Selectmen Vote 3-2 Against Being Foxborough Casino Host
The motion by Selectman Lorraine Brue was to send a letter to Governor Patrick, the state gaming commission, Robert Kraft and Steve Wynn stating the town doesn't know what to be a casino host town.
With cheers from hundreds in attendance, the Foxborough Selectmen voted 3 -2 Tuesday night to send a letter to Governor Deval Patrick, the state gaming commission and to the Robert Kraft and Steve Wynn organizations stating Foxborough doesn't wish to be considered as a casino host.
Selectman Lorraine Brue put the motion on the table to write the letter stating that the town is not interested being host to a casino. Selectmen James J. DeVellis quickly seconded the motion. Mark S. Sullivan cast the other vote, supporting sending the letter. Larry Harrington and Lynda A. Walsh cast the no votes.
As the vote is non-binding, it doesn't end the possiblity of a casino being built in Foxborough. The Kraft and Wynn organizations can still present their proposed plan.
The meeting at Foxborough High School was attended by a plethora of media outlets and approximately 700 people, from Foxborough and surrounding communities, many of whom reacted emotionally to the possibility of a casino coming into the region.
The casino is proposed across the street from Gilette Stadium on Route 1 on property owned by Kraft and would be developed by Wynn, a Las Vegas casino owner and developer.
The selectmen removed an item from the agenda in order to allow for a one hour public input session.
The majority of the statements made at the selectmen's meeting were warning the board against how a casino would change the character of the town and lower property values.
During public comment, Chair of the Board of Selectmen Larry Harrington banged his gavel and asked an emotional audience, “to please be respectful,” several times throughout the evening.
At the end of public comment when Harrington wanted to move on in the agenda, Foxborough resident Helen Kotowsky Merigan wanted to speak. Harrington warned her that the Chief of Police Edward O'Leary would remove her if she did not leave. After the crowd asked her to let her speak, Harrington allowed the five left in line to the podium to have one minute each to speak.
Merigan said “outsiders” would not care for the community they way residents do. She said, referring to Kraft and Wynn, “Two great white sharks are circling Foxborough.”
She said property values would decrease as the town budget increased. As Merigan went over her time and continued to speak, O’Leary asked her to step down.
Resident Andy Stone said, “Financial gambling is what got us into this why do we think it will get us out? Gambling is not recession proof.”
He noted that Atlantic City casinos are cutting their wages by 40 percent.
Walpole selectman Nancy Mackenzie said, “I have a huge concern about the negative impact a casino will bring to Walpole.
“We have all chosen to raise our families in suburban New England. A casino will change the character of all of our towns.”
Mackenzie asked them to consider what it will do not just to Foxborough but to the surrounding communities as well.
Harrington said he had never seen a more emotional topic in his 18 years serving the public of Foxoborough. He said he has received “hundreds of e-mails.” Many of those e-mails he said asked why the selectmen previously voted 5-0 in opposition of a casino in Foxborough and were now discussing the idea.
Harrington said some have accused him of being swayed by Wynn and Kraft with lure of a new position in one of the companies.
“No one from Kraft or Wynn has pressured me. I have a fantastic job and hope to keep until I retire. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
Harrington said that the selectmen should listen to the casino proposal and those against it should not intimidate those who are open to the idea.
In his statement DeVellis said, “If we have an opportunity to end it tonight that’s what we should do”.
Sullivan said the pressure, constant phone calls and e-mails, “ruined my Christmas.”
“I put my phone in the garage,” he added. Sullivan said he was so upset with how the community became divided over the issue he went to Robert Kraft’s office and asked him to remove his proposal.
“It’s tearing my community apart,” he said.
