MGM (up to their Slot Machines in debt) settled on a poorly considered site in Brimfield without conducting their due diligence of infrastructure costs, time delays and local opposition. Too much time was spent on public relations propaganda and fairy tales and not enough on facts and reality.
This publicly defines poor management and invites scrutiny of the next targeted community.
MGM Resorts Drops Massachusetts Casino Plan for New Site
By Christopher Palmeri
Mar 28, 2012
MGM Resorts International (MGM) dropped out of a casino project in Brimfield, Massachusetts, and will seek an alternative site in the western part of the state.
“The unique nature of MGM’s plans for an all-inclusive world-class resort on the Brimfield site, and our growing understanding of the needed scope for its infrastructure, simply do not allow us to pursue the comprehensive MGM resort originally envisioned here,” Bill Hornbuckle, MGM’s Chief Marketing Officer, said yesterday in a statement.
Massachusetts has drawn interest from some the nation’s largest gambling companies since Governor Deval Patrick signed legislation in November allowing for three destination resorts, one each in separate regions of the state. An additional license for a slot-machine facility is also planned.
Wynn Resorts Ltd (WYNN) has proposed a casino in Foxborough, 30 miles (48 kilometers) south of Boston, while Caesars Entertainment Corp. hopes to develop at the Suffolk Downs horse track north of the state’s largest city. Connecticut tribal casino operator Mohegan Sun is pursuing a resort in Palmer, in the western part of the state, as is Las Vegas-based Ameristar Casinos Inc. (ASCA), which in January paid $16 million for a 41-acre site in Springfield.
A five-member gaming commission will oversee the licensing process, which involves initial fees of at least $85 million and a 25 percent share of casino revenue for the state. The licensing fee for the slot facility would be at least $25 million, with the state taking 40 percent of revenue and horse tracks receiving an additional 9 percent.
MGM’s withdrawal, reported earlier by the Boston Globe, doesn’t mean an end to the proposed casino in Brimfield. The company’s former partner, Rolling Hills Realty Trust, will continue to develop that site, David Callahan, a principal in the trust, said in a separate statement.
MGM fell 0.3 percent to $14.50 yesterday in New York. The shares have gained 17 percent this year.
MGM pulls out of Brimfield as Western Mass. casino spot
By Bob Salsberg
The Associated Press
The site that had been chosen in the town was adjacent to the Massachusetts Turnpike but had no direct access from the highway, a fact that posed a potentially major obstacle to development of the casino.
Without direct access from the turnpike, traffic leading to the site would have to travel several miles along Route 20, the main thoroughfare through the town which at times narrows down to just one lane in each direction.
MGM had proposed funding construction of a new turnpike interchange and access road in the neighboring town of Warren, between existing Exits 8 and 9 on the highway, and officials had said the project could not proceed without that new road. The new exit, however, could have taken a number of years to be approved and built.
Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x1440913608/MGM-pulls-out-of-Brimfield-as-Western-Mass-casino-spot#ixzz1qVRcwcAE
Mixed feelings in Brimfield on MGM's decision not to build casino in town
Company won't build casino on land in town
Wednesday, 28 Mar 2012
Sy Becker
BRIMFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - Casino company MGM announced Tuesday that they have decided not to build a resort casino in Brimfield
MGM Resorts drops Brimfield proposal for western Massachusetts
By Brian Hallenbeck
Publication: The Day
Says it will seek alternate site
Perennial Slot Barn Cheerleader Paul Burns ignores the Palmer Study Committee Report indicating the annual cost to host this monster would be $18 MILLION to $39 MILLION. Curious indeed!
Paul Burns, president of the Palmer Town Council, said it "serves to reinforce the strength of a Palmer site for a western Mass resort casino. As the sole remaining truly rural casino proposal in the state, Palmer continues to stand head and shoulders above other locations in terms of access, infrastructure, community support and location."
MGM announced its Brimfield project in January in the wake of Massachusetts' authorization of three casinos and one slots parlor. Other big-name operators, including Ameristar Casinos of Las Vegas, Hard Rock International of Orlando, Fla., and Penn National Gaming of Wyomissing, Pa., have also floated proposals for western Massachusetts.
In 2006, MGM entered into a "strategic alliance" with the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe under which the tribe branded its second casino as MGM Grand at Foxwoods.
Showing posts with label Preserve Brimfield. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Preserve Brimfield. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Note to MGM: Ideal location in Richmond
Might this location be appropriate? The owner has indicated support for Slot Barns and seems not to mind the community destruction. gambling addiction, increased personal bankruptcies, social injustice, regressive taxation, low wage jobs, increased crime, increased drunk drivers....you know the list.
MGM Resorts drops Brimfield casino plan; launches effort to find new site in Western Massachusetts
By Lori Stabile, The Republican
BRIMFIELD - Las Vegas casino operator MGM Resorts International is bailing out of the Brimfield project, but is seeking an alternate Western Massachusetts location, a company spokesman said on Tuesday.
