Meetings & Information




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






Showing posts with label impacts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label impacts. Show all posts

Sunday, July 12, 2015

Towns neighboring New Bedford all express interest in compensation for casino impacts




Towns neighboring New Bedford all express interest in compensation for casino impacts



Fairhaven, Dartmouth, Acushnet, Freetown, others could seek money for increased traffic, class sizes, use of public services, and more, if negotiations unfold with New Bedford developer





  • Andrew Stern, operating partner of KG Urban Enterprises, takes a look at an advertisment promoting the casino during the day of the city vote in June.Andrew Stern, operating partner of KG Urban Enterprises, takes a look at an advertisment promoting the casino during the day of the city vote in June. Stern's group will have to be dealing not just with New Bedford, but with neighboring towns as well. PETER PEREIRA/THE STANDARD-TIMES



  • By Mike Lawrence
    mlawrence@s-t.com

    Posted Jul. 11, 2015 at 10:01 PM 


    NEW BEDFORD — The use of casino dollars for costs associated with upgrading the Howland Road bridge from Fairhaven into New Bedford, where the road becomes Coggeshall Street, is one of many topics that could be on the table in coming weeks, as SouthCoast towns consider potential impacts from the $650 million casino project proposed for New Bedford’s waterfront.
    “We’re just at the starting point of having discussions with surrounding towns,” Fairhaven executive secretary Jeffrey Osuch said Thursday. “There will be issues ranging from traffic concerns to housing concerns to potential addiction concerns.”
    Less than a month after New Bedford residents gave a landslide show of support for a waterfront casino — with 73 percent of voters in favor June 23 — Fairhaven, Dartmouth, Acushnet and Freetown are all exploring potential casino impacts in their communities and, in varying degrees, the potential for financial compensation.
    “Several of the towns have contacted us and asked us to weigh in on the impacts,” said Steve Smith, who served as executive director of the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District, or SRPEDD, for more than 30 years before retiring June 30.
    Smith, who was in the office Wednesday in his new capacity as a part-time consultant, said SRPEDD has previously evaluated impacts for communities near other Massachusetts casino proposals.
    “We played that role in the case of the Raynham application,” Smith said, referring to the Taunton-area town’s unsuccessful application for the state’s single slots parlor license.
    SRPEDD also was involved in the slots process, Smith said, by sitting in on meetings between developer Penn National Gaming and communities near Plainville, which won the state's single slots license. Plainridge Park Casino opened June 24.
    A similar pre-licensing process now is unfolding in SouthCoast.
    “I’ve had both Acushnet and Freetown reach out to me for assistance,” Smith said. He added that SRPEDD staff had heard from Dartmouth and Fairhaven officials, as well.
    New York-based developer KG Urban Enterprises and New Bedford are competing with developer Mass Gaming & Entertainment, which is proposing a $650 million casino project on a Brockton Fairgrounds site, for the sole commercial casino license the Massachusetts Gaming Commission can allocate in southeastern Massachusetts.
    Smith said whether to involve SRPEDD in the mitigation process for communities near New Bedford is up to KG Urban. State gaming law allows regional planning authorities to facilitate impact assessments for casino agreements.
    “So far, there’s been no contact in that regard,” Smith said Wednesday.
    Osuch said Thursday that KG Urban had not yet contacted Fairhaven, either. Dartmouth Town Administrator David Cressman said the same.
    But Cressman said Gaming Commission representatives had reached out to town officials recently, to make them aware of surrounding community rights under state law.
    KG Urban spokesman Andrew Paven commented briefly last week on surrounding community negotiations, saying he didn't think the developer had yet reached out to towns neighboring New Bedford. Those talks could heat up ahead of the Sept. 30 deadline for submitting final application materials to the Gaming Commission.
    KG Urban’s negotiations with New Bedford early this year were conducted in a contentious, late-winter flurry aided by deadline extensions from the Gaming Commission. The talks culminated in an 11th-hour host community agreement signed on the morning of March 19, hours before Mayor Jon Mitchell and KG Urban representatives presented the deal at a commission meeting later that day.
    The timeline for the next legal front, surrounding community negotiations, became clearer at a Thursday meeting of the Gaming Commission in Boston.
    If surrounding community agreements for towns that want to be involved are not included in KG Urban’s final application Sept. 30, those towns would have a window in early October to petition to the Gaming Commission.
    The five-member commission then could rule by Nov. 30 on whether those towns would be granted “surrounding community” status. That would then trigger a 30-day negotiation period, through December, in which towns granted that status could negotiate compensation agreements with KG Urban.
    “The amount of money they get paid is going to be right at the top of the list,” Smith said, saying traffic, housing, schools and crime also are common issues in surrounding community negotiations.
    If towns don’t reach agreements, arbitration could result in January 2016 decisions. Attorney Jonathan Silverstein of Boston-based firm Kopelman & Paige, who represents New Bedford in casino matters, said last week that it would be “baseball-style” arbitration, in which each side makes a best and final offer and an arbitrator chooses one of the two.
    Silverstein has represented host and surrounding casino communities across Massachusetts. He’ll represent Acushnet, as well, and is representing several communities surrounding Brockton’s casino proposal: Holbrook, Stoughton and Abington so far.
    “Every case is going to be very different,” Silverstein said.
    Other MA deals
    Cities and towns near casino proposals elsewhere in Massachusetts — successful and not — have sought compensation in recent years for an array of impacts, as the commonwealth’s casino era begins.
    The most prominent disputes are unfolding in Boston, where Wynn Resorts’ $1.75 billion Everett casino is facing ongoing litigation on numerous fronts, including emphatic efforts by the City of Boston to revoke the casino’s license, or to be named a host community for the project.
    Less-contentious casino deals elsewhere in the state, though, could provide a clearer picture of the kind of negotiations that could lie ahead for SouthCoast towns.