Dave
10:41 am on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Isn't it telling that after 8000 letters were mailed to Foxboro residents, after all the late night phone calls and the unsolicited knocks on the door by underpaid teenagers from the PR firm, Wynn's marketing machine only managed maybe 100 people in favor to show up at the meeting last night? Out of 700 people I'm comfortable estimating at least 600 were opposed. It was overwhelming,ly against, again. Even Harrington admitted most of the emails he receives are against, with the rest wanting to "hear the proposal"......The other board members indicated they are overwhelmingly receiving calls and emails against this proposal, and have not had 1 person say they actually want it, just a few saying they want to hear more. There really isn't anything to hear. You either want a casino in Foxboro, chaning the town forever or you don't......Kraft and Wynn have already said their piece, the casino will bring lots of jobs and money....What else do we need to hear?
The town overwhelmingly rejected gambling in 2004 and went further to make it ILLEGAL anywhere in Foxboro. The town has already done exhaustive studies in the past and found gambling not a good fit for Foxboro.......Respect the voters and previous studies and let this issue die. This board will not negotiate with Kraft and Wynn and nothing but their support can truly start the process. The Casino bill specifically states that an application can't move forward without an agreement between town and petitioner (Wynn).
jenny
6:23 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
I wrote to ALL of the Selectmen in Foxboro and only one replied: Selectman Harrington. He was more than responsive to my many concerns and although I sent all my emails/replies to every one of the Selectmen, he replied to me privately; he alerted me to the fact that the Plainville Racettrack (down the street from Patriot Place) was being looked at for a possible Racino too. I thanked him immensely and if the vote went the other way was planning on getting this info. out in a public way- I'm not sure whether a Selectman can talk about rival gambling entities. Also, I think Selectman Sullivan did the right thing based upon how this subject is tearing neighbors, church memebers apart- the Projobs Chairman claims he was spat at at Church! I mean what further evidence do people need that this community will get ugly if more talk continues.
jenny
7:39 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Also, I am going to suggest that ALL of the schools' PTOs should strongly encourage parents to INSIST that ANY soliciting done by contracted people on behalf of Kraft-Wynn have CORI checks! To send random, low paid men (I've only seen men) come to families' doors , as well as targeting the elderly, is very scary. What an easy way to scope out homes and children.
Dennis Naughton
10:45 am on Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Thank you Lorraine Brue, Jim DeVellis and Mark Sullivan for your votes against a casino in Foxborough.
Michael Chang
10:32 am on Thursday, December 29, 2011
@Dave, While people may have voted against it in the past, the economic climate has changed. Even though the town is doing better fiscally, from 2.1 million in debt down to 723,000, the town is still in pretty massive debt. There is also no way of predicting the economic climate of the future. The loudest have taken this opportunity away from the people who may want it. If everyone is so confident that the voters are against it, what is the harm with a vote where everyone gets a say?
Buck Farack
1:50 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Michael, then shame on the people who may want it for not standing up for themselves. Why is it so hard to understand that most people just don't want this under any circumstancse and there just aren't any major pro casino or even pro proposal forces in town (there are plenty of pro out of towners, but not townfolk)
Dennis Naughton
12:33 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Michael- As Selecmen Jim DeVellis explained so well at the meeting this past Tuesday, Foxborough's town government is based upon republican principles, that is, people elect people to represent them. That is what the Board of Selectmen is-the elected representaives of the townspeople.. The "harm" is that to begin submitting this issue and that issue to a popular referrendum subverts the established system of government. When one starts down this road, it becomes a slippery slope. If you are referring to a popular vote within the context of the new casino law, that is a different thing. In either case, however, there are always lessons to be recalled by reading Madison's #10 of the Federalist Papers regarding the problem of factions and human passions. That is the very reason the Founding Fathers advocated for a representative system of government--to minimze their effect.
Steve
1:12 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Dennis, historically Foxboro has always put "major" issues to a town vote. Can you think of any large projects that the public has been excluded from voting on?? I can't. I think a potential 10-15 million dollar a year business is a "major" issue. I don't think this will pass but it is wrong, and setting a bad precedent, to not at least see a proposal before shooting it down. I understand how people with moral objections to gambling will disagree with me but from a “business” point of view there is no argument. Especially now that we know that our legal fees will be paid for by the applicant.
