $147,000.

Repeal the Casino Deal said it was basing its estimates on a study done for the Legislature in 2008.

Fernandes said that under the casino law, slot machines at Plainridge will be taxed by the state at a 40 percent rate and all of that revenue will go into local aid.

 

NOT TRUE!

Twenty percent of casino revenue would also go to cities and towns and a community stabilization fund will be established to offset losses to the lottery, he said.

For instance, slot machines at Plainridge Park Casino in Plainville would be taxed at 40 percent and all that money would be dedicated to local aid, he said.

NOT TRUE!

Furthermore, 20 percent of revenue from casinos and a community stabilization fund would offset lottery loses, he said.




http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/plainville-town-manager-joins-others-in-opposing-anti-gambling-question/article_e8412ec4-53db-11e4-bacc-7331aec326ff.html#user-comment-area

FROM THE GAMI[BL]ING LEGISLATION:


Section 59. There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a Gaming Revenue Fund which shall receive revenues collected from the tax on gross gaming revenue received from gaming licensees. The commission shall be the trustee of the fund and shall transfer monies in the fund as follows:

(1) 100 per cent of the revenue received from a category 2 licensee shall be transferred to the Gaming Local Aid Fund established in section 63; and

(2) 100 per cent of the revenue received from a category 1 licensee shall be transferred as follows:

(a) 2 per cent of revenues to the Massachusetts cultural council of which one-quarter of the revenues received shall be dedicated to the organization support program of the Massachusetts cultural council and three-quarters of revenues shall be dedicated to support not-for-profit and municipally-owned performing arts centers impacted as a result of the operation of gaming facilities; provided, however, that funds dedicated to such performing arts centers shall be to subsidize fees paid to touring shows or artists; and provided further, that funding shall be appropriated through a competitive grant process to be developed and administered by the Massachusetts cultural council;
(b) 1 per cent to the Massachusetts Tourism Fund to fund tourist promotion agencies under clause (c) of section 35J of chapter 10;
(c) 6.5 per cent to the Community Mitigation Fund established in section 61;
(d) 4.5 per cent to the Local Capital Projects Fund, established in section 2EEEE of chapter 29;
(e) 20 per cent to the Gaming Local Aid Fund, established in section 63;
(f) 10 per cent to the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund established in section 2H of chapter 29; provided, however, that in any fiscal year in which the amount appropriated in line-item 7061-0008 of the general appropriation act, paid from the General Fund, or the amount of unrestricted general government aid paid from the General Fund, including lottery aid distribution to cities and towns as paid from the General Fund under clause (c) of the second paragraph of section 35 of said chapter 10 and the amount of additional funds distributed to cities and towns as additional assistance paid from the General Fund, is less than that of the previous fiscal year, up to 1/2 of the funds otherwise directed to the Commonwealth Stabilization Fund under this section, up to an amount equal to the deficiency between said appropriations for the current and previous fiscal years, shall be transferred to the Gaming Local Aid Fund in addition to the 25 per cent under clause (e);
(g) 14 per cent to the Education Fund established in section 64;
(h) 9.5 per cent to the Gaming Economic Development Fund established in section 2DDDD of said chapter 29;
(i) 10 per cent shall be used for debt reduction through a program of debt defeasance and accelerated debt payments; provided, however, that this program shall be developed jointly by the state treasurer and the secretary of administration and finance and shall be implemented in compliance with state finance law; provided further, that this program shall prioritize the reduction of risk in the commonwealth's debt portfolio, but may also include payments to decrease the unfunded pension liability of the Pension Reserves Investment Trust Fund; and provided further, that the secretary of administration and finance and the state treasurer shall provide a written description of the program to the finance advisory board established in section 97 of chapter 6 for the board's review and comment before the program is implemented and shall file a copy of that description with the house and senate committees on ways and means and the house and senate committees on bonding, capital expenditures and state assets when it is submitted to the finance advisory board;
(j) 15 per cent to the Transportation Infrastructure and Development Fund established in section 62;
(k) 5 per cent to the Public Health Trust Fund established in section 58; and
(l) 2.5 per cent to the Race Horse Development Fund established in section 60.

Section 60. (a) There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a Race Horse Development Fund to be administered by the commission. The fund shall consist of monies deposited under subsection (c) of section 55. The commission shall make distributions from the Race Horse Development Fund to each licensee under chapter 128A.

(b) There shall be a horse racing committee consisting of 5 members, 1 of whom shall be the governor or the governor’s designee who shall serve as chair, 1 of whom shall be the treasurer and receiver general or the treasurer’s designee, 1 of whom shall be the chair of the commission or the chair’s designee, 1 of whom shall be appointed by the New England Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association and the Massachusetts Thoroughbred Breeding Program and 1 of whom shall be appointed by the Harness Horseman’s Association of New England and the Massachusetts Standardbred Breeding Program. The horse racing committee shall make recommendations on how the funds received in subsection (a) shall be distributed between thoroughbred and standardbred racing facilities to support the thoroughbred and standardbred horse racing industries under this section. In making its recommendations, the committee shall consider certain criteria including, but not limited to: (i) the average purses awarded at thoroughbred and standardbred racing facilities; (ii) the total employment numbers, both direct and indirect, attributable to each horse racing industry; (iii) the relative needs of each horse racing industry for increased purses; (iv) the amount of the live racing handle generated by each horse racing industry; and (v) the number of breeding and training farms of each industry that are located in the commonwealth. The committee shall submit distribution recommendations to the clerks of the senate and house of representatives not later than 30 days before submitting the recommendations to the commission for final approval. The commission shall only change the distribution percentage upon a recommendation by the committee.