    West Springfield, for example, received — via arbitration — a May 2014 agreement that includes a $665,000 up-front payment from MGM Springfield. The payment is expressly for design and permitting costs for the reconstruction of Memorial Avenue in West Springfield. The avenue is a major transportation route to the future MGM Springfield casino.
    Silverstein represented West Springfield in its negotiations with MGM. A total of six towns and two cities in the Springfield area reached agreements with the developer. Longmeadow won arbitration, as well, receiving $850,000 up front and 13 annual payments of $275,000 in the April 2014 agreement.
    West Springfield’s agreement also includes annual payments, of at least $425,000 a year. At least $50,000 of those payments, annually, will go toward “look-back studies,” which will assess casino impacts and potential talking points for additional compensation in future years.
    Funding for such studies is included in many casino agreements across the state, as cities and towns enter the foreign territory of commercial gaming.
    “This is new to all of us,” Osuch said.
    MGM Springfield is an $800 million project, compared to the $650 million estimate for KG Urban’s Cannon Street Station in New Bedford. West Springfield also has nearly double the population of Fairhaven, and is larger than any town surrounding New Bedford.
    But its location across the water from Springfield could create traffic impacts and other concerns comparable to Fairhaven’s, Smith said.
    “On the surface, it would seem to be fairly close,” Smith said.
    Fairhaven selectmen agreed unanimously Monday to direct town counsel to reach out to surrounding towns and to SRPEDD, to discuss casino impacts. The city also intends to file notices with KG Urban and the state Gaming Commission, Osuch said, indicating the town wishes to receive “surrounding community” status that can lead to compensation.
    Fairhaven Town Counsel Thomas Crotty said Monday that he would reach out to Kopelman & Paige for potential representation, meaning Silverstein could wind up negotiating casino deals for most of greater New Bedford.
    Crosstown traffic
    Osuch said data such as traffic thresholds on Fairhaven intersections and roads, including Howland and the Coggeshall bridge, could be analyzed for potential needs such as signal upgrades, turning lanes and more.
    “We don’t have a full understanding of what the actual impacts are, and that’s what we have to do some homework on,” he said.
    Smith said assessing regional traffic impacts from a New Bedford casino could be easier than assessing multi-direction impacts in Raynham and Plainville, because here, "there just aren't that many ways to access the site.”
    Route 6 would be a major secondary access route, he said, but those renovations — including to the New Bedford-Fairhaven Bridge — would involve the state and largely be outside the purview of a surrounding community agreement.
    “It’s not going to be Fairhaven’s ability to fix that bridge,” Smith said. “Fairhaven could certainly make the request, you know, ‘Do something to try to get the state moving on that project,' but it’s really sort of beyond the local jurisdiction.”
    Silverstein said monetizing traffic impacts can be difficult, and vary by situation.
    "It’s a bit of an art, as opposed to a science,” he said. 
    Fire and EMS calls
    Public services in New Bedford interact significantly with services in neighboring towns, meaning an influx of casino crowds into the city could have affects on outlying areas.
    “We’re looking at a 15 percent increase in people who are in the city at any one time,” New Bedford Fire Chief Michael Gomes said, citing potential casino crowds of 12,000 to 15,000 people per day. “If you have people who are transiting from other communities to get here, there certainly is increased risk for services from those communities.
    “The risks of auto accidents, medical calls and things of that nature will certainly go up,” he said.
    Gomes said about 15 percent of emergency medical service (EMS) calls in New Bedford involve some form of mutual aid, either from private ambulance agencies or surrounding towns.
    “I do believe that Acushnet comes into the city about 10 times a month, on average, for ambulance support,” he said.
    Mark McGraw, the city’s EMS director, said city dispatchers call for ambulance support from surrounding towns after all four of its private contractors are unavailable.
    “Mutual aid is a funny thing,” he said. “Sometimes, within a matter of half an hour, we’ve got everybody and his brother in the city,” while other days are slow.
    McGraw said the department has looked at studies from other casino towns to gauge impacts. Other communities saw more traffic accidents, McGraw said, but didn’t see much of an increase on the medical side.
    “I don’t think it was all that significant,” McGraw said, referring to overall casino impacts on emergency services in other communities.
    Water, sewer services
    Ron Labelle, commissioner of the city’s Department of Public Infrastructure, said there’s room for the city to grow in water and wastewater capacity, including in its services to surrounding towns.
    A report provided by KG Urban in 2014 estimated that a waterfront casino could use 100,000 to 200,000 gallons of water per day.
    Labelle called that amount negligible to city water treatment, which he said is operating only at about half capacity.
    The city’s water treatment plant has the ability to produce 45 million gallons of water a day, Labelle said, but is only treating about 18 million gallons a day in high-demand summer months.
    “We have tremendous capacity to provide water and wastewater services, so a couple hundred thousand gallons of water is minimal,” he said. “It’s really not that much.”
    Labelle said a casino “wouldn’t adversely affect our ability to provide any services to (surrounding towns), water or wastewater.”
    The shared services are substantial.
    “Dartmouth buys a lot of water from us in the summertime, because their wells can’t handle the summer demand,” he said. “Acushnet buys all of its water from us.”
    New Bedford provides Fairhaven with water on an emergency basis, according to Labelle, while the city takes in sewage from Acushnet, Dartmouth and Freetown.
    New Bedford sends some of its sewage to Fairhaven, he added.
    Clock ticking
    Osuch and Cressman said Fairhaven and Dartmouth, respectively, are just beginning to assess potential casino impacts and compensation.
    “We’re in the initial stages, we’re starting to look at what other communities have looked at and done,” Cressman said.
    Silverstein said he’s seen a variety of situations.
    “I’ve negotiated some surrounding community agreements fairly quickly, and others have taken a longer time,” he said.
    Silverstein said the time period facing communities surrounding New Bedford should be workable.
    “Would I love to have more time? Sure,” Silverstein said. “(But) it certainly isn’t all that unusual.”



