Meetings & Information




*****************************
****************************************************
MUST READ:
GET THE FACTS!






Showing posts with label Palmer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palmer. Show all posts

Friday, June 20, 2014

Palmer Voters Have Sense!


Early in the process, Palmer appointed a Citizens Task Force to consider the costs of hosting Mohegan Sun's Mega-Monster. 

When the Citizens determined conservatively that the ANNUAL cost would be $16 MILLION to $19 MILLION, not including the estimated $50 MILLION to bring water from the Quabbin, Paul Burns refused to make that information publicly available. 



Supporting a project that had the potential of bankrupting a small community is one thing, but to deny reality is yet another. 

Paul Burns, in his blind support failed to insist upon answers, such as access. 

Sadly, blind support isn't leadership. 

Paul Burns reflects on Palmer Town Council defeat


By Lori Stabile | Special to The Republican
on June 18, 2014
Paul Burns.JPG

Paul Burns campaigns for Town Council in Palmer in this 2007 file photo.

PALMER - Paul E. Burns is taking his Town Council loss in stride, saying he is not "terribly disappointed" that he was ousted from the council last week.

"I served for seven years and was somewhat on the fence about running. Certainly you want to leave on your own terms, but this is a democracy and voters chose not to send me back and that's fine," Burns said recently.

"I thought I'd be a lot more upset if I lost, but now it's like the weight of the world is off my shoulders," he added. "It can be someone else's turn."

Burns lost his at-large position to newcomer Robert B. Lavoie, who received 715 votes to Burns' 431 in the June 10 election. Lavoie beat Burns in all four precincts for the three-year position.

"Voters certainly deserve to have people in place that represent their views. I wish Mr. Lavoie the best of luck the next three years and I'm going to enjoy having the summer off. I haven't seen my kids the way I should for seven years, but I certainly wanted my kids to understand the value of public service," Burns said.

Burns, 53, said he has no plans to run again. He said he enjoyed his time on the council, calling it "an honor and a privilege to serve the people of Palmer."

Burns thinks the same anti-casino sentiment that sank Mohegan Sun's plan for a resort casino off Route 32 last year contributed to his loss - that along with voters wanting a change. While Burns was at times critical of Mohegan Sun, he was an outspoken proponent of a casino coming to Palmer.

"I put the bull's-eye on my back . . . It certainly may have been an anti-casino campaign, but I'm not sure I blame it on any one of those things. Ultimately l did what I thought was right . . . I don't ever want to be one of those politicians who goes with the breeze," Burns said.

"I'm not blaming anybody for anything here, except for me. I was vocal and I did what I thought was right and if I lose based upon my stands on issues then so be it," Burns said.

When he first ran for council, he said there were concerns about the form of government. Burns said one of the things he is most proud of is being able to solidify this form of government, and praised Town Manager Charles T. Blanchard's leadership.

"It took a few years to work the kinks out," Burns said.

Town Council President Philip J. Hebert said that one has to respect that Burns gave seven years of his time to serve on the council.

Hebert said he could not begin to speculate if Burns' casino stance contributed to his loss. The casino vote was close, and Burns was defeated by a large margin, Hebert said.

Lavoie officially replaces Burns on July 1. Burns said he will miss being on the council.

"I think I made a difference . . . When I first got on who thought we'd have a casino debate, a new police station. We got school roofs. We accomplished a lot in seven years," Burns said.

Burns said he has no regrets, but he said he did spend a lot of money to lose in the end - $2,500 for signs and mailings to 1,100 homes.



http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2014/06/paul_burns_reflects_on_palmer.html


Saturday, May 3, 2014

Food Fight in Palmer Continues: Mohegan Sun vs Northeast Realty Associates



Friday, May 2, 2014

In battle over Palmer casino land, Mohegan Sun plans counterclaim

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Jilted Palmer landowner suing Mohegan Sun



Jilted Palmer landowner suing Mohegan Sun

Like the jilted bride: Palmer Landowner Sues Mohegan Sun







Palmer Landowner Sues Mohegan Sun

The owner of land in western Massachusetts where Mohegan Sun once planned a $1 billion casino is suing the Connecticut- based gaming company.
An artist's rendering of Mohegan Sun's proposed Palmer, MA casino. Voters rejected the project on Nov. 5, 2013.
Credit Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority


Northeast Realty Associates claims Mohegan Sun broke an exclusivity agreement for a casino project on a 152 acre site in Palmer. The suit accuses Mohegan Sun of abandoning that project for a more lucrative venture in the greater Boston area, before the November 5th referendum where Palmer voters rejected Mohegan Sun’s project by just 93 votes. It is an accusation that was raised previously by Palmer Town Councilor Paul Burns.

"It certainly seems like there was something going on behind the scenes. Whether there was or not you may never be able to prove it."

Mohegan Sun denies it began talks about another Massachusetts casino project prior to the Palmer referendum. Mohegan Sun is now trying to build a casino on property in Revere that is part of the Suffolk Downs race track.


http://wamc.org/post/palmer-landowner-sues-mohegan-sun



Feb 20, 2014, 9:59pm EST Updated: Feb 20, 2014, 11:24pm EST

Mohegan's Palmer landlord pursues breach- of-contract suit against casino operator


Managing Editor, Print- Boston Business Journal
Email | Twitter | Google+
 
As if the executives at the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority didn’t have enough to worry about.

