Don't bet the farm on Somerset casino

A community opposition group is already forming in Somerset, another dumb location for a Slot Barn!

There are 159 posts here. [at the bottom, click on
"older posts" to see more]
http://middlebororemembers.blogspot.com/search/label/Milford

Please remember: MILFORD DEFEATED THESE CLOWNS!
Milford created a template!

Mike Moran: Don't bet the farm on Somerset casino

OK, I admit it. I may have a gambling problem.

No, it's not what you think. I'm not powerless over the lure of slot machines, video poker or even Keno. You won't find me standing ahead of you at a convenience store selecting scratch tickets at sloth-like speed while you wait patiently to pay for your bread and milk. Nope, I'm not that guy.

Herald News Photo | Jack FoleyThe corner of Brayton Point Road and Wilbur Avenue from the southwest corner of the town Farm property in Somerset. The land is a mix of woods and fields. Somerset on the Move LLC is proposing to build a resort casino on the property.




By Mike Moran
Opinion Columnist Posted Feb. 11, 2015 at 4:25 PM
Updated Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM

OK, I admit it. I may have a gambling problem.

No, it’s not what you think. I’m not powerless over the lure of slot machines, video poker or even Keno. You won’t find me standing ahead of you at a convenience store selecting scratch tickets at sloth-like speed while you wait patiently to pay for your bread and milk. Nope, I’m not that guy.

And table games, like blackjack and roulette, do nothing for me. In fact, I once watched silently for an hour as real gamblers played at a craps table. I walked away knowing nothing more than I did when I arrived.

I admit that I’ll lay down a couple of bucks to play Powerball when the jackpot climbs to gigantic levels. Do I expect to win? I understand that the odds are better that I will be struck by lightning while riding a unicycle up President Avenue.

So what is the nature of my gambling problem? Actually, it’s more like a casino problem. You see, like the hallucinations that appear before the eyes of an exhausted, parched desert traveler, I see casinos everywhere. Until recently, they were permanently imprinted on my mind, as politician after politician promised me that a casino in the SouthCoast would someday exist.

There was the riverboat casino the folks from Circus Circus told us would chug up and down the Taunton River. Then there was the land-based casino at Fall River’s former municipal airport. We all recall the New Bedford casino that former Gov. Bill Weld and former Mayor Rosemary Tierney said was a sure thing in 1993. It might be at the site of the municipal golf course, we were told. Then again, it might be on the waterfront.

Rem-ember the one Mayor Will Flanagan tried to create in Fall River’s reservation-biopark area? How about the casino at the site of Fall River’s New Harbour Mall? That was a great one, right? The CEO of Foxwoods even showed up at Government Center to tell us how swell it would be, until he changed his mind and started courting New Bedford. It was then that talk about a Fall River waterfront casino, possible at the failed Hess LNG site, commenced — another false alarm. We also have the Mashpee Wampanoag casino proposal in Taunton, strategically placed near the well-travelled Route 140-Route 24 interchange. And Brockton wants to come up to the plate and take a swing.

All these casinos, ready to sprout from the ground like weeds, right?

Wrong.

Now we’ve got the latest entry in the contest to create the biggest and best imaginary casino. This one, we’re told, will be nestled in a spacious tract of land off Route 103 in Somerset.

Let me ask an impolite question. Does anyone really, truly believe that a casino will be constructed on Wilbur Avenue? Have you ever travelled over the Braga Bridge into Somerset at 5 p.m. on a weekday and taken the ramp to Route 103 East? Did the sluggish crawl of the traffic make you want to get out of your car and walk to your destination? Now imagine what that trip will be like when a casino opens a quarter mile down that same road.

Before you get too concerned though, consider a few things. Somerset residents would have to vote at least three times before the first shovel enters the ground. According to Don Setters, the chairman of the Board of Selectmen, we could expect a town meeting vote on a proposed zoning change. Then there would be a vote to sell or lease the property for use as a casino. Finally, a vote on a host community agreement would take place.

Assuming all that receives voter approval, and I doubt it will, there would then be a proposal to the state Gaming Commission for a license, followed by an endless string of hearings, meetings, environmental permitting, and other bureaucratic steps.

I’m not anti-casino and never have been. But we’ve been told too many times that “the casino” was coming, and it simply hasn’t happened. And while I understand the motivation of some within Somerset’s corridors of power to consider any idea that will help make up the lost revenue from the town’s two power plants, casino talk is always a risky proposition.

A small grassroots opposition group has started to form in town, but I don’t think too many Somerset residents take the casino plan seriously — not yet. Who knows, some residents may even like the idea.

But you can bet on this: Political leaders who unfairly raise expectations that a casino is coming may be making the biggest gamble of all — one that could have a profound effect on their own political future.

http://www.tauntongazette.com/article/20150211/OPINION/150218998#150218998/?Start=1&_suid=1423921553358026376466980122576

Casino Free Milford vs Foxwoods:The Underdog Wins!

What an inspiration!

Fall River's hand is weak on Foxwoods casino proposal

Letter: Fall River's hand is weak on Foxwoods casino proposal    


Posted Feb. 1, 2014          

We need jobs in Fall River, but a casino is no silver bullet.

I do not buy that this type of business will increase crime; we already have crime.

I do believe that casinos are breeding grounds for organized crime, generally speaking.

Additionally, after the construction is complete, the majority of employment that would remain is lower income: wait staff, cleaning crews, low-end security.

While the city would gain a higher-end taxpayer, there will be property tax collected and possibly a small revenue-sharing deal, but make no mistake:

Whatever profit is made will be shipped out of the area.

I am also concerned for the current restaurants in our city. Adding a casino could expose them to a new clientele base they would otherwise not have access to. It could also monopolize the market by offering extremely good dinning deals to lure customers in for an extended period of time, putting their competition out of business.

Take a stroll to Foxwoods or Mohegan Sun and count the number of hospitality type businesses outside the casino property in a one-mile radius.

It really seems Mayor Will Flanagan loves to gamble with the city.

A casino in our community is a gamble, and our hand at this table is weak at best.

Given the right location, namely on the waterfront, a well planned all inclusive resort could be a draw to our city.

Something in the woods will be just that, something in the woods.

In any case, this is far from a "made" deal, with only one casino slated for southeastern Massachusetts.

Expect a showdown on Beacon Hill or at least a grudge match with Taunton.

Daniel Botelho

Fall River

 - See more at: http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20140201/OPINION/140209704/2011#sthash.1SAUpFYs.dpuf

Flanagan Does It Again!

Mayor Flanagan genuflected before the Predatory Gambling Industry last time around and now can't wait to do the same with developers [the Foxwoods/Nunes Duo] that lied to Milford residents who had the sense to inform themselves and toss them out.