    http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150711/NEWS/150719846/101061/json

    Tuesday, December 30, 2014

    "....problem gambling is a vicious cycle....."





    Hwang honored for fight against gambling addiction

    Monday, May 26, 2014

    Mark your calendars!



    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Please share liberally!
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE! Please share liberally!

    Saturday, April 5, 2014

    State wants environmental study at Revere casino site



    State wants environmental study at Revere casino site
    Published 04/03/2014
     
    Mohegan officials foresee no setback
    Boston - Massachusetts officials have ordered Mohegan Sun to conduct a new environmental impact study for its proposed casino in Revere, but the developers don't see it as a setback.

    Mohegan Sun officials had hoped that an earlier report prepared by Caesars Entertainment for a casino that would have straddled the East Boston-Revere line at the Suffolk Downs horse track would be enough. That proposal collapsed.

    But Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard Sullivan Jr. said the plan has changed substantially from Caesars' and must be evaluated separately.

    Mohegan Sun is competing with Wynn Resorts, which wants to build a casino on a former industrial site in Everett, for the lone gambling license in greater Boston.

    Mohegan Sun officials said they have already been reviewing the issues raised in Sullivan's decision and can easily address most concerns. If awarded a license, they can begin construction on scheduled, they said.

    "Friday's decision keeps the Mohegan Sun project on track to meet or exceed the permitting and contribution timetable detailed in our submissions with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission," Gary Luderitz, Mohegan Sun's vice president of development, told The Boston Globe.

    The gambling commission, which expects to award a license by the end of June, does not require applicants to have approved environmental impact studies to receive a license, but they do need approval before construction begins.




    http://www.theday.com/article/20140403/BIZ02/304039446/1044

     

    Monday, March 24, 2014

    Boston seeks do-over on casino designs

     

    Boston seeks do-over on casino designs
    Monday, March 24, 2014

    By:Jack Encarnacao


    Boston wants the state’s environmental secretary to send Suffolk Downs back to the drawing board, arguing the engineering studies are based mainly on the jettisoned plan for a Caesars casino in East Boston — not the new Mohegan Sun site in Revere.

    City Hall’s comment letters call on Energy and Environmental Affairs Secretary Richard K. Sullivan to compel the developers to generate a new impact report that reflects the Revere plan, after Mohegan relied on engineering that was done for the rejected Caesars Entertainment casino on the track’s Eastie side.

    The city wants Sullivan to combine his review of the Revere casino and East Boston horse stable demolition projects — filed separately on the theory that the stable work is unrelated to the casino, effectively denying Boston that basis to claim host community status.