With days to go before a make-or-break vote in Revere on Mohegan Sun’s casino plan for Suffolk Downs, Mohegan's landlord in Palmer is pursuing a breach-of-contract suit against the casino operator in Hampden Superior Court. The landlord, Northeast Realty Associates LLC, claims that Mohegan Sun violated the terms of its lease by pursuing this plan in Revere after voters in Palmer narrowly rejected a Mohegan Sun casino there.

To make things even more awkward, Mohegan Sun remains the tenant for the 152-acre site by the Mass. Pike in Palmer, under the terms of a 50-year ground lease signed in 2008. And Mohegan Sun just announced that it will hire CBRE/Grossman Retail Advisors LLC to recommend the best way to develop the property.

The timing of the lawsuit isn’t good for Mohegan. I received a copy of it tonight from representatives for Northeast, who said it would be filed on Friday, four days before the casino vote in Revere.

At the same time, this isn’t coming as a surprise. Northeast and its manager Leon Dragone have made it clear they’re not happy with Mohegan’s quick leap to Revere, and that their law firm was weighing a suit.

Northeast's lawsuit focuses on two claims. The first is that Mohegan officials began talks for a Suffolk Downs casino in October — violating an exclusivity agreement in the lease — after it became clear that Caesars Entertainment would be exiting the Suffolk project. The second claim is that in the final weeks leading up to the Nov. 5 vote in Palmer, Mohegan officials didn’t make the full-court press that needed to be done to win the vote: Mohegan, Northeast claims, ignored pleas to spend more money on advertising or put together a comprehensive traffic study to allay voters’ fears of congestion.

Mohegan officials have heard most of this before, and have denied these claims. They issued another brief statement tonight reiterating those denials. They say the Connecticut-based casino operator devoted more than five years and more than $25 million to a casino proposal in Palmer, and that it has been well established that there were no discussions between Mohegan and Revere officials or with Suffolk Downs about a Mohegan-Suffolk venture prior to the Nov. 5 defeat in Palmer.

Aside from Suffolk Downs, Mohegan and Northeast had been working toward a resort casino in Massachusetts longer than any other company. There was a time when this Palmer partnership seemed like the best of bets for a casino. No, there won’t be any such marriage ceremony anymore.

But there still could be an expensive divorce.

Further reading:
With Revere vote looming, bad blood remains between Mohegan Sun and its Palmer landlord


http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass_roundup/2014/02/mohegan-suns-suit-from-palmer-landlord.html

 

Sunday, February 9, 2014

The Snake Oil Salesmen make their pitches

Excerpts below from a lengthy article about the sales pitches make REPEAL THE CASINO DEAL that much more sensible.

Steve Wynn has been booted from every other community he attempted to invade, squeezed out of Florida, unwanted in Connecticut, unwanted in Pennsylvania, his anti-union stance got him tossed from New York and he previously salivated over a South Boston site.



Revere, Everett casino developers make pitches


Wynn described the multiple developers as a "a coordination nightmare," and suggested that Mohegan was more interested in protecting its casino in Connecticut, where he said the house pays no taxes on table games."

We don’t give a damn about Connecticut," Wynn said. Speaking with reporters later, he said, "Mohegan Sun will do anything other than have to compete with us. They care about Connecticut where they pay a zero tax on tables. Do you get that?" He said, "All the rest of this is pretty transparent. We’re their worst nightmare." 

"All of this three-ring circus going on since November fifth just gives us more fodder for the statewide appeal effort," said Celeste Myers, of No Eastie Casino. Activists will need to convince the Supreme Judicial Court that its proposed ballot question is ballot eligible before they can continue seeking to repeal the 2011 gaming law. Myers told the News Service she is helping to vote down the measure in Revere and is "outraged we’re even at this point."


Both prospective developers have seen earlier plans dashed in an election. Wynn sought to build in Foxborough before a slate of anti-casino pols was elected to the select board. Mohegan joined with Suffolk only after its plans for a casino in Palmer were rejected by voters there in November.





- See more at: http://saugus.wickedlocal.com/article/20140208/NEWS/140208726#sthash.WtgAwcFf.dpuf

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Mohegan Sun ignores Gambling Market Saturation!



Mohegan Sun casino posts two-thirds 1Q profit drop

Friday, January 24, 2014

Paul Burns' Palmer Bucket Brigade

Palmer appointed a Citizens Casino Study Committee to assess the costs of hosting Mohegan Sun.

When the CITIZENS, residents of the community determined that the costs would be CONSERVATIVELY + $18 MILLION, not including the estimated $50 MILLION to bring water from the Quabbin, Paul Burns prevented that report from being publicly discussed.



The final host community agreement [HCA] doesn't address water, doesn't address traffic and much else.



The 'FLYOVER' initially promised to prevent traffic from grid-locking the community was not  approved before the PROMISES were made.

Paul Burns revealed his failures to protect Palmer. Palmer voters were wise in defeating this FOLLY!

Mohegan Sun revealed their phony promises Palmer.

Will Revere voters reject the charade as well? 

What's Mohegan Sun's Non-Casino Plan for Palmer?

Date:
01/23/2014
Contributor:
Sam Hudzik
Listen to Sam Hudzik's story
There's still no word from Mohegan Sun on what the casino company plans to do with land it leased in Palmer, Massachusetts. The town's voters rejected a casino referendum in November, and Mohegan is now bidding to build a resort in Revere.

After giving a big presentation Wednesday to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission about Mohegan Sun's casino proposal for Suffolk Downs, the company's CEO Mitchell Etess was in no mood to talk a possible non-casino development in Palmer.