Once again, the LOW WAGE JOB projections are OVERSTATED, Foxwoods is laying off in Connecticut because of declining revenues and Gambling Market Saturation.

Predatory Gambling has NEVER been economic development - Atlantic City is the poster child for all that is wrong with Predatory Gambling!

How do you negotiate without a SITE?

Check out FACTS posted here:

Casino Free Milford

Flanagan: Deal between Fall River, Foxwoods to be announced Tuesday

Mayor Will Flanagan said casino developer would invest $750 million in the project that would include a 140,000 square foot gaming floor and amenities


Herald News Staff Reporter
Posted Jan. 27, 2014 @ 2:03 pm
FALL RIVER — Foxwoods Casino and the investment group Crossroads Massachusetts LLC are looking to build a destination resort casino in the city after a failed attempt in Milford, Mayor Will Flanagan said today.

"We are ready to go," said Flanagan, "we just need a site."

Flanagan said the casino developers would invest $750 million in the project that would include a 140,000 square foot gaming floor, approximately 20 restaurants, a 350-room hotel, a "name brand" shopping mall, an entertainment arena, a convention center and spa.

In November, Milford voters soundly voted against plans to build a $1 billion resort casino. Flanagan said the day after the vote, he received a call from David Nunes, the chief operating officer of Foxwoods Massachusetts.

"He said I want to come to Fall River," Flanagan said, " I said okay, let's talk about the city."

Subsequent to that call, Flanagan and members of his administration met with Nunes and Foxwoods Casino CEO Scott Butera, he said. At the meeting they agreed to move forward with plans to locate a smaller scale casino and look at possible sites in the city.

Flanagan will officially announce Foxwoods interest in building in the city during a press conference with Butera and Nunes tomorrow. The casino developers have looked at several sites in the city already, Flanagan said, that could possibly sustain the development that requires 30 to 70 acres, although no location has been identified.

Flanagan and the Foxwoods officials will also announce the formation of a site selection committee with appointees being Robert Mellion, president of the Fall River Area Chamber of Commerce & Industry; Ken Fiola, vice president of the Fall River Office of Economic Development; John Sbrega, president of Bristol Community College; Joseph Camara, City Council president; Joseph Vienna, director of the Fall River Career Center; and Carl Garcia, chairman of the Workforce Investment Board and owner of Carl's Collision Center.

"Our goal is to have a site under agreement in the very near future," Flanagan said.

Flanagan said for him, bringing a casino to the city "is about LOW WAGE job creation," although he declined to immediately release the number of jobs that would be generated with the construction of the resort casino.

"My mission is that all jobs be Fall River preference and priority, so all city residents have first access at these jobs," Flanagan said.

Flanagan said he has two sites in mind at this time, one on the waterfront and one that is not, although no offers have been made on the properties.

Once Foxwoods secures a site for a casino, Flanagan said the issue will go to the voters as a ballot question, which he predicted will get overwhelming support. He wants it to go before the voters as soon as possible.






See more at: http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20140127/NEWS/140126804#sthash.I3x9BaQa.dpuf

Milford: Opponents working to remain organized

Casino-Free Milford

BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE - TWO MONTHS POST REFERENDUM:

Casino-Free Milford is working to stay engaged in the community, focusing on local issues. Steve Trettel, Co-Chair of the group, knows that keeping people engaged is a challenge.

Per Trettel, “If we can convince people to stay involved, what a difference we could make.”

 

Tensions fading after casino vote

Opponents working to remain organized

By Ellen Ishkanian

| Globe Correspondent January 23, 2014

Nine weeks after Milford voters overwhelmingly told Foxwoods that the town would not welcome a proposed $1 billion casino, those on both sides of the issue say things appear to be back to normal after the election many feared would leave lasting scars.

Selectman Dino DeBartolomeis, who supported the casino, said he got a lot of angry e-mails, but once the votes were counted, and the results so overwhelmingly one-sided, the animosity subsided.

“On my street there were three families for the casino and three families against it,” he said. “During the recent snowstorm, everyone was out helping everyone. That’s the spirit of Milford.”

But just beneath that community spirit may be a new political reality.

 

It is a reality that Selectman Brian Buckley, the lone casino opponent on the three-member board, said he is ready to push an agenda that was not always heard in the past.

‘Two thirds of the community agreed with me. With that comes some political strength.’

“Two thirds of the community agreed with me,” he said. “With that comes some political strength.”

That strength, if it lasts, will come from the core group of people who banded together over the course of several years to fight the gaming project, he said. Casino-Free Milford, led by chairmen John Seaver and Steve Trettel, was made up of people from different political backgrounds, different neighborhoods across town, and various ethnic groups and professions, as well as lifelong residents and those newer to town.

Not only are they diverse, but they have contact information for a network of town residents who are feeling a newfound sense of power in having a voice in local government, members say.

“We all came together and put our personal political views aside to work for a common cause,” said Jose Costa, a former School Committee member. “We want to take that same thing, and try to work for the greater good of the town.”

The core group of about a dozen people is still meeting, with one of its first priorities getting Buckley reelected. He is the first of the three selectmen to come up for reelection since the casino vote, and as of a recent check was running unopposed with no rumblings of anyone interested in challenging him.

Nomination papers for this spring’s annual election must be filed with the town clerk by Feb. 11.

But that’s not the group’s only goal. While members shy away from talking about backing specific candidates in the future, or drafting candidates to oppose DeBartolomeis or Selectman Brian Murray if they decide to run for reelection when their terms expire, they are clear that their aim is to have their considerable clout felt in local affairs.

Armed with lists of like-minded voters and hundreds of volunteers who proved willing to knock on doors, make phone calls, hold signs, and donate money and expertise to a cause they believe in, the group is setting its sights on improving downtown and improving traffic through town.

“This town came to the conclusion that this was not a good thing,’’ Buckley said of the casino. “We decided what we don’t want to be, now we have to decide what we want to be.”

At a recent Board of Selectmen’s meeting, casino opponent Peter Scandone talked about ideas for improving the appearance of Main Street, and suggested that attractive signs, beautifying traffic islands, and better enforcement to keep bicycles off sidewalks could be easy first steps toward revitalizing the area.

Buckley is also setting his sights on the town’s Industrial Development Commission, which he said he has not seen anything of substance from “in a very long time.”

DeBartolomeis and Murray voiced support for coming up with a plan to make Main Street more vital, attractive, and commercially viable, but also pointed out that this is not a new conversation, and that much has already been done.

“We’ve already spent probably $15 million from various grants to improve things,” DeBartolomeis said. “But that doesn’t mean we can’t listen to people who have good ideas.”

DeBartolomeis, who is in his 32nd year on the Board of Selectmen, was an early and steady supporter of the casino. He said the November vote surprised him only in the magnitude of the opposition.

He said he has not decided whether he will run for another term next year, but his support of the casino will not weigh into his decision.