    City lawyer Elizabeth Dello Russo calls Mohegan and Suffolk’s separated plans “inadequate and legally inappropriate,” citing regulations designed to prevent developers from segmenting projects to avoid environmental review thresholds.

    “The secretary should require the re-filing of appropriate documentation to allow for the necessary public and agency comment as required in order to avoid, minimize and mitigate damage to the environment,” Dello Russo writes, arguing the plans are connected because Suffolk would be Mohegan’s landlord and share in casino profits.

    Mohegan CEO Mitchell Etess countered in a statement, “Extensive research, community process and multiple studies clearly demonstrate that the project has no unmitigated measurable impacts. With that said we remain committed to working with the Commission and the City of Boston to answer any questions they may have as this project moves forward.”

    Boston’s comment letters on the Mohegan plan also say:

    • There was no alternative pitched to Boston for a Route 1A flyover road that was part of the Caesars casino plan in Eastie.

    • There needs to be further discussion of “odor impacts” from manure in proposed new barns on Suffolk Downs’ Boston side, to include “maximum storage durations for each pile” and estimates of “maximum odor generation potential on a peak summer day, in odor units per second.”

    •  City zoning relief would be required to allow for the “accessory keeping of animals” in the stables.

    The city’s letters were delivered Friday, a day after Mayor Martin J. Walsh appeared before the state Gaming Commission to argue that Boston should be host to Mohegan’s casino and its license competitor, Wynn Resorts in Everett, in part because the properties are accessed by Hub roads and transit assets. The city delivered similar comments last month on the Wynn proposal, finding wide-ranging fault with traffic counts, proposed road improvements, and contamination cleanup plans.


    http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/03/boston_seeks_do_over_on_casino_designs?utm_source=Copy+of+ML+14%2F03%2F24&utm_campaign=20140324ML&utm_medium=email




    Monday, January 27, 2014

    Casino doesn't show flip side of coin



    Letter: Casino doesn't show flip side of coin

    Jan. 24, 2014

    The Firekeeper’s Casino is proud to brag about the positive impact it has had on the community. It has provided many full and part-time jobs as well as funding to local schools … blah, blah, blah.

    However, what is less known is the negative impact the casino’s presence has had on the well-being of families due to the struggle with a family member’s gambling addiction.

    Where are the statistics for the increase in gambling addiction in our community? I have witnessed the destruction of this addiction first hand. I watched my grandmother transform from a proud, confident person who was always there for me into a desperate, empty shell.

    It is a family joke that we know where we can find her when she is not at home or answering her phone; a joke, in which no one is laughing. Family members have turned away from her one by one, tired of the arguments about overdrawn bank accounts, maxed out credit cards, and unpaid bills.

    Friends and neighbors have turned away from her as well, all tired of the inevitable begging for money to pay a bill or to go “one last time” as the big hit is just one pull of the slot machine away.

    The casino is quick to advertise the exuberant person who just won $20,000! But where is the advertisement with the desperate face of the gambling addict who just lost their last penny?

    Katie Wade
    Battle Creek



    http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20140125/OPINION03/301250002/Letter-Casino-doesn-t-show-flip-side-coin?nclick_check=1

    Wednesday, December 25, 2013

    Losing all common sense!


    http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2013/12/longmeadow_cites_independent_t.html


    PVPC has studied the casino proposals for over six years and has expertise on the matter of impacts. Finally, an independent study is used vs. the bogus self-serving "studies" commissioned by the gambling industry to aid their biased proposals. Mohegan Sun's self-study of the Palmer proposal basically stated, "no impacts here!" Either way, taxpayers are paying for the industry that isn't even... operational in Massachusetts. Are you aware of the "studies" paid by taxpayers to gambling companies and proponents like the state university system to provide biased reports to the legislature and Governor Patrick? Are you aware of the taxpayer money spent by the Lege and the Governor to push the special interest/favored Wampanoag native American casino forward with a "compact" while using taxpayers funds to have the Attorney General sue the Aqquinah tribe to stop their pursuit of a casino on posh Martha's Vineyard? How about the costs of defending the MGC chairman from lawsuits regarding his role in the removal of Caesar's from the Suffolk Downs proposal? We pay for all of it. But you won't find all those hidden costs listed on any state budget line item or clearly accessible on the state's Open (bwaaaaah) Checkbook.

    The MetroWest independent studies showed Foxwoods self-studies were fictitious. Milford had the good sense to vote, NO.

    The legislature and Governor failed the people of the commonwealth by deliberately NOT commissioning independent cost:benefit impacts studies. Instead, they wasted taxpayer money on insider/industry "studies."