"The unique nature of MGM’s plans for an all-inclusive world-class resort on the Brimfield site, and our growing understanding of the needed scope for its infrastructure, simply do not allow us to pursue the comprehensive MGM resort originally envisioned here," said William Hornbuckle, MGM’s chief marketing officer. No kidding? Someone failed to conduct their due diligence and town leadership allowed themselves to be blinded by the Fools' Gold of Slot Barns to support this Folly. And where were those low wage workers to live?
“As a result, we have a mutual agreement with Rolling Hills Realty Trust to end MGM’s development efforts in Brimfield. MGM remains committed to developing an MGM-quality project in Western Massachusetts and we are actively pursuing other potential development sites,” Hornbuckle said in a statement.
"The response of the community in Brimfield has been nothing short of outstanding. We are very grateful for the reception we have received. The willingness of residents to listen to our thoughts and openly share their concerns has been of critical importance to MGM in reaching this decision," Hornbuckle continued.
“It has been our pleasure to get to know the people of Brimfield as we’ve worked to find our place in Western Massachusetts,” said Hornbuckle. “The elected officials, the town workers and our many new friends have been generous in their support and willingness to share their thoughts with us. We will always be grateful.”
The company will continue to work from its office on Warren Road as it considers alternative locations in Western Massachusetts.
David J. Callahan, of Rolling Hills Realty Trust, said he will continue to work to develop the property, which borders Palmer in Hampden County and Warren in Worcester County.
"We wish MGM the best of luck as they continue their pursuit of a Western Massachusetts casino license," Callahan said in a statement.
The "Rolling Hills Resort" project was announced with much fanfare in January, with top executives from MGM touting the 150-acre site in the northwest corner of town, and the estimated 3,000 jobs it would bring. They brought interested media to the remote site north of the Massachusetts Turnpike after a press conference, and later set up a website - www.mgmrollinghills.com - dedicated to the project.
The announcement pleased one backer of the proposed [insolvent] Mohegan Sun casino project next door in Palmer.
"I'm not surprised. I thought the site was not a good site to begin with based on the lack of infrastructure . . . (MGM's) whole plan was to drive traffic through Palmer and Sturbridge. It makes Palmer a more viable competitor," Palmer Town Council President Paul E. Burns said.
Burns said MGM is "welcome to compete in Palmer." [Mr. Burns ignores the Palmer Casino Study Report that projected the annual costs to the town of Palmer would be $18 MILLION to $39 MILLION, not including the costs to bring water from the Quabbin. But, never let the facts get in the way, Mr. Burns! You're drinking too much KoolAid again.]
Brimfield Selectmen Chairwoman Diane M. Panaccione said she is disappointed with MGM's decision.
"It was a great revenue opportunity for our town for years to come. MGM has been gracious in dealing with our town officials and our residents. They were willing to work with the town. This is a huge loss for Brimfield," Panaccione said.
As talks progressed, Panaccione said she felt the project was looking more and more attractive for Brimfield. [This highlights poor local government when this level of support is provided without conducting due diligence.]
"They said the footprint just didn't fit the property," Panaccione said.
MGM representatives had said access would be through a Massachusetts Turnpike exit, onto Smith Road, a dirt road in Warren. They had repeatedly said there would no local access through the town of Brimfield.
The news cancels a special session of the annual Town Meeting that was set for June 18, according to Panaccione. There, residents would have been faced with two non-binding referendums regarding a casino project.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Chronicle, Ch. 5, Boston, 7:30 tonight
From Palmer's QVAC:
Don't forget to watch Chronicle on Ch. 5 Boston at 7:30 tonight. Don't know for sure that it will be anti-casino, but some of our neighbors were interview including some in Brimfield and our own Charlotte Burns.
Don't forget to watch Chronicle on Ch. 5 Boston at 7:30 tonight. Don't know for sure that it will be anti-casino, but some of our neighbors were interview including some in Brimfield and our own Charlotte Burns.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Preserve Brimfield Group Questions Non-Binding Vote at Town Meeting
For Immediate Release
Contact: Paul Adams, 413-262-7380, padams6199@charter.net
or Sharon Palmer, palmera5@charter.net
Preserve Brimfield Group Questions Non-Binding Vote at Town Meeting
Brimfield, MA – February 10, 2012 – Preserve Brimfield, an ad hoc community group that is investigating the effects of a proposed casino development in Brimfield, Massachusetts, has raised concerns about the wisdom and practicality of a non-binding vote on the casino project at the 2012 Town Meeting in May.
“There are lots of reasons to question the timing and the motives behind the attempt to hold a ‘non-binding’ vote at Town Meeting,” said Sharon Palmer, a Brimfield resident and a Preserve Brimfield Steering Committee member. “Despite numerous meetings with town boards and committees, neither the land owner nor the casino development company has provided any information to the town about the size, scope, and impact of the project, other than ‘You’ll barely know it’s there,’” Palmer said.
On February 9, a petition was presented to the Brimfield Board of Selectmen requesting that an article be included on the Town Warrant. The item for the proposed vote would read: “To see if the Town will vote to support a resort casino development from the Massachusetts Turnpike, and located in the secluded northwest corner of the Town (north of the Turnpike), which will generate millions of dollars annually in tax revenues for the Town. This article is non-binding.”