(c) Funds received from the Race Horse Development Fund shall be distributed between thoroughbred and standardbred accounts, as approved by the commission, as follows:

(i) 80 per cent of the funds approved by the commission shall be deposited weekly into a separate, interest-bearing purse account to be established by and for the benefit of the horsemen; provided, however, that the earned interest on the account shall be credited to the purse account; and provided further, that licensees shall combine these funds with revenues from existing purse agreements to fund purses for live races consistent with those agreements with the advice and consent of the horsemen;
(ii) 16 per cent of the funds approved by the commission shall be deposited as follows: (A) for a thoroughbred track, into the Massachusetts Thoroughbred Breeding Program authorized by the commission; or (B) for a standardbred track, into the Massachusetts Standardbred Breeding Program authorized by the commission;

(iii) 4 per cent shall be used to fund health and pension benefits for the members of the horsemen’s organizations representing the owners and trainers at a horse racing facility for the benefit of the organization’s members, their families, employees and others under the rule and eligibility requirements of the organization, as approved by the commission; provided, however, that this amount shall be deposited within 5 business days of the end of each month into a separate account to be established by each respective horsemen’s organization at a banking institution of its choice; and provided further, that of this amount, the commission shall determine how much shall be paid annually by the horsemen’s organization to the thoroughbred jockeys or standardbred drivers organization at the horse racing facility for health insurance, life insurance or other benefits to active and disabled thoroughbred jockeys or standardbred drivers under the rules and eligibility requirements of that organization.

Section 61. (a) There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a separate fund to be known as the Community Mitigation Fund.
he fund shall consist of monies transferred under section 59 and all other monies credited or transferred to the fund from any other fund or source.

(b) The commission shall administer the fund and, without further appropriation, shall expend monies in the fund to assist the host community and surrounding communities in offsetting costs related to the construction and operation of a gaming establishment including, but not limited to, communities and water and sewer districts in the vicinity of a gaming establishment, local and regional education, transportation, infrastructure, housing, environmental issues and public safety, including the office of the county district attorney, police, fire and emergency services. The commission may, at its discretion, distribute funds to a governmental entity or district other than a single municipality in order to implement a mitigation measure that affects more than 1 municipality; provided, however, that such entity or district shall submit a written request for funding in the same manner as a municipality would be required to submit such a request under subsection (c).

(c) Parties requesting appropriations from the fund shall submit a written request for funding to the commission before February 1 of each year. The commission may hold a public hearing in the region of a gaming establishment to provide parties with the opportunity to provide further information about their request for funds and shall distribute funds to requesting parties based on demonstrated need.

Section 62. There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a fund to be known as the Transportation Infrastructure and Development Fund. The fund shall consist of monies transferred from the Gaming Revenue Fund and all other monies credited or transferred to the fund from any other fund or source and proceeds from the investment of such funds. The secretary of transportation shall be the trustee of this fund; provided, however, that no funds shall be expended until the secretary of administration and finance has provided written approval annually of a proposed spending plan. Any expenditures from this fund shall be solely for the purpose of transportation and related infrastructure projects including but not limited to, transit expansion and maintenance; provided, however, that not less than 50 per cent of such expenditures shall be dedicated for the purpose of supplementing, and not offsetting, any expenditures made for the construction and reconstruction of municipal ways as described in clause (b) of the second paragraph of section 4 of chapter 6C.

Section 63. There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a fund to be known as the Gaming Local Aid Fund. The fund shall consist of monies transferred under section 59 and all monies credited or transferred to the fund from any other fund or source and shall be subject to appropriation. Funds shall be distributed to cities and towns in accordance with the formula used to determine the distribution of unrestricted general government aid under section 3 of the general appropriation act. Monies from the fund shall be used in addition to the balance of the State Lottery Fund for distribution to cities and towns under clause (c) of the second paragraph of section 35 of chapter 10 and any monies so distributed shall be considered part of general revenue sharing aid for purposes of annual aid and contribution requirements established pursuant to chapter 70 or section 3 of the annual general appropriation act.

Section 64. There shall be established and set up on the books of the commonwealth a fund to be known as the Education Fund. The fund shall be credited any monies transferred under section 59 and all monies credited to or transferred to the fund from any other fund or source. Expenditures from the fund shall be subject to appropriation; provided, however, that 35 per cent of the funds received shall be appropriated for the purposes of higher education to supplement, not offset, any reduction in the general appropriation act from the previous fiscal year; and provided further, that any expenditures from the fund for K-12 education shall be used to supplement, and not offset, any reduction in line-item 7061-0008 of the general appropriation act from the previous fiscal year’s general appropriation act.


Section 66. Unless the commission otherwise determines it to be in the best fiscal interests of the commonwealth, the commission shall utilize the services of an independent testing laboratory that has been qualified and approved by the commission pursuant to this chapter to perform the testing of slot machines and other gaming equipment and may also utilize applicable data from the independent testing laboratory, or from a governmental agency of a state other than the commonwealth, authorized to regulate slot machines and other gaming equipment.


https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2011/Chapter194

Plainville Pickles Flim-Flammed by Penn National AGAIN!

The Plainville Pickles were soooo anxious to bring Predatory Gambling to the community.....they failed to conduct their due diligence and ask the appropriate questions.....

The Massachusetts Gam[bl]ing Commission was too busy genuflecting before the Predatory Gambling Industry and too enamored taking luxury trips to protect the PUBLIC INTEREST.

The seemed like people of integrity.....they lost their prospective!

How do you grant a license when a plan is INCOMPLETE?

This is infuriating!

The traffic plan to avoid routing casino traffic through the Routes 1 and 152 intersection is falling apart. It looks like all the casino traffic will be going around the jug handle and through the intersection, after all. This will have a profound effect on residents and businesses around the casino.

Read the story:

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/state-questions-traffic-plan-for-plainville-slots-parlor/article_b0a8f0ff-8ab4-51c9-8094-12769ddd3d80.html

(Maybe the paper should have accompanied this story with a photograph of one of the horrific accidents at the intersection.)