    One might wonder why such a basic and critical analysis was avoided by lawmakers? Independent studies show that the net costs exceed potential benefits. And if they based their decisions on data......well, the insiders would not get a shot at corporate monopolies sucking the regional economies dry in order to for the billionaires to make more money. These are political and special interest proposals that will not improve or enhance the fiscal, employment, housing, environment or public health of the region. Only the developers and owners profit. The rest of us pay the price of the impacts.

    Repeal it! repealthecasinodeal.org
     
     

    Monday, December 9, 2013

    More on East Boston/Revere Bait & Switch


    from a resident of Massachusetts beyond Revere and Eastie who believes that
    all citizens of our state should be concerned and heard.

     Dear Sirs

    By what elastic stretch of imagination can you conclude that a positive vote...

    of BOTH communities was NOT required to authorize the permitting of a
    Casino at Suffolk Downs which would and will have an enormous impact on
    the residents of both East Boston and Revere?

    Is it not obvious that cramming the casino into Suffolk's "back lot" without
    access and without even the pretense of a traffic study or plan presents a
    greater, not lesser, impact on the people and businesses of East Boston?

    The rational for a Suffolk Downs Casino was ALWAYS based on the race
    track, the history of gaming there, and preservation of racing industry jobs.
    Any fool can see that the demolition of the barns and support buildings on
    the Revere portion of their property means, inevitably, the end of racing
    at Suffolk Downs. You may say that some employees will get jobs as
    cocktail waitresses and dealers at the casino but that is both unlikely and
    NO help to all the ancillary jobs in the horse business the casino supporters
    have talked about for decades.

    There was absolutely NO discussion or debate about this proposal prior to
    the vote and therefore no consideration of the certain death of horse racing
    in Massachusetts. Can you say how many residents of Revere voted yes
    to save their, or their neighbor's, current jobs at the track? is there any
    rational at all for your Commission to divine what the voters may, or may not,
    have thought about this radically different proposal had it been on the ballot?

    This proposed location may look the same as what was voted when seen
    from Springfield or even Brockton but certainly not when viewed from East
    Boston or Revere. Different players, different location, different impact on
    racing and jobs, different traffic problems, this is not even close to what the
    people voted on. This is akin to swearing in Dan Patrick as Governor after
    the people voted for Duval Patrick. After all they have the same initials.

    Well, I submit that is what this is, Suffolk Downs, East Boston and Suffolk
    Downs, Revere have no more in common. To say they do is to violate the
    reputation and endanger the trust in your commission.
     
    J Archer O'Reilly III
     
     
     

    Friday, December 6, 2013

    Thank you Foxborough!

    Foxborough set itself apart with FACTS, explaining to residents WHY Predatory Gambling made no sense, educating neighbors about the adverse affects of GAMBLING.

    Foxborough continues to set the tone.

    GAMBLING benefits only out-of-state investors.   





    Thank you, Foxboro selectmen!

    "FOXBORO - Selectmen have joined the grassroots effort to kick casinos and racinos out of Massachusetts before the gambling houses ever open."

    Posted: Thursday, December 5, 2013
    BY FRANK MORTIMER SUN CHRONICLE STAFF

    FOXBORO - Selectmen have joined the grassroots effort to kick casinos and racinos out of Massachusetts before the gambling houses ever open.Four of five selectmen polled Wednesday said they signed the statewide petition that seeks to give voters a chance in November to boot the casino law.

    And a fifth member, John Gray, said he agrees with the anti-casino petition drive and will sign it if more signatures are needed.

    "I don't think there's a long-term economic benefit to casinos, and I think there is a long-term detrimental effect to society," Gray said.

    The Repeal the Casino Deal campaign announced this week that the Secretary of State's office confirmed receiving more that the 68,911 certified signatures needed for the repeal referendum to proceed toward the 2014 ballot.

    The drive still needs to clear the Supreme Judicial Court.

    "I want voters to have a chance to vote on it, but my personal preference is to see it leave," selectmen Chairman Mark Sullivan said of the 2011 law, passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Deval Patrick, allowing three casinos and one racino in Massachusetts.

    "Gone is better," said Selectman James DeVellis, who signed the anti-casino petition, as did members Ginny Coppola and Lorraine Brue.

    Last week, selectmen agreed to notify State Rep. Jay Barrows, R-Mansfield, and State Sen. James Timilty of the board's viewpoint.

    A spokesman for the Secretary of State's Office said that if the Legislature, after receiving the petitions, refuses to repeal the casino law, the Repeal the Casino Deal campaign can gather another 11,485 signatures and put the repeal question before the voters next year, with or without the Legislature's blessing.

    Brian Ashmankas, campaign director for Repeal The Casino Deal and a Millbury selectman, said casino or racino proposals have already failed in about 20 towns and cities, while six town and cities have endorsed gambling proposals.