“I’ll do what I always do, I’ll sit down with my family and close friends and make a decision,” he said.

He also has no regrets about his casino votes.

“I thought it was a good opportunity for the town,” he said. “But whether you agree or disagree, it was a good thing for the town to let the people vote.”

Murray, who also supported the casino, agreed that the right course was putting the decision in the hands of town voters.

“I really do remain convinced it was the right thing to do,” he said. “It put the issue to rest.”
Murray and DeBartolomeis say the community involvement brought out by the casino vote is a good thing for the town, but as veterans of local government they question whether the momentum can continue with more mundane matters.

“The casino was lightning-in-a-bottle type stuff,” Murray said.

The test, he said, will be whether the anticasino group can find people willing to put in the work, week after week, to keep local government working well.

“An election cycle is a light year,” he said. “There are so many factors in an election, we’ll have to see what the next year brings.”

Casino-Free Milford official Trettel agrees that keeping people engaged is the challenge.

“If we can convince people to stay involved, what a difference we could make,” he said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/west/2014/01/23/can-casino-opponents-grassroots-power-endure-milford/NRvaUlq2wjVpLaIdVqqAsI/story.html

 

Why Casinos are Becoming Like Landfills

Americans still love to gamble. They just don't want casinos near where they live

By Jon Marcus/Boston

Dec. 23, 2013

Milford, Massachusetts at the holidays looks a lot like Bedford Falls, the fictional setting of the classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life.”

Settled in 1662, the town of 27,000 still has working farms, its own daily newspaper, a baseball diamond behind the American Legion Hall and an annual picnic. On Memorial and Veteran’s days, parades run down a Main Street lined with white wooden churches and historic buildings made of red brick and locally quarried pink granite.

But it’s visions of Pottersville, the film’s alternate-universe world of greed, strip clubs, pawnshops, and hopelessness that have been on residents’ minds this season.

Wary of increased crime and traffic and depressed property values, Milford voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal for a $1 billion, 24-hour casino in November, becoming the sixth Massachusetts community to say no since voters statewide opened the way for three slot parlors or casinos in 2011.

“It didn’t take long to be convinced that this was not good for a small town,” says Steve Trettel, co-chair of the group Casino-Free Milford. “If you want to get right down to the root of it, that’s really it.”

While there’s been no slowdown in the pace at which states continue to approve adding or expanding casinos and slot machine parlors, they are starting to run into trouble finding places to put them.

In addition to the cities and towns in Massachusetts, which included a neighborhood in Boston, new or expanded gambling venues have been voted down in Portland, Oregon, Newport, Rhode Island and Biddeford, Lewiston, and Washington County, Maine. In early December, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick filed suit to block a native-American tribe from opening a casino on toney Martha’s Vineyard.

Across the nation, community and business interests are pushing back against the possibility of new casinos. In Central Florida, powerful interests including the Walt Disney Company, intent on preserving the region’s reputation as a family destination, have organized to prevent the state legislature from adding casinos there. Even in South Florida, which has been more accepting of gambling, local officials are raising concerns about plans to expand an existing casino operated by a Native American tribe, citing the potential for spillover traffic and crime.

A federal application submitted by another Native American tribe to build a casino in the upstate New York town Union Springs is being fought by a coalition that includes the state’s senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, on the grounds that it would bring unfair competition for local businesses. Even Massachusetts Governor Patrick, who signed the bill to legalize casinos there, has said that he would vote against one if it were ever proposed for the Berkshires town where he has a second home.

This resistance is not because Americans don’t want to gamble. In the last 10 years, the nationwide revenue from casino gambling has grown from $29 billion to more than $37 billion, according to the American Gaming Association, which represents the casino industry.

Massachusetts residents alone spent an estimated $850 million last year in casinos in neighboring states, according to the Center for Policy Analysis at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth.

And 61 percent of them still like the idea of having casinos in the state, a survey by the Western New England University Polling Institute found.

They just don’t appear to want gambling near where they live. The same poll found that 55 percent of Bay State adults oppose casinos in their own communities.

“There is definitely some of that ‘not in my back yard’ going on,” says David Schwartz, director of the Center for Gaming Research at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. “It seems that people are comfortable with the idea of casinos, but once they get into the specifics of, this is where it’s going to go and this is what it’s going to look like and this is how it’s going to affect my commute, they may be having second thoughts.”

Not every community is hostile to casinos. Several in Massachusetts have voted to allow them, including one on the site of a former chemical plant and one at a former greyhound racing track. In Philadelphia and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, casinos have been approved to replace a hazardous waste site and an abandoned factory.

“What’s clearly going on here is that the communities that have approved these are much poorer communities” than the likes of Milford, says Richard McGowan, a professor of economics at Boston College and a casino expert. When they consider the alternatives—“a prison, a nuclear power plant—most people think that casinos overall are good for a community when they replace things that are tired or old,” says Bob Jarvis, a gaming expert and law professor at Nova Southeastern Law School in Florida.

Other casinos are in largely nonresidential neighborhoods of cities such as New Orleans, on remote tribal land free from the authority of voters and elected local officials, or in rural areas. But as more are proposed in densely populated states, gaming experts say, finding places to put them is becoming more contentious.

“Overall, people are not uncomfortable with gaming,” says Steve Rittvo, a principal with the casino consulting firm the Innovation Project Group. “But people also realize that you don’t necessarily need to be the host community to get that spinoff of the impacts of it.”


Read more: Massachusetts Casinos: Gambling's NIMBY Problem | TIME.com http://nation.time.com/2013/12/23/why-casinos-are-becoming-like-landfills/#ixzz2on3LgeaK

Milford: Bravo!

From casinos to water rates, the top 10 stories in 2013 in the Milford area

By Lindsay Corcoran/Daily News staff

Milford Daily News

Posted Dec 26, 2013

 

Purchase this photo

Marshall Wolff/for Wicked Local and Daily News

Milford Free Casino Co-Chairmen Steve Trettel, left, and John Seaver, rear left, celebrate with the crowd on Nov. 19 after the results are announced on the casino referendum at Pinz in Milford.

 

 

The Milford region was an exciting place to be in 2013, with a casino proposal, a first look at the proposed expansion of the regional hospital, a local town celebrating 300 years and the implementation of a statewide medical marijuana law.

 

Take a look at the list of our top ten stories of 2013:

1. Considered by many to be the biggest thing to ever to happen in Milford or the region, the casino proposal dominated the news throughout the year. While developer David Nunes first proposed the idea of a casino in Milford in 2009, things didn’t get serious until he filed a last minute application with the state gaming commission in January. Then Foxwoods, operator of a casino in Connecticut, signed on and the idea turned into a $1 billion proposal. The project had its ups and downs, between promises of over $30 million up front and then annually then with drastic changes to the plans, infighting among partners and concerns over financing bringing it down. Many eyes were on Milford as their proposal was one of three to vie for one eastern Massachusetts license and one of only a handful of proposals across the state. In the end, though, Milford voters spoke loud and clear, defeating the proposal by a 2-1 margin on Nov. 19.