"We think it's a great location and we hope that we can do something there. But honestly you have to - in business - you need to kind of prioritize things," Etess said.

That answer did not impress or surprise Paul Burns, a town councilor in Palmer who supported the casino there but has been very critical of Mohegan Sun's actions since the vote. Burns says Mohegan Sun is a large corporation capable of multitasking.

"I understand that they're in the middle of a competition for a casino license in eastern Mass now, but I don't think it's too much to ask that Mohegan Sun commit to...maybe building a mall or whatever other project that they have planned for the area."

And Burns says if Mohegan won't commit to developing the land, he wants them to step aside so someone else can.

http://nepr.net/news/whats-mohegan-suns-non-casino-plan-palmer

 

Saturday, January 4, 2014

Quaboag Valley Against Casinos Celebration! January 11th!

A well deserved celebration for the QVAC folks who led their region and defeated Mohegun Sun!



Thank you for all you did! You sent an important message.





Just a reminder:
Saturday, January 11

St. Joseph's Club, Thorndike

6:00pm

Open cash bar

Potluck

If you've already RSVP'ed you needn't reply. Others reply with "yeses" - "no's" needn't reply. We'd liike a tentative count of who's coming.

For directions, see our website, below.


Thursday, December 12, 2013

Repeal the Casino Deal battles on.


Casinos in Court

Repeal the Casino Deal battles on.


Tuesday, December 10, 2013

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.”•
 
 
 
 

Friday, November 29, 2013

Paul Burns makes fool of himself....again! Palmer, Ya Gotta Problem!

A Palmer Citizens Casino Study Committee was appointed to determine the costs of hosting Mohegan Sun.
  

Paul Burns silenced the report that determined the ANNUAL cost would be
 
$18 MILLION to $39 MILLION
 
 
not including the
 
$50 MILLION to bring water from the Quabbin


Palmer lacks the water to provide for the Mohegan Sun proposal.
 
Now, Paul Burns is calling for TRANSPARENCY?





There's that pesky little FLYOVER that never happened.....

Palmer town councilor sends warning letter to Mass. Gaming Commission

Posted: Nov 27, 2013


CBS 3 Springfield - WSHM





PALMER, MA (WSHM) - A town councilor in Palmer sent a letter to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission Monday warning them that Mohegan Sun could not be trusted.
The letter from Paul Burns comes after allegations last week that Mohegan had been in talks with Suffolk Downs about a project there prior to the referendum vote on Nov. 5. Mohegan tribal chairman, Kevin Brown released a statement in response to allegations by Burns, "We find the patently false accusation of Councilor Burns that we were talking to any other parties in Massachusetts before the referendum to be completely inappropriate and hurtful given the hard work of the Mohegan Sun Massachusetts team up to, and importantly, AFTER the referendum. Mohegan Sun and our team in Palmer worked tirelessly over the past five years to bring a world class facility to Palmer and the Commonwealth, invested millions of dollars into this effort, and engaged in a highly transparent process of explaining our project to the community. Despite the long odds that a recount might bring a different result, we have deliberately stayed the course awaiting the outcome. This change in tenor from an elected leader in Palmer is of great concern to us."

Brown announced Wednesday that Mohegan had signed a deal with Suffolk Downs that morning. A recount for the host agreement in Palmer was completed Tuesday afternoon. Burns called the ability to get a new agreement done with Suffolk Downs a "miracle". He said it took them 11 months to get an agreement, but seemingly less than 24 hours to make an agreement in another community.

Brown said the next step was to complete a development plan to give to the gaming commission by the Dec. 31 deadline.

There is still 152 acres of land in Palmer that Mohegan Sun said they wanted to use for a non-gaming commercial venture since they wouldn't be building a casino there. Burns said he firmly believed Mohegan Sun was trying to block potential competitors by taking a prime piece of real estate.

Burns said he would welcome a development plan by Mohegan Sun, but it would have to be done quickly if they wanted any credibility with the community. He said it would take tens of millions of dollars just for infrastructure improvements on the property. Burns also stated the company can't just put a strip mall on the property. Any development would have to be sizeable. He said he would not be opposed to a plan by Mohegan Sun as long as the process was sincere and transparent. Any plan would still have to go through the planning and zoning approval process.

http://www.cbs3springfield.com/story/24087911/palmer-town-councilor-sends-warning-letter-to-mass-gaming-commission

 

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Mohegan Sun: The Answer is still NO!

You rock, Palmer!




By Lori Stabile, The RepublicanThe Republican
on November 26, 2013


PALMER -- Tuesday's recount for Mohegan Sun's resort casino proposal reaffirmed the Nov. 5 vote defeated the prospect of a Palmer gaming resort.

Only one vote changed. The vote was 2,657 no to 2,563 yes, a 94-vote difference.

The Board of Registrars met at 9 a.m. today to start the recount. The previous vote was 2,657 against the casino to 2,564 for it - a 93 vote loss.

After the opening of the meeting, Town Clerk Susan Coache went with Palmer Police officer Brian P. McNally and Detective Sgt. Scott E. Haley to the Town Building to retrieve the ballots, and bring them back to the library to be hand counted. The 5,221 ballots were brought inside in four large, black, locked boxes.

Four tables were set up for the counting, and were cordoned off with yellow caution tape.

Sitting outside the cordoned off area were casino supporters and members of the anti-casino group, as well as members of the media. Inside the counting area, the two groups could have representatives watch the proceedings, and they could challenge ballots if they wished.