    Foxboro was among the first to say no. Two years ago this month, the board of selectmen voted 3 to 2 not to host a casino in Foxboro.

    http://www.thesunchronicle.com/news/local_news/foxboro-board-repeal-casino-deal/article_d449c84f-d254-54e1-9861-a32a328479db.html


    Our Children deserve better than a slot barn


    Testimony from a mother in Foxboro:

    Dear Gaming Commission,

    Our neighborhood in Foxboro is one mile away from Penn National’s proposed Plainridge Park Casino. As you know, research shows that communities within 10 miles of a casino will experience an increase in crime, drunk driving, and problem gambling and a significant loss in property value. ...

    As a parent raising two small children in this area, I have been inspired by this quote by Nelson Mandela: “There can be no keener revelation of a society's soul than the way in which it treats its children.”

    Please take a look at the population density of the area surrounding the proposed Plainrdige Park Casino and pay particular attention to the number of children that live in this area. Any positives that may come about due to jobs and revenue to the town of Plainville are far outweighed by the negatives and in particular the negative impact on children.

    The children in our area deserve much better than casinos.

    Tuesday, November 26, 2013

    Massachusetts Gaming Commission denies Sterling petition



    Massachusetts Gaming Commission denies Sterling petition
    Town argues that casino would affect traffic, police
    BY CHRISTINE SMITH
    STERLING CORRESPONDENT
     
    Town Administrator Terri Ackerman expressed surprise last week after Sterling’s petition to be designated as a “surrounding community” of a gaming facility proposed for a site on Jungle Road in Leominster was denied.

    The Massachusetts Gaming Commission unanimously voted to deny the town’s petition at its public meeting held in Boston on Nov. 21. At the same meeting, state officials also voted against the City of Fitchburg’s petition but granted the Town of Bolton’s.

    Elaine Driscoll, director of communications for the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, said that Sterling’s “surrounding community” status was denied due to a “lack of identified impacts.”

    Ackerman hesitated to make a full statement on the matter, but noted that she felt that the town had identified and documented a number of issues that Sterling officials believe would impact the town, which they had submitted to the state for review. She is currently seeking an explanation of the Commission’s decision.

    Without the designation as a “surrounding community” Sterling cannot seek arbitration at the state level, forcing The Cordish Companies, also known as PPE Casino Resorts MA, LLC, the company proposing the slot facility, to pay annual mitigation fees to the town for any impact that the facility will have on the town.

    It its petition to the state, the town had argued that the Sterling border’s onefourth mile proximity to the proposed slot facility on Jungle Road was significant and would mean additional traffic on town roads and place a strain on town emergency departments. However, Cordish stated that the location is on a dead-end street, with no access directly from Sterling.

    The Gaming Commission had reviewed the August study by the Massachusetts Regional Planning Council, which “raised significant concerns about traffic on Route 117 in Lancaster and Bolton,” with recommendations to review the impact on both of those towns. The study made no mention of roads in Sterling.

    An analysis conducted by consultants from Green International Affiliates, Inc., also reviewed by the Gaming Commission, said that traffic would most likely travel to and from the site on Interstate 190, rather than on Sterling’s town roads.

    Green International noted there would be about an annual 22.5% increase, or another 2.33 million, in vehicles coming from south of the site and traveling the six-mile portion of Route 190 located within Sterling on their way to the slot parlor. Based on numbers that currently use the highway and a yearly average of 33 accidents on this stretch of road, Green International estimated the potential crashes would increase by less than one per year as a result of the increase.

    Sterling officials had argued, however, that there would be negative impacts on Routes 12 and 62, as well as Chocksett and Pratts Junction roads, all of which service roads leading to the slot parlor and which are patrolled by officers of the Sterling Police Department. Town officials had also stated concern regarding Sterling’s responsibility in being first responders to accidents and incidents on I-190, which they feel will significantly increase as a result of the additional traffic flow.

    Other concerns regarding the facility included the potential increases in larcenies and other crimes, reduction of property values, and a need for expanded social service programs as a result of problem gambling.

    Ackerman had noted at the Board of Selectmen’s meeting on Nov. 20 that the town would continue to negotiate with Cordish, but that both parties have not reached common ground on “a lot of issues.”

    The town is hoping to reach an agreement with the company for some amount of annual mitigation directly from Cordish.

    Driscoll noted that a portion of revenues from the gaming facilities will be placed into a mitigation fund, which would be available for communities to tap into, “if impacts present themselves after licensing that were not originally anticipated.” She noted that towns could petition the state for these funds after preparing a clear analysis of impacts based on specific data.

    Cordish received approval from voters in Leominster earlier this fall for a 125,000 square foot facility to contain 1,250 slot machines, three restaurants, and a small entertainment venue. However, Cordish still has to wait until the beginning of January, when the Gaming Commission is expected to announce which of three proposed slot parlors will receive the single state license.