I am soliciting any and all ideas about how to deal with this. In particular, I'm trying to decipher what the process is, and how residents of Plainville can respond most effectively.

Mary-Ann




State questions traffic plan for Plainville slots parlor

Posted: Thursday, March 20, 2014
State questions traffic plan for Plainville slots parlor
BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

PLAINVILLE - The state has raised questions about a traffic plan for Plainridge Park Casino, opening the possibility that there will be no direct access from Route 1 south.In letters to the developer, the state transportation department has raised issues with creating direct access by crossing an existing median strip to make way for a left turn lane on Route 1 south in front of the facility.

It also questions a proposal to straighten an off ramp from Interstate 495 South and put a traffic light at the end of the ramp.

A meeting with Plainville and state officials as well as engineers from the developer's construction company was held at Plainridge for two hours Wednesday to discuss the situation.

According to participants, those in attendance walked the site and drove from Plainridge to a nearby Lowe's hardware store.

Because there is no current way to cross Route 1, the short trip to Lowe's involved driving north on Route 1 to Interstate 495 north, then down Route 1 south, then turning around at a so-called "jughandle" ramp near Target store to get to Lowe's.

Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said he was glad the state transportation officials made the drive to see the need for a way to cross Route 1 to and from Plainridge.

"The state has this policy where its extremely hesitant to allow a cut in a median," Fernandes said.

Plainridge, a harness horse track, has recently been awarded a state license to install 1,250 slot machines. The track's new owner, Penn National Gaming, has started construction of a $225 million facility and renamed the track Plainridge Park Casino.

Penn National inherited the construction and traffic plan from the track's previous owner, Ourway Realty.

Eric Schippers, vice president of public affairs for Penn National, said the company is willing to follow the state's lead on the traffic issue and take the steps the state feels are necessary for a safe flow of vehicles.

The suggestions by the state would mean less extensive changes to the traffic pattern and might allow the slots parlor to open sooner, he said.

The process is just at the discussion phase now, he said, and no decisions have been made.

Sara Lavoie, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Transportation, or MassDOT, said the agency is recommending improvements to the intersection of routes 1 and 152 and the jughandle as an alternative to the direct access across the median strip.

Not having direct access would increase traffic at the intersection, but it would still function adequately, she said.

The more extensive changes would require more study, she said.

The meeting Wednesday was part of the state's "safety audit," she said.

"MassDOT's safety management unit will draft proposed recommendations during the next few weeks. Meeting participants will then be asked to comment on the recommendations, prior to their being finalized," she said.

Fernandes said he is not an engineer, but the original left-turn plan seems like the best idea to him.

About 42 percent of all accidents at the intersection of Routes 1 and 152 are caused by people taking an illegal left turn from Route 1 south onto Route 152 to head toward Attleboro, he said.

Direct access across the median would allow motorists to avoid the intersection.

The alternative, he said, would mean more cars headed into the intersection and probably taking illegal left turns and U turns, Fernandes said.




http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/state-questions-traffic-plan-for-plainville-slots-parlor/article_b0a8f0ff-8ab4-51c9-8094-12769ddd3d80.html

Plainville Host Community Public Hearing

Testimony
Plainville Host Community Public Hearing
January 21st, 2014

Dear Commissioners:

I write to you today to present an alternative view about the agreements struck between Penn National (Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment, LLC) and surrounding communities, particularly Foxborough. I say “alternative” because the opinions of Plainville’s selectmen, town administrator, and certain other town officials do not represent my views nor the views of many other Plainville residents.

More than a year and a half ago, Thomas Keen and I met with Joe Fernandes and his then-assistant Dave Gagnon to present our well-researched 13-page paper about what we felt needed to appear in the RFP for a Plainville gambling consultant. One of the issues we highlighted was a need to meet with our neighbors — Wrentham, North Attleborough, and Foxborough, especially — to discuss the impact of an expanded gambling facility on their borders. Both Mr. Fernandes and Mr. Gagnon dismissed the need for Plainville to consider the concerns of our neighbors, equating whatever impact might come from a casino with the impact on Plainville from Gillette Stadium and the Wrentham Outlet Mall; they were utterly dismissive of the needs of the surrounding towns because, they said, Plainville never received mitigation for the projects built in other communities. (Interestingly enough, Mr. Gagnon is now town administrator in West Bridgewater, for which he negotiated a rather comprehensive Surrounding Community Agreement with Raynham Park.)

As Selectman Rob Rose famously said when dismissing the concerns of Plainville residents about a casino in our neighborhood, “[Plainridge] almost isn’t even in Plainville.” Extrapolating from Rob’s snide remarks, it seems only reasonable that Plainville would support the efforts of its neighbors to protect themselves from the vagaries of a casino on their doorstep, especially because — due to their proximity — Foxborough and Wrentham are as likely to deal with the casino’s negative aspects of traffic, DUIs, and criminal behavior as Plainville is. Instead, the attitude of Mr. Fernandes, Ms. Soucy, and Mr. Rose toward our neighbors is to dismiss their concerns and to treat their representatives deplorably in public meetings, often with mean spirited, vindictive, and embarrassing comments.

At your October 22nd "Public Input Meeting" in Wrentham, Plainville Treasurer and Tax Collector Kathleen Parker demonstrated the ignorance and “magical thinking” prevalent among Plainville officials when it comes to the impact of a casino on our town and our neighbors towns. Speaking about the danger of drunk driving, Ms. Parker said, “... I don't remember ever hearing of a drunk driving accident coming out of Plainridge. I know we have our current Chief here, Police Chief as well as our current Fire Chief and our prior Police Chief. They would correct me if I am wrong. We have a very well-trained professional police department. We have people in the facility and we will continue to have more people in the facility if we are lucky enough to be granted this license. They are not going to let drunk drivers out onto our streets, their streets. Because not only are they our police officers, they are also our residents, if not within the town, in the neighboring towns. Their children, their neighbors are on the same streets that we'll all be using and that we have been using.”