By 10:45 a.m., there already had been several challenges regarding ballots, which put a halt to the counting process. Challenged ballots were brought to the registrars for review. The registrars were sitting at a table in the cordoned off area.

The counters were counting the ballots in blocks of 50. Finance Director John Kuzmiski was there to do the final tally.

Town lawyer Charles F. Ksieniewicz explained at the onset of the recount that the ballots would be brought to the tables one block at a time, and asked the spectators to be quiet. At 11 a.m., he said that in the interest of time, he would let counting continue at the other tables if a challenge occurred.

Mohegan Sun, of Connecticut, wanted to build a billion-dollar casino for Thorndike Street (Route 32), overlooking the Massachusetts Turnpike interchange. After the defeat on Nov. 5, Mohegan's chief executive said he would seek a recount.

Problems with a precinct 2 voting machine and potential voter irregularities were some of the concerns cited by Mohegan representatives regarding the election and the need for a recount.


http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/mohegan_sun_casino_recount_res.html

 

Monday, November 25, 2013

Palmer Recount




Mohegan Sun recount on Tuesday in Palmer; supporters doubt outcome will change
By Lori Stabile, The RepublicanThe Republican
on November 24, 2013

PALMER - The long-awaited recount for the Mohegan Sun resort casino project will be held Tuesday at the Palmer Public Library after the proposal suffered a less than 100 vote loss at the polls earlier this month.

The billion-dollar project planned for Thorndike Street (Route 32) was defeated in a 2,657 to 2,564 vote. With more than 5,000 ballots to hand count, Town Clerk Susan Coache has said the recount could take up to five hours.

Mohegan representatives and supporters admit it is unlikely the recount will change the final outcome, which would dash the hopes of casino proponents who have long dreamed of seeing a gaming business atop the wooded hillside on Route 32 overlooking Massachusetts Turnpike exit 8.

“I expect the recount will show the voting machines were correct. I doubt the vote will change by more than a few votes. Generally the machines are pretty accurate,” Town Manager Charles T. Blanchard said recently.

In its pursuit of the recount, Mohegan cited problems with a precinct 2 voting machine at Converse Middle School and “possible irregularities in the balloting process that were observed on Election Day by poll watchers and voters.”

But it seems that Mohegan is already looking to the future, after it was revealed last week that it is one of several companies that have talked with Suffolk Downs about partnering with it on its Revere casino proposal.

Mohegan has fielded plenty of criticism over the last week regarding Suffolk Downs, as people have questioned whether it started talks before the Nov. 5 referendum in Palmer.
In a statement issued Friday, Mitchell G. Etess, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority chief executive officer, said while they were “incredibly disappointed” by the referendum outcome, he said the town “is sharply divided on the issue of casino gaming” and “the recount will not change this fact.”
Blanchard said there is “no question” in his mind that Mohegan was totally committed to Palmer.

Blanchard said Mohegan had done a lot of engineering work at the site so it could hit the ground running if it received the one Western Massachusetts gaming license, and had been in ongoing talks about water use for the project.

“When you look at the money they spent, in my view, they were certainly committed to Palmer,” Blanchard said.

Talk about Mohegan opening a casino in town first surfaced in 2007, when Northeast Realty revealed it had an exclusive agreement with the Connecticut-based company for a resort casino on its 152-acre site across from the turnpike interchange. Two years later, Mohegan opened a downtown office, and then casino gaming was legalized in 2011, touching off the battle for the one Western Massachusetts casino license.

MGM Resorts International in Springfield already passed its project at the polls, but it remains to be seen if it clears its background check with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission before final casino applications are due on Dec. 31.

On Tuesday morning, the Palmer ballots, which have been under lock and key, will be taken from the Town Building by police officers to the library. There, four tables will be set up in the community room for the counting. Two police officers have been hired to work the recount.

Joan M. Majka, assistant to the town clerk, said there will be 12 people working on the recount, from runners and counters to recorders. There also will be interested observers, from Mohegan Sun, and anti-casino side, if they want to attend.

Mohegan representatives have criticized the recount date, and have said they wanted it to be held sooner, and that holding it three weeks after the election “was inconsistent with the timetable established by the Massachusetts Gaming Commission” for meeting the final casino application deadline.

The recount will begin at 9 a.m.

Mohegan also said last week that it still wants to explore non-gaming development at the Palmer site.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/mohegan_sun_recount_on_tuesday.html

Bait & Switch Rejected

Gambling 'Experts' ignore that both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun produced a 'Bait & Switch' among other things. What was promoted was not reality. Neither project had adequate water, last minute changes revealed false promises.

At a time of declining revenues, gambling market saturation and overstated revenues, there was much to reject.

Suffolk Downs infrastructure is unworkable among numerous other issues.

The Gambling Industry simply can't believe the growing opposition doesn't want what it's offering - community destruction!

Talk about Sore Losers......