    The other two proposed slot parlors include locations in Raynham and Plainville.

    A public hearing on the issue will be hosted by the Gaming Commission at Leominster City Hall on Dec. 3 from 4-6 p.m.  [Another 'public hearing' at a time inconvenient for most of the public]


    http://www.thelandmark.com/news/2013-11-27/Sterling_News/Massachusetts_Gaming_Commission_denies_Sterling_pe.html

     
     
     

    Friday, November 22, 2013

    Impact studies find Baltimore casino could take 23 percent of Maryland Live's revenue



    Impact studies find Baltimore casino could take 23 percent of Maryland Live's revenue

    November 21, 2013

    The new Horseshoe Baltimore casino, slated to open next year, could begin to swipe more than one-fifth of Maryland Live's revenues as early as the 2016 fiscal year.

    The Hollywood Casino Perryville in Cecil County would take the second-largest revenue hit, around 19 percent, from the casino on Russell Street near M&T Bank Stadium, according to two studies commissioned by the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Agency to gauge the casino's potential impact.

    Littleton, Colo.-based Custom Consulting LLC and Arlington, Mass.-based Cummings Associates found that the state's two other casinos in Allegany and Worcester counties would see only a slight impact. Rocky Gap, in Allegany, should expect a 2 percent dip and Ocean Downs in Worcester should see a drop of 0.9 percent, Custom Consulting's report said.
    The $400 million, downtown Baltimore casino will be the state's second-largest, after Maryland Live.

    Even after a 23 percent drop in revenue, Maryland Live is expected to stay at the top in the state with $542.3 million in fiscal 2016. The Horseshoe is expected to generate an annual $454.4 million in revenue.

    Another casino set to open in 2016 in Prince George's county was not factored into the impact studies.



    Read more: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-baltimore-casino-20131121,0,7564235.story#ixzz2lQAzvu7k

    Tuesday, November 19, 2013

    'It just doesn't fit': Chamber CEO says gambling expansion would bust brand of Destin


    Gotta love it: family values, small business, high-skill, high-wage jobs, casinos: not economic development, not family friendly tourism.......



    'It just doesn't fit': Chamber CEO says gambling expansion would bust brand of Destin
    By Matt Algarin
    Published: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 at 12:48 PM.
    When it comes to expanding gaming in the state of Florida, the Destin Area Chamber of Commerce says it’s a bad deal.

    "We're opposed to it because of the social impacts," said Shane Moody, chamber president and CEO.

    "It would damage the brand that Destin has as a family friendly resort community."

    Moody, along with other business and community leaders from around the state, took part in a Senate Gaming Committee Workshop Nov. 14 in Pensacola. Speakers were in attendance to talk about a variety of topics such as the economic impact of expanding gaming, gambling and crime, and the family, community and social impacts. Moody was the only person to testify from Destin.

    The meeting essentially allowed committee members to garner input as they will soon consider possibilities of gaming in Florida, which can range from casino resorts to increased slot machines. An expiring pact with the Seminole Indian tribe must also be taken into consideration. While there are not specific projects on the books, communities in South Florida have shown a desire to offer slot machines and poker at dog tracks, as well as the construction of "resort casinos," such as the Seminole operated Hard Rock Hotel & Casino.

    The Destin chamber's board of directors passed a resolution opposing gambling back in 2011, and they still stand by that decision today.

    In his remarks to the committee, Moody said "our brand is families, family activities, family fun, and family values," which is the backbone of the tourism industry and other area businesses, as well.

    "We thrive on a small business economy," he said. "We thrive on one of the strongest education systems in the state... we thrive on community helping community, people helping people, and are able to achieve and improve a quality of life that is unparalleled."

    "All of this would be negatively affected by the expansion of casino gambling in Florida," he added.

    While expanding the gaming industry in Florida would create new jobs and add tax dollars to the state and community, the jobs created by casinos and such are not the high-skill, high-wage jobs the chamber is looking to bring to Destin.

    Moody told the committee that high-stakes casino gambling is linked to higher social costs, which includes the cost of crime, the cost of additional law enforcement, and the cost of gambling addiction.
    If casinos were to expand their reach into Destin, Moody said the impacts on small businesses would be tremendous.

    "Local business owners, many of whom have had family businesses for many years, will be forced out of business, destroying their personal futures and ability to live in and maintain a quality of place that we enjoy," he said. "Our education system and schools would decline, and not to mention the devastation to our history of charter boat fishing..."

    Statewide, Adam Giery from the Florida Chamber of Commerce told The Log that his organization first opposed the expansion of gaming 20 years ago.

    "Expansion of gaming would be detrimental to the Florida brand," he said. "We don't see gambling as a key piece of economic development."