As I pointed out in an email to Ms. Parker, “Plainridge has seen a relative handful of people in and out of their facility over the years, while the Plainridge Park Casino — should they receive the license and withstand the court challenge regarding equal protection — plans to have thousands of people there every day, for 24 hours a day, with alcohol (some of it free or cheap) served for 18 of those 24 hours. Plainville’s own gambling consultant’s report says there will most likely be an increase in both DUIs and fatalities. To think that a handful of cops can catch every drunk as he exits, or will stop every drunk driver before she leaves the town limits is simply a fantasy. To assure townspeople they have nothing to worry about is irresponsible.”

Regarding the “social ills,” Ms. Parker has faith that Plainville will be able to do what no other town in America has been able to do when expanded gambling moves in. She doesn’t think that the surrounding towns should be worried because she’s “... Thrilled to hear about the amount of money that's available for problem gambling... All of these things are addressed in the right and proper ways. We're not irresponsible in Plainville that we're going to allow any of the things to all of a sudden erupt like a volcano in our community and not have them addressed.”

In my email to her, I suggested that she might want to reconsider her “thrill” that there is money "available for problem gambling.” The money allotted to treat gamblers who are addicted to the Lottery, Keno, and horse racing is already not enough. Worse news, the amount casinos will eventually be required to pay each year toward problem gambling treatment has dropped by more than $20 million since Governor Patrick first rolled out his plans for casinos in 2007. Massachusetts legislators axed $560,000 from this fiscal year's budget for the Massachusetts Council on Compulsive Gambling, which, in turn, has put a big dent in the Council's plans to prepare for the four casinos in the commonwealth. (http://www.telegram.com/article/20130324/NEWS/103249834/0)

Even if the amount of money for treatment and prevention approached the amount necessary to treat every citizen who needs treatment, none of the monies set aside can or will be applied to the actual costs of the damage done by people struggling with gambling addiction: bankruptcies, child neglect, divorce, job loss, foreclosures, evictions, embezzlement, theft, arrests, homelessness … There are no sums set aside to feed or house families when a mother or father spends the grocery or rent money on slots, or when an elder uses her savings or her limited income on the "crack cocaine of gambling."

 

There is no money set aside to replace money lost in businesses when addicted employees resort to petty theft, when the addicted CEO loses the payroll, or to pay hospital bills resulting from domestic violence. There are no funds dedicated to help when a family member, addicted to gambling and drowning in debt, commits suicide. And, of the pittance set aside to deal with the addicted gamblers in the host communities, there are even fewer resources set aside for surrounding towns, even though none — NONE — of the impact of expanded gambling stops at the town line. To think is does is simply insane.

Ms. Parker’s thoughts on the casino — representative of the views of most town officials here in Plainville — are nothing more than wishful thinking. They see a wad of cash and they’re willing to believe anything to get it. Somehow, they have convinced themselves (or been convinced?) that Plainville will not suffer the ill effects that other towns around the world suffered when a casino moved in. Moreover, they have convinced themselves (or been convinced?) that surrounding towns won’t experience any ill effects from the casino. Worse news, they resent and belittle the efforts of our neighbors to try to protect their residents. How pathetic and sad is that?

Therefore, I urge you to disregard Plainville town officials when they challenge the right or the amount of the surrounding community agreements. They are people for whom reality and facts have little meaning. They have told themselves a fairytale, and a fairytale it shall be. Until the dragon shows up...

Respectfully submitted,

Mary-Ann Greanier

Penn National Bait & Switch

The Plainridge/Penn National Casino keeps getting BIGGER, BETTER and more convoluted than originally proposed.

Voters were mislead when they voted.

Despite the fact that Plainridge has almost 100 acres of land, they insist upon encroaching on the wetlands, impacting the health of the water, vegetation, and animals in the area. The health of the wetlands is directly connected to the health of our drinking water.

Below are three recent notices to abutters about separate proposals that require permission from the Plainville Conservation Commission to impact the wetlands. Please attend the hearings on these matters, if you can. If you can’t attend, please write your testimony to the Plainville Conservatiuon Commission at Town Hall.

You can find the hearings after they’re posted on the Town’s Posted Meeting page:
http://www.plainville.ma.us/Pages/PlainvilleMA_Calendar/?formid=158

Please share with Plainville residents.

Bait and Switch!

This was discovered too late for tonight's meeting, but if you know of anyone in surrounding communities, please SHARE!

We all knew this would progress from Slot Barn to Casino, but Penn Nattional is proposing more impact.

Comments may be sent to the MGC.

This highlights why REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL is the only option to keep communities safe.

 

 

Dear Wrentham Board of Selectmen:

Plainville selectman Rob Rose refers to the area of Plainville that includes Plainridge (and my neighborhood) as “almost not in Plainville.” Well, if it's almost not in Plainville, it has to be somewhere. And that somewhere is in the neighboring towns of Wrentham and Foxborough. The ill effects of a casino do not stop at the town lines.

I am writing to you today about the Penn National RFA-2 application submitted to the MA Gambling Commission (MGC) and how it differs from the information provided to the people of Plainville before the referendum vote. While I am including only information about the enormous outside events being planned by Penn National, one can draw the conclusion that the numbers of people they're talking about advertising to and getting to the casino are much greater than anything Ourway/Plainridge ever proposed before the referendum, and therefore, all of the ills that accompany a casino facility are increased.

I recently contacted the Plainville planning board with my concerns that the RFA-2 application submitted to the MGC by Penn National Gaming differs significantly from what was presented to the people of Plainville, our planning board, water and sewer commission, conservation commission, board of health, police department, and fire department during the planning board permitting process and prior to the vote on September 10th. The Host Community Agreement, the planning board’s Amended Special Permit, and the report from the gambling consultant hired by the selectmen were all predicated on information and applications submitted and negotiated by Ourway/Plainridge, NOT Penn National. I'm sure you would agree that Penn Nation and Ourway are very, very different companies.