Voters thin field in Massachusetts casino sweepstakes
By Brian HallenbeckPublication: The Day
Published 11/24/2013
 
Milton Moore/The Day
 
What's with Massachusetts?
Why have voters in town after Commonwealth town declined to embrace casino projects that promised to enrich them, employ them, entertain them, all while "mitigating" the impacts of the potential bad stuff - traffic, crime, problem gambling?
We're not talking about nuclear waste storage facilities here.
Still, Bay Staters, at least the majority of them in West Springfield, Palmer, East Boston and Milford, have rejected casinos, while voters in grittier places like Everett, Springfield and Revere have approved them. With the deadline for final applications little more than five weeks away, not one surviving casino operator has been cleared to advance to Phase Two in the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's labyrinthine approval process.
"I'm not surprised," Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine, said of the string of referendum defeats. "The polls say people like casinos, but it's very much the not-in-my-backyard syndrome. They don't want one down the road from them."
That attitude might have contributed to Mohegan Sun's Nov. 5 failure in the western Massachusetts town of Palmer, where voters rejected a $1 billion proposal that included a water park and a retail component in addition to the usual gaming amenities. The 93-vote margin was close enough to warrant an upcoming recount, which isn't expected to change anything.
And, presumably, plenty of voters in Milford, southwest of Boston, similarly believed a $1 billion Foxwoods Massachusetts project would have had a negative impact on their quality of life. Sixty-five percent of those who cast ballots last week rejected the plan.
With the votes counted, the Casino-Free Milford group exhaled.
"From our very first meeting held around a kitchen table, we acknowledged that we would be fighting a David vs. Goliath battle," the group said in a statement. "We knew we would never be able to match the dollars of the Foxwoods campaign. 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."
How's a casino operator supposed to counter such grassroots fervor?
"You always second-guess yourself," said Mitchell Etess, chief executive officer of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority. "We thought we ran a good campaign. There were things we could have emphasized more than we did, but I don't know. I don't think we'd do anything different if we had to do it over again."
The results in Palmer were particularly surprising given that residents there had backed the concept of a casino for years. However, polling about a month before the Election Day referendum indicated support for the Mohegan Sun plan had dwindled, according to some familiar with the process.
"There's still a tremendous amount of misconception in the world - certainly in Massachusetts - about what a casino really means," Etess said. "Apparently, operators have not been able to communicate the realities of what these places bring. We're still trying to overcome negative stigmas that have been around for ages and ages, despite the Wall Street-ization of the industry."
Which leads back to the not-in-my-backyard aspect of things. Plenty of data suggest Bay Staters like to gamble. It's long been documented that they constitute roughly a third of Foxwoods Resort Casino's customers and a fifth of Mohegan Sun's clientele. They also make up a big chunk of the crowd at Twin River, the Lincoln, R.I., facility that's gotten a boost from the July introduction of table games.
"It is interesting," said Peter Trombetta, a Moody's gaming analyst, that residents of a state that seems to have a propensity for gaming have whittled down the field for casino licenses to a very few.
"When you listen to the opposition's arguments, it's concerns over traffic, an increase in crime - issues that can be exacerbated in a neighborhood setting," he said. "… Some people who voted no may go to a casino in another city."
It may seem significant that the casino projects that won referendums are in urban areas, but it's unclear what conclusions can be drawn. What's known is that Mohegan Sun and Foxwoods, champions of the destination "rural model" in southeastern Connecticut, sought to extend their brands into Massachusetts in rural (Palmer) and suburban (Milford) settings.
"People in the Northeast seem to be less interested in the destinations and more in convenience and location, so putting casinos in urban settings with high population densities has been more successful," said Trombetta, who cited Philadelphia's SugarHouse as an urban casino that has done well.
A tight economy tends to put the brakes on casino-goers, too.
"If you decrease consumers' discretionary income with higher payroll taxes, increased health care costs or high gasoline prices, people are going to stay closer to home," Trombetta said. "If their entertainment budget is to go out to see a show, they're less likely to drive for an hour and spend the night. That might be out of their budget."
Gros, on the other hand, believes casinos should be in places that are hard to reach.
"They haven't been successful in cities like New Orleans, Detroit, Cleveland," he said. "Most successful ones are in suburbs."
Will Bay State gamblers end up tossing dice in Springfield and Everett, the cities where voters approved casinos proposed by MGM Resorts and Wynn Resorts? Given the way the gaming commission flagged Caesars Entertainment, an international operator that then withdrew from the Suffolk Downs project, it's an open question.
"Wynn's got the inside track in the east," said Gros, who doesn't believe Suffolk Downs will be able to move forward with a redesigned project that's located solely in Revere. The race track, which straddles Revere and East Boston, was rejected by East Boston voters.
Gros said Steve Wynn has had "some issues" and could run afoul the gaming commission's vetting process. "He abides by the laws in Macau, but they're not as strict there," Gros said.
MGM, the only remaining applicant in western Massachusetts, could also face questions, he said.
Some have suggested the Bay State's licensing process is too stringent and that the state could end up with no casinos as a result.
"For Massachusetts to turn its back on Caesars, MGM and Wynn would be crazy," Gros said. "You're going to end up with second-rate companies that are short on cash. And Wall Street's not going to want to invest in second-rate companies."
Mohegan Sun's Etess disagreed.
"I think they've done a good job," he said of the commission. "They've set up a process that can work. People have to remember that it's a privilege, not a right (to operate a casino in Massachusetts)."
Mohegan Sun and its partners passed the commission's "suitability" scrutiny with flying colors. Then came the referendum in Palmer.
b.hallenbeck@theday.com

http://www.theday.com/article/20131124/BIZ02/311249911/1018

 

Sunday, November 24, 2013

Field Of Casino Competitors Shrinks As Application Deadline Nears



Field Of Casino Competitors Shrinks As Application Deadline Nears

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


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

 

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Mohegan Sun, Palmer Abuzz.....



Mohegan Sun, owner of Palmer site at odds
By Brian HallenbeckPublication: The Day
Published 11/22/2013
 
Proposed casino site now in dispute
Mohegan Sun has terminated its "exclusivity agreement" with the owner of the Palmer, Mass., land where it hoped to develop a $1 billion resort casino, freeing it to negotiate with potential partners in other casino projects elsewhere in the Bay State.