 

http://www.milforddailynews.com/news/x915455804/From-casinos-to-water-rates-the-top-10-stories-in-2013-in-the-Milford-area

Repeal the Casino Deal battles on.

Casinos in Court

Repeal the Casino Deal battles on.

Tuesday, December 10, 2013
By Maureen Turner

AP photo

Gov. Deval Patrick

A grassroots campaign to repeal Massachusetts’ casino legislation has cleared a major hurdle in its effort to put the matter before voters next year. Last week, Secretary of State William Galvin confirmed that the group had collected enough signatures to get the question on the ballot. (See “Do You Want Casinos?” Oct. 8, 2013, www.valleyadvocate.com.)

 

But the effort now faces another battlefield: the commonwealth’s highest court.

 

In September, Attorney General (and 2014 gubernatorial candidate) Martha Coakley ruled that the question, which would overturn the 2011 legislation that allows three casinos and one slots parlor in the state, was unconstitutional because it would violate the property rights of casino applicants.

 

Repeal the Casino Deal sought an injunction of Coakley’s ruling from the SJC and was successful, which allowed the group to proceed with its signature collection.

 

The court is expected to take up the case early in 2014.

 

Meanwhile, proponents of the question will continue with work to move forward the ballot initiative.

 

Once initiatives meet the first signature threshold, they go before the state Legislature for action. If the Legislature does not enact the proposed law by May 7, backers will have to collect another 11,485 signatures by July to get the question on the November ballot.

 

Kathleen Conley Norbut, a Monson resident and long-time anti-casino activist who is one of the plaintiffs in the SJC case, said she was a little worried about whether her group could collect enough signatures, given the number of local casino ballot questions that were also competing for activists’ time and attention. The results of those local ballot questions—voters in Palmer and East Boston rejected casino plans on Election Day, with Milford voters following suit a week later—suggest a turning of the tide, she said.

 

“I see the political landscape changing,” Conley Norbut said, pointing to the fact that a number of elected-officials-cum-“casino cheerleaders” will be, or might be, leaving office soon. That list includes state Sen. Gale Candaras (D-Wilbraham), who has said she’s considering running for register of the Hampden Probate Court, and Gov. Deval Patrick, who leaves office next year.

 

(Two candidates in the crowded 2014 gubernatorial field have said they support repealing the casino law: Republican Charlie Baker, who supports a single casino in the state, and Democrat Don Berwick, a casino opponent.)

 

Repeal the Casino Deal was represented in the injunction action by Matthew Cameron, an East Boston attorney who’s been involved with the anti-casino effort there. The group is still putting together its legal team for the SJC case; Conley Norbut said that a number of attorneys interested in the case cannot come on board because their firms have conflicts of interest due to involvement with the numerous casino proposals still in play. Still, she said, “We’re putting together a top-notch team.”

The campaign also counts among its leaders former Massachusetts AG Scott Harshbarger, an outspoken casino opponent.

 

As she goes about her daily life—walking her dog, shopping at the grocery store—Conley Norbut said, she hears from more and more people who are excited about the possibility of voicing their opinion on the casino issue via a statewide vote.

 

Those voices, she added, were disregarded when a handful of power players on Beacon Hill pushed through the legislation two years ago. While Massachusetts’ casino plan has plenty of flaws—it’s bad economic policy; it carries the threat of numerous social problems—the process by which it was created was also deeply flawed, she said: “The system’s broken, and that’s why we’re going in this direction.”•

 

 

http://valleyadvocate.com/article.cfm?aid=17429

 

 

Field Of Casino Competitors Shrinks As Application Deadline Nears

Field Of Casino Competitors Shrinks As Application Deadline Nears
By Paul Tuthill

Originally published on Fri November 22, 2013 12:41 pm

 When Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed the law two years ago legalizing casino gambling in Massachusetts there were great expectations for thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Now as the end-of-the year deadline approaches for final applications for gaming licenses there is great uncertainty. 

Credit Credit commons.wikimedia.org

Listen

0:00

4:06

The results of a series of binding voter referendums have left just two or fewer proposed projects for what was expected to be robust competition to build resorts casinos in the eastern and western regions of Massachusetts. Pending background checks on two casino operators have further clouded the future of the fledgling gaming industry in the state.

Earlier this week voters in Milford--a town of 25,000 people about 20 miles west of Boston--rejected by a two-to-one margin a $1 billion casino project proposed by Foxwoods. The vote was the last in a series of binding referendums involving the 11 initial applicants for gaming licenses in Massachusetts.

Voters in the eastern Massachusetts city of Everett in June overwhelmingly approved a casino planned by Wynn Resorts, and in July voters in Springfield by a 52 percent to 48 percent margin endorsed MGM’s plans for a downtown casino development. Voters in Leominster, Plainville and Raynham approved proposals for gambling facilities that will have only slot machines.

But then the casino operators hit a losing streak. In September, West Springfield voters gave thumbs down to a proposal by Hard Rock International. On Election Day voters in both Palmer and East Boston, in what were considered upsets, turned down casino projects.

Mohegan Sun asked for a recount in Palmer that will take place on Tuesday. But the company is seeking to void the exclusive casino development deal it had with a realty company causing casino supporters such as Town Counselor Paul Burns to conclude Mohegan Sun has thrown in the towel.
Chip Tuttle, chief operating officer of Suffolk Downs, confirmed on Thursday that Mohegan Sun is among several companies that have discussed partnering with Suffolk Downs on a revised casino proposal in Revere.

Suffolk, which lost the vote in East Boston, is trying to move the project to neighboring Revere, where voters supported it.

Casino industry expert Clyde Barrow said the odds are long, but the Suffolk Downs casino project might still be viable.

The gaming law allows for one resort casino in the Greater Boston area and one in western Massachusetts along with one slots machine parlor that can be located anywhere.

MGM in the western region and Wynn in the east are the only voter approved projects, but neither has passed the background check and been found “suitable” by the five-member Massachusetts Gaming Commission.

A statewide group says it has secured enough signatures from registered voters to put a question on the November 2014 ballot to repeal the casino law. One of the anti-casino activists Steve Abdow believes the tide is turning against casinos in Massachusetts.

A recent poll by Western New England University found a solid majority of Massachusetts residents still support casino gambling, according to polling institute director Tim Vercellotti.

Just 42 percent of the people surveyed said they would support a casino in their home town.

http://wnpr.org/post/field-casino-competitors-shrinks-application-deadline-nears

 

Foxwoods, Sticky Fingers Piontkowski and the Gam[bl]ing Commission

This is all so confusing!