We have been told that we needn’t be concerned about the Special Permit because Penn National will “adopt the building plans, design concepts and traffic plan that have already been developed by Plainridge for the site" should they win the slots license. After watching Penn National’s presentation to the MGC on October 7th, and after studying their RFA-2 application and what attachments we were allowed to see, we know there is actually much cause for worry.

I offer only a few examples of many:

• After the September 10th Referendum, Penn National changed the name of the proposed facility from "Plainridge Park" to "Plainridge Park Casino." During the planning board hearings regarding the Change of Use and the Amended Special Permit, we were told, over and over again, that the site would host "a RAcino, NOT a CAsino" (they always stressed the first syllable as though it signified something). Representatives of Ourway, Plainville town administrator Joe Fernandes, and even one member of the planning board admonished me and others whenever we used "casino" instead of "racino," assuring us that a racino would not create the same problems that a casino would bring.

Now Penn National has proposed a CAsino — in name and scope — without affording anyone the opportunity to study and plan for the ways in which the Penn National RFA-2 application differs from the original application submitted to the selectmen by Ourway.


• Penn National plans to use their database of "4.3 MILLION active customers" to attract people to the facility. The impact studies done by the Town of Plainville did not take into account this massive marketing database because, when the studies were done in the spring, Penn National was not the company looking to open a casino in Plainville. For example, the studies done by the town showed that area residents should expect an additional 3,071 vehicle per day to and from the casino (http://www.plainville.ma.us/ Pages/PlainvilleMA_EmerNews/S03C0E1F7-043140B1.4/Traffic%20Generation %20Report.pdf). If the facility is marketing to 4.3 million patrons, there will likely be a much larger number of people visiting daily, thus impacting things such as public safety, crime, traffic, property values and the character of our communities.


• During the planning board hearing, every time anyone brought up concerns about outside events — and we brought it up quite a lot — we were told that outside events were NOT a big part of the plan. I guess no one told Penn National, because outside events seem to be quite a large part of their plans:

 

In the presentation given by Penn National to the gambling commission on October 7th (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXD7jVfxvrw), PNG said they want Plainridge Park Casino to become the “entertainment hub” for the area through, among other things, hosting ticketed events. In this excerpt from the October 7th transcript (http://massgaming.com/wp-content/uploads/Transcript-10.7.13.pdf), Jay Snowden from Penn National states: “...we have 90 acres of land. And so, we have the ability to put on outdoor festivals, whether that's in the infield of the racetrack itself or some of the adjacent lands. We've been very successful in the past of putting up outdoor sprung or tent structures and offering simulated game shows. We just did this at our Charlestown facility. The Price is Right, we offered five shows over three nights, 2,000 people per show. All of them sold out. Let's Make a Deal, Family Feud. These are the type of things that we can do that, again, will be complementary, they're not done in the area today”(p. 83).

These types of events were never mentioned in meetings held prior to the September 10th vote, nor were they ever mentioned by Ourway/Plainridge in the permitting process before the planning board. If Penn National is allowed to hold those events, by how much will the traffic exceed the numbers in the consultants’ traffic studies — the ones that assured us there would be a mere trickle of cars throughout the day, fewer than what Lowes or Target sees? What does it mean that thousands of people might be arriving all at once and leaving all at once — many of them under the influence of alcohol — for “five shows over three nights, 2,000 people per show?" Ten thousand people over three days? How many times a year?

Town officials have tried to assuage our concerns by telling us that Penn National would have to apply to the selectmen to get permits for outdoor events, and that residents would have the opportunity then to argue against large-scale outdoor events in our neighborhood. The fact of the matter is, the Plainville selectmen have never said no to Plainridge, and we don’t believe that will change with new owners and a casino. In addition, the Plainville selectmen and the town administrator have spoken quite eloquently about their utter lack of concern for the impact of the casino on our neighboring towns of Wrentham, Foxborough, and North Attleborough. They don't give a damn what happens when those cars leave the land of "almost not in Plainville" and clog our neighbors' roads.

Our planning board has addressed our concerns about the inadequacies of the amended special permit this way: "The Board has issued a permit for this site, and you have a copy of the approved decision. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, the Building Inspector will have to make a determination on the submitted information as to whether the application conforms to the issued permit or not. If a determination is made that the activity filed for is non-compliant then it will be up to the applicant to re-submit to the Planning Board for a revision in order to proceed."

I know that's the process set forth in our bylaws. But, I also know that our town recently ended up in Land Court and Superior Court because a building inspector didn't do his job, and we nearly had an asphalt plant open in town in spite of by-laws forbidding it. Granted, our current building inspector is very different from his predecessor; still, given the complexity of permitting and overseeing the building and running of a CAsino in our little town, one might understand why so many people are worried — especially those of us who live within a few hundred feet of the facility and the towns who sit so close to the proposed casino site.

 

Please, make certain you know what Penn National is planning in its RFA-2 application before you sign any agreements, because the Host Community Agreement and the Amended Special Permit do not give an accurate picture of what's down the road should Penn National get the slots license at Plainridge.

Best regards,

Mary-Ann Greanier

19 Mirmichi Street

Plainville, MA 02762

508.695.2794

The Old Plainridge Bait and Switch

NoPlainvilleRacino

The Old Plainridge Bait and Switch

Remember when we were being admonished by the Plainville selectmen, Ourway/Plainridge, town administrator Joe Fernandes, and local gambling proponents not to worry about the little "racino" because it would "ONLY be 1,250 slot machines," and, after all, "IT WON'T BE A CASINO!"

Well, guess what Penn National will call the new facility if they get the slots license:

THE PLAINRIDGE PARK CASINO!

The arguments presented echo the same arguments employed elsewhere, including Middleboro, to the Regional Casino Task Force.
 