At the same time, Mohegan Sun's lease of the 152-acre site "remains in full force and effect," the Connecticut casino asserted this week in a letter to Northeast Realty Associates.

Northeast objected to the casino's claims, saying the Mohegans' continued lease of the land would prevent Northeast from making it available to any other developer.

"They want to negotiate with someone else but tie up the land in Palmer," Paul Robbins, a Northeast spokesman, said. "It's like having your cake and eating it, too."

Northeast said it had referred Mohegan's notice to legal counsel.

The Palmer casino proposal was narrowly defeated in a Nov. 5 referendum, prompting a recount of votes set for Tuesday.

"It is unfortunate that Mohegan Sun is abandoning the people of Palmer just days before the recount … so that it can continue to negotiate a possible deal in another locale in Massachusetts," Northeast said. "Mohegan's pursuit of a license in the Eastern Massachusetts zone is at odds with their long-held position that Palmer represents the best location for a resort casino in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It also violated the exclusivity agreement between the parties."

Earlier this week, Palmer Town Councilor Paul Burns questioned whether Mohegan Sun had talked to other parties in Massachusetts prior to the referendum. Kevin Brown, chairman of the Mohegan Tribal Council, responded in a statement, calling Burns' claims "patently false."

"Mohegan Sun and our team in Palmer worked tirelessly over the past five years to bring a world class facility to Palmer and the Commonwealth, invested millions of dollars into this effort, and engaged in a highly transparent process of explaining our project to the community," Brown said.

"Despite the long odds that a recount might bring a different result, we have deliberately stayed the course awaiting the outcome."


http://www.theday.com/article/20131122/BIZ02/311229925/1044


Mohegans considering non-gaming development in Palmer
By Brian HallenbeckPublication: theday.com
Published 11/22/2013
 
Mohegan Sun will consider a non-gaming development at the 152-acre site in Palmer, Mass., where it had hoped to develop a $1 billion resort casino, the gaming operator’s top executive said Friday.
“As far as Palmer goes, we’ve invested almost $25 million in the whole process, a lot of it involving the land,” Mitchell Etess, the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority’s chief executive officer, said Friday. “Millions and millions has gone to the landlord. … We believe it’s a good site for development.”
Mohegan Sun signed a 99-year lease on the property in 2008.
Voters in Palmer rejected the casino proposal by 93 votes in a Nov. 5 referendum. A recount sought by Mohegan Sun and supporters of the project is scheduled for Tuesday. It is not expected to change the referendum outcome.
The Mohegan Sun Massachusetts plan included a 70,000-square-foot indoor-outdoor water park, two hotels and 300,000 square feet of retail development. Presumably, those portions of the project still could be pursued at the site, though Etess declined to discuss what the Mohegan Tribe has in mind.
“We could develop something other than gaming there,” Etess said. “It depends. We’ll have to take some time to assess what’s possible. … Everyone in Palmer liked the water park idea.”
Mohegan Sun has informed Northeast Realty Group, the owner of the property, that it was terminating its “exclusivity agreement” with Northeast, freeing the casino operator to negotiate with potential partners involved in other casino projects in Massachusetts.
Mohegan Sun has been in talks with owners of Suffolk Downs, the Boston-area race track hoping to propose a project in Revere.
Northeast Realty is free to pursue another developer of the Palmer site, Etess said, even though Mohegan Sun continues to lease it.
“They’d just have to go through us,” he said of anyone interested in the property.

http://www.theday.com/article/20131122/BIZ02/131129881/1047


Palmer Residents React to Mohegan Sun's Possibly Leaving Town abc40
(PALMER, Mass.) (WGGB)–Mohegan Sun wants out of its exclusive agreement with the town of Palmer to building a casino. Mohegan Sun had big plans for the ...
 
Northeast Realty: Mohegan Sun wants to break exclusive casino ... MassLive.com
PALMER - Mohegan Sun wants to end its exclusive casino agreement with Northeast Realty but continue to lease the 152 acres on Thorndike Street (Route 32), ...
 
Mohegan Sun seeks end to Palmer deal GazetteNET
In an earlier statement, Mohegan Sun rebutted suggestions by Palmer casino supporters that it had negotiated with Suffolk Down prior to the Nov. 5 referendum.
 
Mohegan Sun Addresses Future Plans for Palmer Site abc40
PALMER, Mass. (WGGB) — While they may not build a casino in Palmer, Mohegan Sun has announced their plans for the land on which they currently hold a ...
 
Mohegan Sun seeks break of exclusivity in Palmer WSHM-TV
While Etess did not confirm Mohegan is pursuing a casino in the eastern part of the state, he said they are seeking a break in their exclusivity in Palmer, without ...
 
Mohegan Sun looks for non-gaming development in Palmer WSHM-TV
Mohegan Sun announced it'll explore non-gaming projects at the site it has leased in Palmer. Suffolk Downs race track near Boston says it has been in contact ...
 
Mohegan seeks to end Palmer agreement, keep land WWLP 22News
Northeast Realty Associates, owner of the 152 acre parcel in Palmer and site of Mohegan Sun's proposed resort casino, today issued a statement as a result of ...
 
Mass. Gov. says casino law working as it should Businessweek
The vote came on the heels of rejections of proposed casinos earlier this month by voters in East Boston and Palmer, and in September by West Springfield ...
 