    While the Destin Area Chamber of Commerce has taken on the expansion of gambling, representatives from the city of Destin haven't broached the subject, officially, since 1994 when a resolution opposing casino gambling was adopted by the city council.

    The resolution noted a "negative impact on family oriented tourism, which is the backbone of the state's tourism industry."

    Overall, Moody says that gambling doesn't have a home in Destin.

    "It just doesn't fit," he said.



    http://m.thedestinlog.com/news/it-just-doesn-t-fit-chamber-ceo-says-gambling-expansion-would-bust-brand-of-destin-1.236979

     

    Monday, November 11, 2013

    "A casino is not worth sacrificing our quality of life."


    This is a MUST 12 minute clip from the Citizens Forum held on October 30th.....

    Milford attorney and Finance Committee member David Morganelli recently explained why Milford has NO need for casino revenue.

     Per Morganelli, the $25 million promised by Foxwoods is not absolutely guaranteed because it is unsecured. He also stated that the Host Community Agreement has many flawed provisions.
    ...

    His closing comment, "A casino is not worth sacrificing our quality of life."

    This is a MUST share video!






    Monday, November 4, 2013

    Casino’s impact on children



    Villano: Casino’s impact on children

    Posted Nov 03, 2013

    I am writing today to express my concerns as a Milford parent of a young child. The effects of a casino build in our town are far reaching, but will affect no one more than the youth. I urge everyone to take a hard look at more than dollar signs when they vote Nov. 19.

    As the parent of a young daughter, I am deeply concerned about the impacts to public safety resulting from a casino, particularly the safety of our kids. A casino will be open 24 hours a day—not only increasing our daily traffic woes, but also potentially releasing drunk drivers on our roads at all hours.

    How safe will our kids be at the bus stop?

    Another casino impact that I believe should concern all parents is the impact to our public schools. Foxwoods says they will "improve" our schools, but that is not the case. Their plan is to simply pay for the costs of educating their casino workers’ kids who move into town and to pay for the state funding we will LOSE. Foxwoods says we can expect only 21 new students to be added to our schools, but I find that very hard to believe. If we allow the casino to be built, will our schools become overcrowded? How will that affect the quality of education in Milford?

    A casino is not the right choice for Milford. On behalf of our kids, please vote NO on Nov. 19!
    CATHERINE VILLANO
    Milford


    Read more: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/letters_to_the_editor/x1783713316/Villano-Casino-s-impact-on-children#ixzz2jjaEBBza
    Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial
    Follow us: @metrowestdaily on Twitter | MetroWestDailyNews on Facebook

    Saturday, November 2, 2013

    Why a Potential Casino in Holyoke is NOT a One-Act Issue

    This is so true of ANY community!

    "THEY" never go away!

    Protecting your community from Predatory Gambling and its adverse affects never diminishes.


    Why a Potential Casino in Holyoke is NOT a One-Act Issue-
    Both a casino development and the process to review casino plans eats up millions of dollars, people’s time, our public official’s time. Time that could be better spent, and should be spent in addressing the issues of education, safety, employment, housing, drug abuse and rehabilitation, healthcare, and productive types of development with long lasting benefits.

     Here’s how that happens and why casino development is somewhat unique in this:
    1. The very process of reviewing casino proposals is very costly. It needs to be very extensive, as these complexes are very large and come with many inherent negative issues. It requires a close look at issues of traffic, zoning, building codes, alcohol licensing, security, over sight of pot...
    ential illegal practices associate with gambling, and on and on. Many departments of a city and state government will be tied up for some length of time to get even close to an accurate assessment of a plan. And even then it is still hypothetical. This is why CFBH was concerned about a referendum vote that could open up the process of these unusually costly reviews, not because we wanted to silence voices. This casino review process has a reputation of so severely dividing a community, that even after the casino is gone, or the plan is denied, the division still lasts.
    2. Mitigation – is the process for reviewing the many, many known negatives associated with casinos including increased crime, increased substance abuse, decreased property values, increased traffic, etc, then deciding how to compensate for the destruction. The very fact that we have to create a paid Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and that mitigation for this industry is expected, should be a RED Flag for this “industry”. How time and cost effective is this… to bring in an industry that you know from the beginning has massive amounts of negatives in the first place?
    3. Casino developers have massive amounts of money to sink into propagandized marketing as compared to the budget of the towns they wish to develop in. So who do you think is going to win that war of persuasion and information? They can say anything, make any promises of potential jobs and revenue, and then when their promises don’t come true, they are not accountable as it is all hypothetical.
    Again, all this time and money could be used in reviewing and implementing a balanced type of development that doesn’t have all the common negatives associated with it , we wouldn’t waste time and money correcting the known problems it brings and the cost of continual oversight in watching over activity of a casino. We could be using that time and money to enhance our police and fire departments, school system, streets, healthcare, entertainment, and general quality of life.
    See More