The Cliche King of Plainville, Joe Fernandes needs to find more appropriate quotes, even more so because Plainville has historically ignored opportunities offered that would have written a brighter future.

All representations of financial gain ignore the KNOWN future expansion of the proposed Slot Barn into a full blown 'casino' with no amenities. [Joe Fernandes attended the Gam[bl]ing Commission's Educational Forum at which FUTURE EXPANSION  was discussed. I know! I was there and saw Joe Fernandes, along with the Plainridge entourage, including Sticky Finger Piontkowski.]

Plainville vote renews bid for compensation

By Ellen Ishkanian / Globe Correspondent / September 14, 2013

 

With last week’s vote putting plans for a slots parlor in Plainville back on track, officials in Foxborough are renewing efforts to get financial compensation for the uptick in traffic and “social problems” they say the casino may cause.

 

Wrentham and Mansfield are also considering their options.

 

That doesn’t sit well with Plainville officials and many residents in the small town just a few miles south of Gillette Stadium.

 

“I don’t think people in glass houses should be throwing stones,” Plainville Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said, referring to Foxborough.

 

Foxborough Board of Selectmen has put the topic on the agenda for its next meeting Tuesday night, according to acting Town Manager Robert F. Cutler.

 

“I fail to see how, in any significant way, this could impact them anywhere near to the degree [Gillette Stadium] impacts us. It’s extremely disingenuous considering their impact on other communities,” he said.

Dale Bergevine, a 55-year resident of Plainville and member of the pro-casino group People for Plainville, took it even further.

“They should be embarrassed to come here and ask for anything,” he said.

Foxborough’s officials, as well as those in Mansfield and Wrentham which also border Plainville, tabled any effort to negotiate mitigation when it appeared the Plainridge project was dead last month after the state Gaming Commission determined its owners unsuitable to hold a license.

But plans for a slots parlor and restaurant complex at Plainridge Racecourse at the junction of
Interstate 495 and Route 1 were resuscitated two weeks ago when Penn National Gaming made an eleventh hour move to secure an option to buy the harness racing track after its bid for a slots parlor in Tewksbury failed.

Last Tuesday town voters endorsed the proposal by a slightly better than 3 to 1 margin in a townwide binding referendum.

That has pushed the Foxborough Board of Selectmen to put the topic on the agenda for its next meeting Tuesday night, according to acting Town Manager Robert F. Cutler.

As chairman of Foxborough’s Racino Review Committee, established by the Board of Selectmen to study the impact slots at Plainridge would have on the town, Michael Davison said his town is only protecting its interests, as the state’s gaming law allows.

“Was it fair for the people in Plainville when Gillette was built? Possibly not, but that’s how the law was written. The law in this case says we can ask for mitigation.”

The state’s gaming law requires casino operators to identify surrounding communities and to negotiate agreements with them to address any potential negative effects, such as traffic.

Eric Schippers, senior vice president at Penn National said the company plans to meet with each of the surrounding communities before the Oct. 4 application deadline.

Davison’s committee in Foxborough spent several months researching the impact of a casino at Plainridge before the original proposal was derailed, he said.

The committee found that the town can expect to see a 5 percent spike in problem gambling, “along with the attendant social ills that come with this, such as DUIs, bankruptcies, divorces, ambulatory and police calls,” according to a letter from the committee to the Board of Selectmen.

In addition, traffic in South Foxborough will see an increase, which will overburden roads that already see more traffic than they were built to handle, the letter continued.

Davison said it is the social impact that most concerns his committee.

“The development will be small enough that there won’t be a tremendous impact on our infrastructure,” he said. “But there is going to be a social impact, and we are going to ask for mitigation.”

In Wrentham, Town Administrator William F. Ketcham said the town’s focus has been on the traffic impacts along Interstate 495 expected from the casino being proposed in Milford, just 15 miles north of town, rather than the slots parlor proposed next door in Plainville.

“There is not so much concern as much as interest in at least having MAPC [the Metropolitan Area Planning Council] look at the possible impacts in Wrentham,” he said.

In Mansfield, Town Manager William R. Ross said there are people in town who have some concerns, and that the town is looking at its options.

“But you need to feel comfortable in doing something, and feel ethical about what you’re doing instead of saying, ‘You’re getting a pot of money and we want some too.’”

To Dale Bergevine and others in Plainville, any amount of mitigation given to neighboring towns is too much.

“We’re here in no man’s land, we’re the Burmuda Triangle stuck between the Wrentham Outlets and Gillette,” he said. “We get nothing but traffic.”

If the state Gaming Commission grants the lone slots license to Plainridge, the town will get about $4 million a year in new revenue, 300 construction jobs, 400 full-time positions, and improvements to Route 1 and Interstate 495 to mitigate increased traffic.

“Four million dollars for a postage-stamp size town like ours is a lot of money,” Bergevine said.

Penn National has also committed to keeping the harness racetrack operational if it is granted the slots license, something that is not considered economically feasible without the additional revenue generated by the added gambling operation.

There are two other competitors for the slots license: The Cordish Cos., planning a gambling parlor in Leominster, and Raynham Park, the simulcast betting parlor and former dog racing track in Raynham. Like Plainville,Raynham voters endorsed the Raynham Park proposal in a binding referendum. Residents of Leominster will vote Sept. 24.

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/09/14/foxborough-renews-mitigation-efforts-compensation-plainville-slots-plainville-compensation-revives-revives-revives-compensation-plainville-efforts-renews-efforts-efforts-mitigation-casino/kbzTrs5Pr19C8ioh1H9UgK/story.html


Foxborough, Wrentham, Mansfield worry over slots parlor proposal in neighboring Plainville

Plainville.....running a Town on 'hope' ? Another BAD Decision!

Plainville gets in bed with a CROOK, a common Con Man whose been raiding the till for years.......

after endorsing and supporting an ILLEGAL RAFFLE and much else.