 

Friday, November 22, 2013

Still, no one asks about illegal Palmer PAC!


Not one single media source has asked where the $$$ for

Citizens for Jobs and Growth in Palmer 

comes from, why they are NOT a registered PAC and no reporting is available.

Northeast Realty: Mohegan Sun wants to break exclusive casino agreement, but continue to lease Palmer land


Palmer rejects Mohegan Sun Casino
11/05/13 Palmer - Mohegan Sun supporters in Palmer await results on Nov. 5. (The Republican / Michael Beswick)
Lori Stabile, The Republican By Lori Stabile, The RepublicanThe Republican
on November 21, 2013
 

Casinos



PALMER - Mohegan Sun wants to end its exclusive casino agreement with Northeast Realty but continue to lease the 152 acres on Thorndike Street (Route 32), making it unavailable for other economic or casino development, Northeast representatives said Thursday.

The news comes amid several calls for Mohegan to answer to rumors that the Connecticut-based company may be involved in talks with Suffolk Downs for its Revere casino proposal, even though a recount of the failed Palmer vote has not yet been held.

The recount is slated for Tuesday.

"Clearly if Mohegan is trying to void the exclusivity agreement, they clearly have interest somewhere else in Massachusetts," At-large Town Councilor Paul E. Burns said.

Burns said it is "insulting" to Palmer to "come in here and run the kind of campaign they did and walk away and try to hold that land forever," a move that could prevent economic development, or another casino company from coming in.

Mohegan signed a 99-year lease with Northeast on the 152 acres in 2008, with the hope that it could build a resort casino there. But voters on Nov. 5 rejected the casino by less than 100 votes.

A statement issued by Northeast reads in part: "It is unfortunate that Mohegan Sun is abandoning the people of Palmer just days before the recount of the recent referendum, so that it can continue to negotiate a possible deal in another locale in Massachusetts, now that those negotiations have come to light through press reports.

"Mohegan’s pursuit of a license in the Eastern Massachusetts zone is at odds with their long-held position that Palmer represents the best location for a resort casino in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It also violated the exclusivity agreement between the parties."

But the company on Tuesday issued a statement in response to Burns' concerns about Suffolk, calling his statements false, inappropriate and hurtful.

Leon H. Dragone, Northeast's manager, wants to know if Mohegan was engaged in discussions or negotiations with Suffolk before the Nov. 5 vote.

"I think that would call into question the integrity of their management of the campaign," Dragone said.

Sources close to Northeast said Mohegan could give 90 days notice to get out of the lease.

A Suffolk representative said their goal is to identify a new gaming partner by the end of the month.
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.

The release from Northeast, which came from Paul Robbins Associates, blasts Mohegan, saying the pursuit of another license in Revere "represents another demonstration of Mohegan's pattern of underperformance relating to the town of Palmer and its citizens."

It notes that while Mohegan was the first applicant to establish a presence in Western Massachusetts and pledged to be the first to have a host community agreement and referendum, it "supplied the required $400,000 application fee at the eleventh hour" and was slow to reveal casino project details despite requests to do so by town officials and citizens.

“Mohegan was among the last to finalize a host community agreement, after publicly promising to be the first. They were among the last to bring the agreement to voters. Unlike their counterpart applicants, they did not seek community input in Palmer or engage the people of Palmer in the design of their proposed resort.

“At the end of the day, Mohegan was slow to act and seemingly more interested in protecting their flagship casino in Connecticut than vigorously pursuing the Palmer project. Now, with the Palmer vote still undetermined they appear anxious to apply through a host community agreement and referendum that they did not have to win on their own," Northeast's release states.

The release also stated that during the negotiations with Northeast on the Palmer land lease, Northeast was aware of reports that Mohegan was actively looking at other venues in Massachusetts, and that Mohegan paid former mayor Michael Albano as a consultant during this period and continued to pay him as a consultant until he took office as a Governor’s Councilor.

"It is unclear what Mr. Albano’s role with Mohegan Sun was during the period of time he was paid as their consultant in Massachusetts, but it is very clear he was not involved in the Palmer referendum campaign,” Robbins added in the statement, citing the alleged arrangement as another example of Mohegan’s duplicity.

Albano, of Longmeadow, was elected to the Governor’s Council in 2011. Recently, he won a $10,000 contract with the town of East Longmeadow to advise municipal officials on the potential impact on the community if an MGM resort casino is located in Springfield.

In response, Albano said, “I haven’t seen Paul Robbins in 12 years, and if I have it wasn’t that memorable of a meeting but I now understand now why he left political consulting,” refusing further comment.

Albano previously denied having been compensated by Mohegan or any related entity.
Officials for the casino company and the tribe did not return calls for comment.

Citizens for Jobs and Growth in Palmer, a pro-casino group, released a letter sent to the Mohegan Tribal Council this week that was signed by 24 people asking Mohegan to adjust the host community agreement to reflect "core groups in town, like the teachers" and to continue to negotiate with surrounding communities.

Jennifer L. Baruffaldi, a spokeswoman for the group, said they still want to see a casino project happen at that site, and would support another casino operator coming in. She said she is concerned about Mohegan being involved with Suffolk Downs.

"If they started courting somebody else, it's like leaving a bride at the altar," Baruffaldi said.

Staff writer Stephanie Barry and the Associated Press contributed to this report.



This is a developing story that will be updated as our reporting continues.