Sticky Fingers Piontkowski takes + $1 MILLION that is unexplained...well, plus a bunch of other stuff.....

No one asks questions...the media doesn't ask about the illegal PLAINRIDGE RAFFLE....town leaders don't ask...AG Martha 'Always Running For Higher Office' Coakley refuses to address the issue.

 And the Gam[bl]ing Commission....?

Former Chairman of Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Sentenced to 18 Months in Federal Prison

November 19, 2013 · by Staff Report · in Statewide News

Michael Thomas, the former Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Council, was sentenced to 18 months of imprisonment for embezzling from the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.

On July 24, 2013, a jury found Thomas guilty of one count of theft from an Indian tribal organization and two counts of theft from an Indian tribal government receiving federal funds.

“Mr. Thomas’s embezzlement of more than $100,000 was not only an abuse of his position as Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, but also a theft of federal funds,” stated Acting U.S. Attorney Daly. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to prosecuting corrupt officials at all levels of government – federal, state, local and tribal – and I commend the FBI and Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General for their diligent investigation of this matter.”

“Today’s sentence is especially important because it holds Mr. Thomas accountable for stealing federal dollars to support a lifestyle which he could have legitimately afforded on his own,” stated FBI Special Agent in Charge Ferrick. “During these particularly severe fiscal times, Mr. Thomas’ abuse of position and unauthorized use of tribal money were done with a sense of entitlement and without ambiguity. The FBI is most appreciative of the efforts of the United States Attorney’s Office and the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General for working with us to investigate and prosecute the corruption of public officials at all levels.”

According to the evidence at trial, between October 2007 and April 2009, Thomas used an American Express card that was issued to him by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation (“MPTN”) for official MPTN government purposes to charge more than $100,000 in unauthorized personal expenses.

Thomas used the card to pay for monthly satellite television service for his home, satellite radio service for his vehicle, mobile phone service for other individuals, car service to transport his mother to kidney dialysis treatments and the purchase of personal computers. Thomas knew that the expenses were personal, and that his use of the credit card was in violation of a Tribal Council Resolution.
Judge Arterton will issue a restitution order after further court proceedings.


http://centralctpost.com/2013/11/19/former-chairman-of-mashantucket-pequot-tribal-nation-sentenced-to-18-months-in-federal-prison/

We Are ALL Neighbors!

Although the sentiments were expressed several days ago, they express the admiration we all feel about the great educational effort in Milford, Palmer and East Boston...and elsewhere in communities that educated themselves about the issue.

We are all neighbors! Let's continue to support each other for the betterment of the Commonwealth.

Ali Chenault

MFI (Massachusetts Family Institute)
Dear Friend of the family,

Yesterday, in the latest of a string of defeats for predatory gambling in MA, the citizens of Milford rejected a planned casino in their town. With 57 percent of registered voters participating, the $1 billion Foxwoods-backed gambling resort proposal was trounced 6,361 to 3,480 in a town-wide referendum. This, coupled with the victories in Palmer and East Boston, continues to confirm that the people of our Commonwealth overwhelmingly DO NOT want what the legislature foisted upon us with their deal to allow three massive casinos statewide.
...
This victory could not have come at a better time. TODAY IS THE FINAL DAY FOR COLLECTING SIGNATURES FOR THE STATE WIDE REFERENDUM to eliminate predatory gambling from MA once and for all. Our internal numbers show that we are very close to the requirement of 68,911 certified signatures. Every name counts. If you haven’t delivered your petitions to their respective town halls yet, they MUST be delivered by TODAY in order to be counted. AND PLEASE TRY TO COLLECT 5 MORE ON THE WAY TO YOUR TOWN HALL!

This has truly been a David versus Goliath effort, with the casino companies spending millions of dollars to influence voters. But our broad coalition of dedicated men and women have knocked them back on their heels. If we are successful in getting the repeal question on the ballot for November 2014 with this petition drive, we will be able to hand over the issue to the good people of this Commonwealth. So far the record shows they will make the right decision.

For our families,

Milford

Milford voters say no to $1b casino proposal

The field dwindles for resort license for Greater Boston

By Mark Arsenault and Ellen Ishkanian

| Globe Staff Globe Correspondent November 20, 2013

MILFORD — Town voters emphatically rejected a $1 billion Foxwoods-backed gambling resort on Tuesday, crushing casino plans five years in development and shrinking the field of applicants for the state’s most lucrative gambling license.

The last of 11 original Massachusetts casino or slot parlor proposals to reach the ballot box joins a prominent list of pricey projects to die at the hands of voters.

“There was always a lot of opposition,” Foxwoods chief executive Scott Butera acknowledged somberly in an interview after the votes were counted. “We tried to change people’s minds and educate people, but we weren’t able to do it. It just wasn’t meant to be.”

The Massachusetts suburbs have been the graveyard of casino dreams, and Milford voters followed suit Tuesday, defeating the proposal 6,361 to 3,480 in a townwide referendum. Turnout was 57 percent of 17,400 registered voters, according to the town clerk’s office. The “no” votes prevailed in each of the eight voting precincts.

 

As opponents celebrated, the anticasino group Casino-Free Milford credited a low-budget ground campaign that overcame an overwhelming spending advantage by Foxwoods and its partners. Foxwoods spent $792,000 between April and the end of October, according to campaign finance documents. Casino-Free Milford raised $23,770 for its campaign.

“We knew we would never be able to match the dollars of the Foxwoods’ campaign,” the group said in a statement after its victory. “We also knew that money does not buy you everything, and so we focused our efforts where they would count the most, on the people of Milford, by spreading our message slowly, friend to friend, neighbor to neighbor.”

With Foxwoods eliminated, the field of competitors for the sole Greater Boston resort casino license is down to a Wynn Resorts proposal in Everett, and possibly a Suffolk Downs plan in Revere, as the racetrack hastily works to get around a Nov. 5 referendum defeat in East Boston by shifting its proposal over the city line, into Revere.

The competition for the sole Western Massachusetts resort license has also been ravaged by voters, leaving just MGM Resorts standing in Springfield.

Wynn and MGM are still awaiting the results of state background checks, and are refining their proposals ahead of a year-end deadline to submit all remaining plans and documents for their applications.

Three competitors seeking the state’s sole slot machine parlor license have survived: Penn National Gaming in Plainville, Cordish Cos. in Leominster, and Raynham Park in Raynham. The state gambling commission is currently reviewing the applications.

The commission hopes to award the slot license as soon as January and the resort casino licenses in April.

The Milford vote extended a losing streak for glitzy casino projects, which includes the Suffolk Downs defeat in Eastie. On Nov. 5, Palmer voters rejected a $1 billion Mohegan Sun casino by 93 votes. The company is seeking a recount.