Instead of protecting the future interests of the Town, making an informed decision, they propose

 

HOPE?

While surrendering the FUTURE! Residents have an opportunity to watch BAD government up close.

Plainville to go through with slots referendum, even with Plainridge disqualified
Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013 9:45 pm

BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

The Sun Chronicle

PLAINVILLE - Jesse Jackson might have coined the phrase "keep hope alive," but it's Plainville selectmen who are putting those words into practice.
 

Selectmen decided Monday to go ahead with a referendum election to approve slot machine gambling at Plainridge Racecourse, even though the state Gaming Commission has disqualified the track's owners.

Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes recommended the town hold the Sept. 10 election on the hope that a new company will buy Plainridge from the current owners and apply for the slot machine license.

After Plainridge owners were disqualified because of financial mismanagement, they said they were open to selling the harness track off Route 1 and Interstate 495.

Selectmen went along with Fernandes' suggestion, although they admitted Plainridge is a longshot for a gambling license.

"It's a remote chance at this point," Selectman Rob Rose said.

However, he said more than $4 million annually in taxes and fees to the town will be lost if the racetrack cannot get a slot machine license. [Where did he get that calculation?]

"As long as there is a sliver of a hope, and there is $4 million riding on this, we can't kill it," he said.

"I think it's just as well we keep to the schedule, rather than slam the door shut," Selectwoman Andrea Soucy said.

Selectmen Chairman Robert Fennessy agreed the town should proceed with the election "even though it may be a moot point."

Both Soucy and Fennessy said they wanted to give residents the chance to weigh in on the issue through the election.

The election would be to determine whether voters approve of a host community agreement that spells out the benefits the town would receive in exchange for allowing 1,250 slot machines at the track.

Fernandes said the agreement, signed by selectmen last month, is transferable to new owners.

The decision to proceed with the election dumbfounded opponents of gambling.


 

Mary-Ann Greanier, a leader of the opposition, said Plainridge has lied to the town repeatedly throughout the process, but selectmen keep willingly going along with their hopes for gambling.

She said town officials believed former Plainridge President Gary Piontkowski had the best interests of the town and the track at heart until the gaming commission discovered he had been taking money from the track for years.

When Piontkowski was bought out in April over the discovery, other Plainridge officials falsely told the town he was retiring due to health problems, rather than financial issues, she said.

She said she has no confidence in the integrity of the host community agreement and cannot believe the town would vote on it before the gaming commission could vet the new owners.

No one even knows if there will be new owners, or if they would be allowed to apply for a license at Plainridge.

The four other firms competing for the slots license said they have found sites for their facilities already and are not interested in Plainridge.

The deadline has past for filing an application fee for new firms, so it is unclear how a new owner could take over the Plainridge bid.

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/plainville/plainville-to-go-through-with-slots-referendum-even-with-plainridge/article_1533129f-7f20-539d-89cf-147aeed867d0.html?_dc=461806898238.1374



UPDATE about September 10th Plainville Referendum:

According to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, there doesn't even have to be an applicant in place for the September 10th referendum vote to happen. If there is no applicant in place, and Plainville voters say 'yes' to slots at Plainridge, an applicant can buy Plainridge after the vote, assume the existing Host Community Agreement, and be considered for a slots license as long as they get their application to the MGC by October 4th. In that case, Plainville might well get stuck with an applicant we don't know anything about, except that they have enough money to buy Plainridge.

No Plainville Racino will hold an educational forum on slots gambling before the vote. We will also be conducting other Get Out The No Vote activities like leafletting, sign holding, "visibilities" around town, etc. We'll also have a presence at the polls on Septmeber 10th. Please respond to this email or send an email to <info@noplainvilleracino.com> to find out how you can help.

Plainville Voters Vote on An Unknown! Sept. 10th!

How can voters make an informed decision?

 

Plainville continues to make itself the BUTT of jokes!

 

 

NoPlainvilleRacino

Plainville Selectmen vote to go ahead with Sept. 10th vote.

At tonight's board of selectmen's meeting, Andrea Soucy, Rob Rose, and Bob Fennessey voted to go ahead with a September 10th referendum on slots at Plainridge "in case" another applicant can be "found" to take over the Host Community Agreement that Plainridge made with Plainville.

Another applicant can be found as late as September 10th and have the vote be valid. ...

According to MGC regulations, a referendum can be held, even if the new applicant hasn't been fully vetted by the MGC. So we could potentially be voting for an applicant who — again — won't pass muster with the MA Gaming Commission.

Even if they have been vetted, what the MGC is comfortable with might not be what the people of Plainville want in our town. We won't have time to find out much more about the new applicant beyond the fact that they had the money to buy-out Plainridge.

Plainridge, the selectmen, and Joe Fernandes have always touted the fact that we "know Plainridge" and that they have been "good neighbors" for so many years. Now they're willing to shove a complete unknown down the throats of Plainville.

So, in may ways we're back to square one. Do you think we should go back to our plans for signs, leafletting, and holding a public forum? And, if you do, are you willing to help? Leave your comments here.

 

 

 

Defining Plainville's Incompetence

Plainville officials silenced questions, refused to consider public comments, ignored the evidence and even now, have failed to ask appropriate questions.....and there are MANY!  

Plainville willingly got in bed with a CROOK, nothing more than a SLICK CON MAN [much as Middleboro got in bed with a CONVICTED RAPIST].

Plainville officials IGNORED AND DEFENDED an ILLEGAL RAFFLE! and much else.



The only place the Horse Poop is flying is Plainville's Town Hall!

Joe Fernandes will be retired on an 80% TAXPAYER FUNDED RETIREMENT when the Tsunami of his BAD decisions hits!

Driving 'irony' in Plainville

Hailed as savior of harness racing, Piontkowski may have killed it

Former Plainridge Racecourse President Gary Piontkowski discusses plans related to the track in August 2011.

