Bill Gouveia is still 'un-enlightened'!
Posted: Thursday, October 10, 2013
Mitigation to be drop in the bucket to actual harm
I'm so glad that Bill Gouveia doesn't live next door to me, as he seems to believe that neighbors should just take whatever garbage is thrown over their fence and never seek redress ("Foxboro's approach to seeking slots mitigation falls short," Oct. 7).
Remember when Plainville Selectman Rob Rose said that Plainridge "almost isn't in Plainville"? Well, if it's almost not in Plainville, then it must be somewhere - and that somewhere is almost in Foxboro and Wrentham.
The consultant hired by the Plainville selectmen found plenty of examples of negative impact to the surrounding towns. To wit: a 44 percent increase in gambling addiction within 10 miles of the facility; an increase in crimes like embezzlement and petty theft due to the increase in problem gambling; an increase in domestic violence and child neglect; an increase in drunken driving fatalities. There are more causes for concern, for anyone who cares to read the report, which barely touches on the unquantifiable and unmitigable impact of expanded gambling.
Not one of those by-products of slots stops at the town line. Foxboro selectmen would be seriously remiss if they didn't seek mitigation for the ills that expanded gambling next door will bring to their town. Believe me, the amount they'll get - if they get anything at all - will be a proverbial drop-in-the-bucket of the actual harm that slots will bring. But still, it's something.
Mary-Ann Greanier, Plainville
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/letters_to_editor/mitigation-to-be-drop-in-the-bucket-to-actual-harm/article_d4be2b57-c3ad-5eae-b52b-cb10d9ffa8d1.html
Among the core principles of our government are checks and balances, inclusion, and transparency. Unfortunately, we saw very little of these at the recent Plainville town meeting relating to Article 43. The article petitioned the selectmen to obtain an independent cost/benefit analysis on the impact of a slot machine parlor at Plainridge Racecourse prior to, or concurrent with, negotiating a host community agreement and that the analysis be shared with the public. As none of the selectmen (or quite frankly most of Plainville's residents) are slot machine gambling experts, coupled with the fact that the analysis would come at no cost to Plainville (analysis would be paid by Plainridge Racecourse per the Massachusetts gaming legislation), it seemed like a reasonable request. Yet it did not pass.
As a citizen of Plainville, I was embarrassed at town meeting when Selectmen Andrea Soucy and Rob Rose commented that they "were insulted" by residents asking that some of the most basic values of our government be enforced. Instead of embracing inclusion and transparency, they did the opposite, essentially saying they did not need any checks and balances - just "trust us" was their common refrain.
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/vip/opinion/columns/your-turn-trust-but-verify-on-plainville-racino-deal/article_e58395d3-bc57-5b95-b27e-fbe579773431.html