West Springfield shot down a Hard Rock International casino in September. A slot parlor proposal failed in Millbury when developer Rush Street Gaming withdrew before the vote, due to a lack of public support. Another slot proposal in Plainville fell apart when the developer, Ourway Realty, was disqualified due to red flags raised in its state background check.

In the Milford campaign, proponents tried to sell the benefits of the development: thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue to the town.

But a well-organized opposition gained traction with the electorate by painting a 24-hour gambling resort as an out-of-scale development for the suburbs.

Cousins Scott Tarantino and David Ruggiero, music teachers who moved to Milford from Dedham about 18 months ago, voted against the proposal.

“A small town like Milford can’t handle all the problems a casino is going to bring,” said Tarantino, who teaches in Sharon. “And there are problems that the mitigation money is not going to pay for.”

“We were worrying that we made a mistake by coming here, if the casino comes,” Ruggiero said.
Jean MacKenzie, who moved to town from Framingham 13 years ago, said a casino would exacerbate traffic, crime, and water shortages, while hurting property values.

“I don’t want it,” she said. “There’s already plenty to do here, it’s a great location, and a casino will ruin it.”

For Billy Grant, a lifelong Milford resident voting at the Portuguese Club, the positives far outweighed the negatives.

“When I graduated from Milford High School in 1999, we were sharing textbooks, teachers were being laid off,” he said, before the votes were tallied.

“The casino is going to create revenue that can pay not only for books, but computers, iPads, and other things for the schools.”

Paul Nelson, a retired Milford firefighter and a lifelong resident of town, agreed.

“I’m not worried about the traffic; we already have traffic,” he said. “It’s going to help our economy, and more money is not bad for any community.”

The Milford project’s chief development officer, David Nunes, who spent the last five years romancing the community and pitching the notion that Milford would benefit from a resort casino, said in an interview after the vote: “People are afraid of change and the longer the process went on the tougher it became for us.”

Though admittedly disappointed, Nunes said he would learn from the loss and not obsess about it.
“I’ll move on to another deal and see what tomorrow brings.”

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/11/19/milford-voters-resoundingly-say-casino-proposal-milford-rejects-casino-plan/1WvgR1MazZpcwGthqJMKlK/story.html

 

Milford Kicks Foxwoods Good-bye

Nothing says it better than BMG.....

Milford Kicks Foxwoods Good-bye

heartlanddem | Tue, Nov 19, 2013 8:41 PM EST

 

Final score: 6,361 "no," 3,480 "yes." A very respectable 57% turnout. It wasn't close. - promoted by david

Citizens of the Commonwealth are making history….again!

“No” votes at the ballot in West Springfield (Hard Rock), East Boston (Suffolk Downs), Palmer (Mohegan Sun) and Milford (Foxwoods) sends a resounding message to Governor Patrick and the Legislature.

The gambling industry, lobbyists, legislators, main stream media and special interests have exchanged multi-millions of dollars to influence the public opinion on these wrong-headed proposals. Milford voters stood up today and stated, “WE are better than slots!”

We do not want these predatory facilities in the Commonwealth. We do not want the developers back in 180 days creating hell in our communities. The law panders so greatly to the gambling industry that it allows for a come-back after 180 days.

It is time for the hubris of our elected officials to become humility and apologize to the People who pay your wages for the mistake you made by legalizing casinos/slots when the industry is tanking and Americans are seeking real economic opportunities not monopolies that drain regional economies and breed local low rollers.

We look forward to legislation to repeal the casino law in it’s entirety.

We urge you to support the citizens movement to repealthecasinodeal.org. Tomorrow is the last day to sign a petition and bring it to your city/town clerk.

Do it.


http://bluemassgroup.com/#recommend-1-64012

Wise Milford Voters Rejected Predatory Gambling!

Maybe someone will learn how to loose gracefully.....it's not the Gambling Industry!

Milford voters defeat Foxwoods-backed casino proposal

By Mark Arsenault / Globe Staff / November 19, 2013

 

MILFORD — Town voters emphatically rejected a $1 billion Foxwoods-backed gambling resort on Tuesday, crushing a casino proposal five years in development, and shrinking the field of applicants for the state’s most lucrative gambling license.

The casino plan proposed by Foxwoods and its partners, the last of 11 original Massachusetts casino or slot parlor applicants to reach the ballot box, joins a prominent list of pricey projects to die at the hands of the voters.

 

“There was always a lot of opposition,” acknowledged somber Foxwoods chief executive Scott Butera, after the votes were counted. “We tried to change people’s minds and educate people, but we weren’t able to do it. “It just wasn’t meant to be.”

 

The Bay State suburbs have proven to be the graveyard of casino dreams, and Milford voters followed suit, defeating the proposal 6,361 to 3,480 in a town-wide referendum. Turnout was 57 percent of 17,400 registered voters, according to the town clerk’s office.

 

 

 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/11/19/milford-voters-defeat-foxwoods-backed-casino-proposal/lAabuLkT8q3se504SGbX3H/story.html

 

 

Bravo Milford!

Casino-Free Milford

WIN!

Casino-Free Milford

All generations! We DON'T want it!

Casino-Free Milford added 2 new photos.

Look before you leap

Casino-Free Milford

MORGANELLI:

Norwich, CT has suffered collateral damage as a result of Foxwoods CT. A phone call to their local realty office reveals the TRUTH and a FOREWARNING to Milford.....“It’s the worst thing that ever happened to our town."

Plain and Simple......'NO!'

 

The MetroWest Daily News

Posted Nov 18, 2013

I am of a second generation to be born in Milford. After my marriage to Dr. Peter Morganelli, we chose to remain in Milford and raise our children here.

Milford has always been a special town to me. I have grandchildren attending schools here.

The thought that many people seem to value the income from a casino more than life itself, and choose to overlook and justify all of the negative effects known to other casino towns is overwhelming to me.

I placed a call to a realtor’s office in Norwich Connecticut, one of the hardest hit by the presence of a casino. The first response to me was “It’s the worst thing that ever happened to our town.” A long negative list followed.

One home in my neighborhood recently sold, but three prospective couples refused to consider this lovely home because of a possible casino. Recently, sellers in a nice neighborhood lost a contract the day after signatures were signed because the buyers learned about the casino.

Some people attempt to mislead residents into believing house values will go up because of a casino. Read the recent article in the Milford Daily News regarding lagging sales prices in Milford
Do the other nine Massachusetts towns that voted No Casino know something that we don’t?
Protect our community before it’s too late. Vote NO on Nov.19.

BARBARA MORGANELLI
Milford

Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x915445484/Morganelli-Look-before-you-leap#ixzz2l8vGySkX
Follow us: @milforddaily on Twitter | 104182678168 on Facebook

Milford NO! Vote Tomorrow!