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/11/northeast_realty_mohegan_sun_w.html



Company of the Month: Finard Properties marches forth - A trademark style of doing business

Boston, MA While the news that the residents of Palmer, Mass. had (slimly) voted down Mohegan Sun Casino's proposal for a world-class destination casino resort came as a disappointment to Todd Finard, the ambitious CEO of Finard Properties, the Boston-based, commercial real estate development company in partnership with Mohegan, didn't miss a beat. The next day, he and Mitchell Etess, CEO of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming authority, were meeting to discuss the possibility of keeping their partnership in tact - all while awaiting the re-count of the Palmer vote, which was scheduled later in the month. With a solid and sound partnership in place, Finard and Mohegan wasted no time mourning the potential defeat in Palmer, and instead scheduled a trip to Pennsylvania to tour Mohegan's existing operation in the Poconos.

"Finard Properties is and has been successful because we see opportunity, first and foremost - and we see a tremendous opportunity in continuing a strong partnership with Mohegan Sun," said Finard.

"We are excited to get back to the table and are optimistic that down the road, we can work together to develop a premiere tourist destination in the State of Massachusetts."

"There isn't a better, more experienced and more successful retail developer than Finard Properties," said Etess. "The portfolio of hugely successful Finard Properties' developments is spread literally throughout every corner of New England and beyond. Their creativity and expertise is a huge asset to our continued pursuit of a casino complex in Massachusetts."

This "march forth" style of doing business is trademark Finard and is one of the reasons for the company's impressive growth since its humble beginnings.

Founded in the 1950s, Murray Finard recognized an opportunity to simplify the shopping experience for the masses that were migrating to suburbia: he put all the stores under one roof. It wasn't long before shopping centers were a cornerstone of just about every town in America.

In the 1970s, Murray was joined in the business by his son Bill, who carried the company to the next level by adding new property development /property management components and evolving strategically with an ever-shifting demographic and the continuing influx of new technology. His son, Todd, came aboard in 1996; his son-in-law, Robert Hughes, also joined the company in 2007.

Now three generation out, the company is aggressively pursuing growth, yet firmly adhering to its core values of integrity and forthright business practices - and the pride that comes with the fact that the company bears the family name. Characterized by innovation, insight, creative out-of-the-box thinking and good old-fashioned hard work, Finard Properties "marches forth" with its commitment to identify new opportunities for growth and constantly evolve into new markets and into new marketplaces.

As CEO, Todd Finard is responsible for the strategic planning and ongoing growth of the company's portfolio. He has outlined a carefully-executed plan for expansion - one which includes bringing in capital for projects they have on the table. Finard recognizes that the company's projections for an accelerated growth trajectory require that they actively court institutional investors and joint equity partners. "In exchange for access to capital, we offer great yields," said Finard. "We have targeted projects that, once developed, marketed and managed correctly will very likely exceed conservative estimates for return. We have a portfolio of properties that our market analysis tells us should be developed."

Finard also spearheaded the company's move into downtown Boston in 2011. "We saw the upside to being closer to our financial partners," he said.

While their short term goal is to finalize a deal with Mohegan Sun, Finard Properties remains focused and committed to the properties they own and manage in all sectors.

Hospitality

Formed in 2011, Finard Coventry Hotel Management merged the talents of Finard Properties with those of Coventry Hotel Associates and offers a full spectrum of services for the hospitality industry - from acquisition and development to operations, franchisor relations, asset management, strategic sales/marketing plans and consulting. FCHM currently owns and/or manages: The Harbor Hotel, Provincetown, Mass.; The Sundance Resort, Sundance, UT; The Providence Biltmore (which is currently undergoing a $13 million restoration in a joint venture with Angelo, Gordon & Company) and has recently announced their newest project: a 170-room Residence Inn at the New England Executive Park in Burlington, Mass. Groundbreaking is set for the summer of 2014.

Retail

In the mid-1980s, the First National Bank of Boston approached William Finard about taking over two under-performing shopping malls in Memphis, Tenn. If this born and bred New Englander felt out of place in the South, it didn't show; Finard turned both into successful retail assets. Finard Properties is still at it: the company recently razed a portion of one of the complexes and has just completed the construction of an 85,000 s/f Kroger's, a strong anchor for the newly refurbished shopping center. "This is just one example of how the company has its finger on the pulse of the properties we own and/or manage," said Todd Finard. "In this case, the property had reached the point where it could go one of two ways. It was 30 or 40-years-old and needed to be recreated to be vital and profitable. We are constantly evaluating the landscape of the markets we are in and the markets where we see as emerging. This is another way to spot opportunity and remain active in competitive markets."

The University Mall in South Burlington, Vt. is another major, retail redevelopment project that is on Finard's white board. The largest enclosed mall in the state, the complex is a classic 1980s mall, according to Finard. The company is considering the future evolution of the mall, one that will keep it exciting to shoppers and attractive to tenants.

Office

Finard Properties' portfolio of office complexes includes sites in New England and Tennessee. As with all the properties they own and manage, Finard is ready to spring into action when market conditions dictate a change. Take for instance One Monument Square in downtown Portland, Me. When this 10-story, 124,000 s/f office building lost its key tenant last year, Finard recognized the need to refurbish the 1970s design in order to be competitive and attract the right mix of long-term tenants. Along with the major renovation, the building was rebranded, renamed (Square One) and is now nearly fully occupied.

Three generations have successfully steered Finard Properties from owning one humble shopping center to owning, managing and developing an impressive portfolio of properties in nearly every sector of commercial real estate. They are, for sure, a company to watch for generations to come.

http://nerej.com/67460