Posted: Monday, August 12, 2013

Driving 'irony' in Plainville

BY JIM HAND SUN CHRONICLE STAFF
The Sun Chronicle
PLAINVILLE - Just a few months ago, horsemen were praising Gary Piontkowski as the savior of harness racing in Massachusetts.

Piontkowski was the driving force behind efforts to build Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville 15 years ago and bring back harness racing after the state's only track closed in Foxboro.

More recently, he was spearheading the campaign to win a state license to add slot machines to Plainridge so the track could win the added revenue needed to keep racing viable.

"First, there would be no racetrack in Massachusetts if not for the efforts of Mr. Piontkowski," one supporter, Peter Richardson Blood, said on Facebook.

But, from social media to the paddocks of his former track, Piontkowski's name has been sullied by the revelation that he was taking money from the track for years.

A state Gaming Commission uncovered the practice and, as a result, the commission disqualified Plainridge from competition for the slot machine license.

The commission said it was also unhappy investors did not try to get the $1.4 million back, and instead bought out Piontkowski's share of the track for $1.8 million and agreed to pay him $180,000 a year for two years.

Piontkowski did not return phone calls or answer the door at his Rhode Island home, so he could not be reached for comment.

But, the former savior is now being viewed as the killer of harness racing.

"Gary single-handedly nailed the coffin shut on Massachusetts racing," critic Jaymes McAssey said on a Facebook page dedicated to the racing community.

Those who had public dealings with Piontkowski, but did not know the inner workings of Plainridge, say they are stunned by the turn of events.

"I think he is the guy who saved racing, and I think it is somewhat ironic the tables have turned and he is the guy who might have destroyed it," said state Sen. Richard Ross, R-Wrentham.

Ross has been supportive of the track over the years because so many workers, horsemen and farms derived their incomes from it.

He said he never imagined there was something financially wrong at the track, but quickly added he does not know what standard business practices are in the gambling industry.

The Gaming Commission obviously believed Piontkowski's practice of taking up to $1.4 million from the track's "money room" was beyond the pale.

It was critical of Piontkowski and the track owners, and found Plainridge unsuitable for a gaming license.

But, even in the best of times, Piontkowski and the track were controversial.

Piontkowski was the former manager of another track that used to operate in Foxboro. Always politically well connected, he also served for a time as chairman of the state Racing Commission.

The man who replaced him as chairman, Robert Hutchinson, voted against Plainridge getting a state license for racing in 1998. He noted, among other things, that all of its investors had not been vetted by state police at the time of the vote.

He was overruled by two other commissioners.

State police alleged that the two commissioners had been holding improper communications with the administration of then Gov. Paul Cellucci in "an extensive web of behind the scenes connections between the racetrack backers and the Cellucci administration," according to press reports at the time.

But, that was just the beginning of the controversies.
 
Piontkowski and partner Lou Giuliano, who financed the track project, had a falling out and ended up in a legal battle. Giuliano even claimed his signature had been forged on some documents.

Piontkowski got control of the track and Giuliano tried to open a competing operation in Foxboro, but never got the project going.

In 2004, state police were again at odds with Piontkowski, accusing him of taking illegal telephone bets. At the time, betting over the phone in Massachusetts was not allowed. It is now.

Piontkowski countered that the state police were corrupt and were retaliating against him for complaints he had filed against them.

The racing commission dropped the matter.

Even when it appeared Piontkowski and the track were trying to do something good, it got caught up in controversy.

Resident Mary-Ann Greanier filed a complaint with the state Attorney General's Office about a charity raffle the track had conducted. The Attorney General's Office closed the case after the track agreed not to conduct the raffle in the future.

One of the strangest episodes at Plainridge came in 2002, when a man posing as a Brinks security guard stole more than $100,000 from the track.

The man timed the crime when the sun was shining into security cameras.

The suspect police later said committed the crime was found shot to death in Rhode Island and the case was never solved.

Last year, during the quest for the slot machine license, Piontkowski stirred up more controversy when he sued a gambling opponent because someone had posted derogatory comments about the track on the man's website. [SLAPP suit: Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation - intended to BULLY and INTIMIDATE!]

The suit was dismissed and the track was ordered to pay legal fees.

Yet, until recently, Piontkowski was always held in high regard by Plainville town officials.

They said Piontkowski was cooperative, civic minded, supportive of local charities and youth sports clubs, and was running an outfit that provided jobs and much-needed tax revenue to the town.

Former Police Chief Ned Merrick, whose wife worked at the track, said there was never any trouble at Plainridge while he was chief.

So, officials said they were blindsided when Piontkowski resigned last April and more recently when the investigative report came out detailing his practice of taking money from the track.

They were hoping Plainridge would get the slots license because it had promised to pay the town $1.5 million a year in property taxes, along with $2.7 million in fees.

Slot machines were also supposed to generate 400 new jobs.

Town Administrator Joseph Fernandes said he is troubled by several aspects of the Piontkowski case, but perhaps what bothers him the most is that investors and Piontkowski lied when they said he was retiring for health reasons.

Gee, Joe, Do you think that constitutes 'NEGOTIATING IN BAD FAITH'?

And yet you continue to negotiate under the circumstances?

Do you think in Plainville's BEST INTERESTS, maybe the Town should sue Plainridge?

Joe, Didn't you think it was puzzling that those HEALTH REASONS necessitated a financial buyout?

It's difficult to know if we can blame incompetence or stupidity!

The windfall town officials were hoping for is lost, and now they are worried the track will close, people will lose their jobs, farms that support horse racing will be sold and Plainville will lose the $279,000 a year the track is currently paying in taxes.

"I think it is a shame one person could ruin it for all those people," Town Assessor Mary Jo LaFreniere said.


http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/driving-irony-in-plainville/article_076d86f6-173b-593f-a513-8c6a09a7fb87.html