“The wording of the article is prejudicial and misleading,” said Paul Adams, also a member of Preserve Brimfield. “The developers have already contradicted themselves on the issue of the Mass Pike ramp; the reference to additional revenue conveniently omits any reference to the new and potentially enormous costs the town will incur; and although the land may in fact be ‘secluded,’ the effects on the town will be widespread and permanent. Beyond that, the effects will be reflected – in greater costs – on virtually every line item in the town’s budget.”
The petition included 25 signatures, and Diane M. Panaccione, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, has said that 24 signatures are required to put the item on the agenda for the 2012 Town Meeting. The petition was apparently originated by a group of pro-casino supporters calling themselves ‘Brimfield First,’ but according to a news article in the Springfield Republican and posted on the newspaper’s MassLive.com website, “several of the people who signed the petition that were contacted said they had not heard of the group.”
“The land owner and MGM have told boards and committees that it’s too early for them to answer questions,” said Adams. “They’ve provided us with absolutely nothing about the impact of the development on the town’s water and sewer resources, school population, roads and infrastructure, housing, crime, and other issues. If it’s too early for them to answer reasonable questions, it’s too early to ask the town to vote on this project, even if it’s non-binding. The town won’t have a clue what it’s voting on, or information will be provided by the developer just before the Town Meeting and too late to consider carefully and thoughtfully.”
A non-binding vote seems also to fly in the face of the recommendations by Steven Crosby, the new chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, who has said that neither developers nor towns should move ahead “under a sense of urgency to generate money, to generate jobs, to meet the developer’s wishes, or to meet a community’s wishes.”
Preserve Brimfield was formed to provide information to Brimfield residents about a casino development proposed by MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. in Las Vegas in partnership with Rolling Hills Estates Realty Trust. More information about Preserve Brimfield is available at www.preservebrimfield.org.
###
Contact: Paul Adams, 413-262-7380, padams6199@charter.net
or Sharon Palmer, palmera5@charter.net
Preserve Brimfield Group Questions Non-Binding Vote at Town Meeting
Brimfield, MA – February 10, 2012 – Preserve Brimfield, an ad hoc community group that is investigating the effects of a proposed casino development in Brimfield, Massachusetts, has raised concerns about the wisdom and practicality of a non-binding vote on the casino project at the 2012 Town Meeting in May.
“There are lots of reasons to question the timing and the motives behind the attempt to hold a ‘non-binding’ vote at Town Meeting,” said Sharon Palmer, a Brimfield resident and a Preserve Brimfield Steering Committee member. “Despite numerous meetings with town boards and committees, neither the land owner nor the casino development company has provided any information to the town about the size, scope, and impact of the project, other than ‘You’ll barely know it’s there,’” Palmer said.
On February 9, a petition was presented to the Brimfield Board of Selectmen requesting that an article be included on the Town Warrant. The item for the proposed vote would read: “To see if the Town will vote to support a resort casino development from the Massachusetts Turnpike, and located in the secluded northwest corner of the Town (north of the Turnpike), which will generate millions of dollars annually in tax revenues for the Town. This article is non-binding.”
“The wording of the article is prejudicial and misleading,” said Paul Adams, also a member of Preserve Brimfield. “The developers have already contradicted themselves on the issue of the Mass Pike ramp; the reference to additional revenue conveniently omits any reference to the new and potentially enormous costs the town will incur; and although the land may in fact be ‘secluded,’ the effects on the town will be widespread and permanent. Beyond that, the effects will be reflected – in greater costs – on virtually every line item in the town’s budget.”
The petition included 25 signatures, and Diane M. Panaccione, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, has said that 24 signatures are required to put the item on the agenda for the 2012 Town Meeting. The petition was apparently originated by a group of pro-casino supporters calling themselves ‘Brimfield First,’ but according to a news article in the Springfield Republican and posted on the newspaper’s MassLive.com website, “several of the people who signed the petition that were contacted said they had not heard of the group.”
“The land owner and MGM have told boards and committees that it’s too early for them to answer questions,” said Adams. “They’ve provided us with absolutely nothing about the impact of the development on the town’s water and sewer resources, school population, roads and infrastructure, housing, crime, and other issues. If it’s too early for them to answer reasonable questions, it’s too early to ask the town to vote on this project, even if it’s non-binding. The town won’t have a clue what it’s voting on, or information will be provided by the developer just before the Town Meeting and too late to consider carefully and thoughtfully.”
A non-binding vote seems also to fly in the face of the recommendations by Steven Crosby, the new chairman of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, who has said that neither developers nor towns should move ahead “under a sense of urgency to generate money, to generate jobs, to meet the developer’s wishes, or to meet a community’s wishes.”
Preserve Brimfield was formed to provide information to Brimfield residents about a casino development proposed by MGM Resorts International Operations, Inc. in Las Vegas in partnership with Rolling Hills Estates Realty Trust. More information about Preserve Brimfield is available at www.preservebrimfield.org.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