Look what Foxwoods did to Connecticut!

Kock 'em Dead with a NO! Vote Tomorrow!

And then let's REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

Casino Vote is tomorrow!

Casino Free Milford has asked for volunteers from the surrounding communities. If you would like to hold a sign at a street corner in Milford today or tomorrow they would welcome your participation.

Volunteers are welcome at Wendys(corner of Dilla and Cedar) Today from 3:30 - 6:30.

Also on Tuesday anytime(7 a.m. to 8 p.m.) at the polling stations.

The polling stations are as follows:

Senior Center, 60 North Bow St

Italian American Vets Hall 4 Hayward Field

Portugese Club 119 Prospect Heights

Feel free to post on other boards, FB pages, etc...

Thanks


Keep Milford Casino-Free.
Our mailing address is:

Casino-Free Milford

P.O. Box 145

Milford, MA 01757

 

 

Milford: NO Thing to gain!

Foxwoods has SOOOO much baggage.....this exemplifies ....


REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL!

Seaver, Trettel: Protect Milford from casino

The Milford Daily News

Posted Nov 16, 2013

MILFORD —

We urge all Milford residents to consider the substantial price we will pay if we allow a casino to be built in the midst of our residential community.

A casino will double our entire population almost daily, halting traffic on our local roads and highways. Traffic snarls will not only delay our daily drives to the grocery store, but also our commutes to work and home on I-495 when traffic backs up all the way past the Mass Pike.

Property values all over town will likely drop. Even the chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission thinks so.

Water is a precious natural resource, and Milford has a limited supply. Foxwoods would take a substantial portion of our reserve.

Casinos generate much more crime than anyone cares to admit. Imagine seven million more people in Milford each year! DUIs, embezzlement, and prostitution will be a guaranteed new fact of life. No amount of casino revenue could be worth having a loved one critically injured by a driver who drank too much at the casino.

The casino payments are simply a combination of taxes, which every business pays, and mitigation.

Mitigation is the money we are being promised in exchange for the damages a casino will inflict on our quality of life by creating daily headaches on our roads, lowering our home values, overburdening our schools and hospital, compromising our water supply, and most importantly, putting our families at risk.

Let us stand together to protect ourselves, our kids, and our grandkids. Every vote will count in this critical referendum. Please join us at the polls on Nov. 19 and vote NO!

JOHN SEAVER
STEVE TRETTEL
Milford

Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x915445002/Seaver-Trettel-Protect-Milford-from-casino#ixzz2kwzhaQAZ
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial
Follow us: @metrowestdaily on Twitter | MetroWestDailyNews on Facebook

Gam[bl]ing Commission Destroying Their Credibility

Great article!

Let's not overlook that the Gam[bl]ing Commission knew about Sticky Fingers Piontkowski in April, allowed the Town of Plainville to negotiate the host community agreement in bad faith and only disclosed the matter shortly before the vote.

No one is investigating who knew, when, who participated, who failed to raise red flags, the complicity of the Racing Commission, who was short-changed, if Sticky Fingers paid income taxes on the ill-gotten gains and so on.

Much like the illegal raffle conducted by Plainridge for many years, Martha 'Always Running for Higher Office' Coakley has turned a blind eye to illegal activities by gambling interests.

This is just the beginning and they can't get it right!

 

From: Casino-Free Milford:

 

JOAN VENOCCHI (Boston Globe Columnist):

"INVESTIGATORS FOR the Massachusetts Gaming Commission went from punching Caesars Entertainment in the nose to pulling their punches with Foxwoods."

She goes on to say, "It raises questions about ...double standards and whether the high-stakes pressure of the casino business is getting to state regulators."

It's now up to us, Milford! Let's show the Gaming Commission how to throw a punch...a KNOCK OUT PUNCH!

EVERY VOTE COUNTS! Vote 'NO' on Tuesday!!

Pressure is on the Gaming Commission

By Joan Vennochi

| Globe Columnist

November 17, 2013

Investigators for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission went from punching Caesars Entertainment in the nose to pulling their punches with Foxwoods.

It raises questions about double standards and whether the high-stakes pressure of the casino business is getting to state regulators.

After reviewing the Foxwoods-based casino proposal for Milford, state investigators reached no conclusion about its suitability — even though they couldn’t complete their background check, because the casino’s backers were unable to identify a major source of funding.

That was a “glaring” omission, Karen Wells, director of the commission’s Investigations and Enforcement Bureau, told the commission at last week’s hearing on the question of whether Foxwoods should be deemed suitable to pursue a license. It also violates the commission’s requirement that an applicant for a casino license provide all necessary material. Even so, “I’m kind of throwing my hands up,” said Wells, leaving it up to the commission to decide.

Downs. After reviewing that bid, the same investigators decided its partner, Caesars, “has not met its burden by clear and convincing evidence to establish its suitability.” Once Suffolk Downs knew of that conclusion, its backers asked Caesars to withdraw as its casino operator. The commission found the remaining partners suitable for a license. But once East Boston voters knew Caesars was out, they rejected the casino.

Suitability standards can’t slide around, and investigators can’t look like they’re afraid to apply them.

Commission chairman Stephen Crosby insists there’s no significant difference between the two approaches. With Caesars, he said, investigators did not make a “recommendation of unsuitability”; they said Caesars “had not met its burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence of suitability.”

With Foxwoods, said Crosby, investigators said they had an incomplete application and left it to the commission to determine whether that was reason for disqualification.

That’s the kind of hair-splitting that makes lawyers smile — especially if they represent Suffolk Downs. Indeed, if there’s one certainty on the long and winding path to casinos in Massachusetts, it’s the prospect of litigation.

How will Suffolk Downs react if the gaming commission won’t let it reconfigure a casino plan for Revere, which wants one? If Suffolk Downs carries out its Revere-only backup plan, what will East Boston’s anti-casino activists do?

If the Wampanoag Tribe of Aquinnah moves forward with its plan to open the state’s first casino on what the federal government deemed to be tribal land on Martha’s Vineyard, what will Massachusetts do? Governor Deval Patrick, the force behind expanded gambling in Massachusetts, doesn’t want expanded gambling on that bucolic island resort.

What happened to Caesars was a shocker — and jump-started major second-guessing about the commission and its suitability standards.

Investigators concluded that this iconic casino brand had not met the burden of proving itself “suitable” because of a naming deal with Gansevoort, a hotel company that is partly owned by an investor with alleged ties to the Russian mob. Despite several degrees of separation from a passive investor, Caesars walked away from the deal. Caesars still didn’t establish “suitability,” according to state investigators. Yet, at the same time, investigators’ questions about the financial solvency of a key Suffolk Downs investor were not considered sufficient reason to deem the entire Suffolk proposal “unsuitable.’’

With Foxwoods, investigators questioned the financial foundation of the bid, because it lacked more than half of its equity funding. But their report also notes other serious concerns: Michael Thomas, the former chairman of the Mashantucket Pequots, the tribe behind Foxwoods, as well as his brother, Steven Thomas, the tribe’s former treasurer, were charged with stealing more than $700,000 of the tribe’s money. Michael Thomas was convicted of theft and faces a prison sentence. In addition, Antonio “Tony” Beltran, who was hired as the tribe’s security chief, turned out to have a criminal record.

Yet, none of that was enough for investigators to conclude that Foxwoods had a burden of proof problem. That, they left to the commission.

It’s important for the Gaming Commission to stick to its regulatory guns and not be pressured by politics or public sentiment. For that reason, suitability standards can’t slide around, and investigators can’t look like they’re afraid to apply them equally.

After swinging at Caesars, investigators can’t duck Foxwoods — not without looking wary and overly sensitive to outside pressure.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/11/17/pressure-gaming-commission/UdrqBKKeJjN6sMJ8smTylO/story.html

 

Another screwy deal by Gam[bl]ing Commission?

Let me get this clear....

David Nunes has been salivating to invade Milford for years....

sucks in Foxwoods desperate for $$$.....

no financing...

on the EVE of a Milford vote the Gambling Commission issues PROVISIONAL approval....

to a PENN NATIONAL SPIN-OFF......?

Massachusetts Grants Provisional OK to Foxwoods-Backed Casino

By Christopher Palmeri - Nov 16, 2013

 

The Massachusetts Gaming Commission, moving ahead with plans to authorize as many as three casinos in the state, ruled the Crossroads Massachusetts LLC group is conditionally suitable to be granted a license.

 

The commission required the group, which includes the owners of the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, to obtain its additional financing as part of the approval, according to an e-mailed statement yesterday.

 

Crossroads said separately it signed a letter of intent with Gaming and Leisure Properties Inc., a real estate investment trust, that completes the financing. Under their accord for the $1 billion project, GLPI, which was spun out ofPenn National Gaming Inc. (PENN), will own the property and Crossroads will operate the casino.

 

“We’re confident that GLPI’s financial support will help us bring our project to fruition,” Foxwoods President and Chief Executive Officer Scott Butera said in a statement.

 

Massachusetts legalized casino gambling two years ago with plans calling for three resorts in three distinct parts of the state. Crossroads is competing against Wynn Resorts Ltd. (WYNN) and the Suffolk Downs horse track to build in the Boston area.

 

Investigators for the gaming commission said in a report released Nov. 13 they couldn’t complete the Crossroads examination because the group had yet to enter into an agreement with an unidentified investor.

 

Residents of Milford, 40 miles southwest of Boston, are being asked to approve the Crossroads proposal Nov. 19. Foxwoods is owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/massachusetts-gives-provisional-ok-to-foxwoods-backed-casino-1-.html

In Milford, a solid casino plan, but with some question marks

THE TOWN of Milford and casino developer David Nunes have negotiated what may be the strongest casino host-community agreement in the Commonwealth so far. The deal, which voters can approve or reject in a referendum on Tuesday, provides Milford a fat upfront payment and then an annual check of roughly $30 million in exchange for permission to build a casino on a granite quarry at the edge of town. The deal compares favorably to rival plans in Greater Boston: Nunes promises more money than casino developer Steve Wynn gave Everett, and avoids the eyebrow-raising financial arrangements and phased construction schedule that Suffolk Downs offered East Boston and Revere. Yet Milford voters must weigh those promises against lingering questions about the ability of Nunes and his partners to deliver on them.

Nunes, who has been pushing to build a casino in Milford since even before the Legislature passed the expanded gambling law in 2011, wants to build a 500-room hotel and casino with restaurants, retail, and 6,700 to 7,300 slot machines and table games. He has agreed to pay millions to bolster the fire and police departments and for a new highway exit off Interstate 495 to mitigate the casino’s traffic impact. The architectural drawings are surprisingly tasteful. And in a relatively small town like Milford, the big annual payments would amount to a giant boost.

Nonetheless, there are reasons for voters to think twice. Nunes waited until the last minute before reportedly choosing Gaming & Leisure Properties as a partner on Friday. That doesn’t leave voters with enough time to size up the team that’s asking to become a major presence in their community. In contrast, Everett voters knew exactly who they were voting on, and had months to decide whether to welcome Wynn. Milford residents at least have more information than voters in East Boston and Revere, who cast ballots on the Suffolk Downs plan earlier this month without knowing the identity of the casino operator or of some investors — but not by much.

And the other partner that Nunes has chosen, Foxwoods, poses some issues of its own. Foxwoods, controlled by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe in southeastern Connecticut, introduced large-scale casino gambling to New England when it opened its namesake casino on the Pequot reservation in Ledyard, Conn., in 1992. But despite the massive revenues Foxwoods generated, the tribe has been riven by mismanagement. It defaulted on some debts in 2009 and has a CCC+ bond rating from Standard & Poor’s. Last month, former tribal treasurer Steven Thomas pleaded guilty to theft from the tribe, becoming the latest senior tribal leader with a criminal record. The tribe also has a history of dipping its toe into markets outside Connecticut, only to retreat, leaving those projects in disarray. The current chief executive, Scott Butera, seems to have stabilized Foxwoods, but executives can come and go, while the tribe will remain. The Massachusetts Gaming Commission gave its blessing to Foxwoods’ participation on Friday, based on the particular individuals involved. But to some extent Milford would be pinning its fate to the tribe’s, and all of its past decisions are fair game for voters to consider.

 

Finally, there’s the question of whether Milford really needs a casino. In Everett and East Boston, the proposed casino plans supported broader goals: cleaning up a polluted site by the Mystic River in Everett’s case, and reviving a tattered but historic race track in East Boston. Both communities also arguably face greater economic challenges than Milford, which boasts a growing population and unemployment below the state average. Milford shouldn’t turn up its nose up at $30 million a year, but it’s not in desperate need, either.

The irony is that from a statewide perspective, the Milford proposal may well be the best plan in the Greater Boston region. Its suburban location should blunt some of the social impacts, and it seems best able to absorb the extra traffic without significantly harming local residents. The site also seems best positioned to capture more of the gamblers who now go to Connecticut or Rhode Island, fulfilling one of the original goals of the 2011 legislation to recapture lost revenue. Yet Milford voters have other factors to consider in their decision on Tuesday. They have to determine whether the attractiveness of the proposal and the extra revenue outweigh the lack of time to scrutinize Nunes’s financial backers and Foxwoods’ spotty track record.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2013/11/16/milford-voters-face-solid-casino-plan-with-questions-financial-backing/kRlSmvO9QqpsZy3TJTEYSJ/story.html