Buck Farack
1:35 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Steve, those major projects were ones that the town government saw as positive and also most likely heard more positive than negative comments from their constituents. I think one of the mistakes you and a few others on the pro casino/hear the proposal side are making is assuming that much of the opposition is on moral grounds. Most of the opposition I hear is from people who don't care if a person wants to gamble as long as it's not in their own back yard. There's plenty of precedent to indicate that increased traffic, crime and other social ills will follow a casino and that the area will be changed dramatically as a result. We don't care if other areas want gambling for their towns, more power to them if they do. From a purely "business" point of view many of us believe it's a losing proposition which goes beyond the amount of revenue generated by the town. There's a REASON they're promising that much money to the town, it's because they know a casino will strain local law enforcement & government services. Finally, from a "business" standpoint many of us simply do not believe that casino gambling the answer to long term, positive economic growth for an area.
Michael Chang
1:49 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
@Dennis, While I understand every item cannot be put to a vote, the gambling legislation clearly states that a referendum was the method to decide on the approval of a casino in the host town. So, by what you are saying, having a representative form of government, our representatives as a state have made the decision that this is how gambling institutions will be located. So you support a representative form of government when it benefits your cause, but not when it is against it?
Buck Farack
2:07 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Michael, you really need to read the legislation. You state: "...the gambling legislation clearly states that a referendum was the method to decide on the approval of a casino in the host town" That is absolutely not true. The legislation says that in order to grant a gaming license one of the requirements is that town must vote in favor of the proposal. It says nothing about a referendum being the method for a town to decide if wants a casino. There is no requirement that a town vote on the issue unless the town has decided it wants to move forward with a casino - in this case clearly it has not. There's no right or requirement anywhere for an applicant to be guanranteed a town vote simply because they want to be considered by a town as a venue.
Steve
2:25 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Sorry Buck not buying it. We put “major” projects up for a vote of the public because it is the right thing to do. These issues are too important for a board of five members that change there votes from week to week. Could you think of any major project done in this town where a public vote was not taken? I really can’t. I know the idea of a new town hall being built without a vote from the public was brought up by Ms.Brue. I would be so upset if anything like this occurs. There is no need for it. We have at least two town meetings a year and important issues like this casino deal or a new town hall should be put in front of the voters. If the town is so against this casino, like you claim, it will go down in flames and that will be that and there will be no casino. What are you afraid of??
Fed up
1:04 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
One problem with this comment, Dennis, those elected officials must represent the people, not just 500 or so with loud voices.
Buck Farack
1:47 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Fed up, they represent the people as they determine to be in the best interests of the Town/constituency. They're under no obligation to go along with public opinion although anyone who can't see that there's no way on earth this thing will get a 2/3 vote in favor under any circumstance is delusional. I predict Wynn & Kraft will soon realize the 2/3 vote will never happen regardless of what proposal they put forth or not and they'll move on. They may wait as long as the May election but I'd be amazed if Harrington held his seat (unless he's unopposed, which I don't know). Say what you want about loud voices, they're mobilized, motivated voices and they'll get their vote out. I'm not convinced the pro side is anywhere near as passionate nor will turn out in great numbers.
Chris
1:21 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Dennis,
The problem is our system isn't always perfect. While legally the selectman do have the power to vote against a casino "application" and put a halt to it once in for all, I don't believe people go to the poles with the intent of electing selectman to have sole say on $1 billion decisions for a town of 16,000 people. This isn't a everyday routine decision like whether to euthanize an out-of-control dog. I think selectman need to remember that and show some respect for the voters. This is much bigger than them. I'm neither "pro" or "anti" casino, but I think many residents want to see exactly the proposal is before making decisions. The loud "anti" group may not be the majority...but the selectman may never let us know.
Jacob
2:32 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Well put my friend. $1billion is too big for 5 people to decide. A prop 2 1/2 to raise a budget even $10 millionfor a school or public safety project would call for a town wide vote.
Fed up
1:54 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Buck, or is it Paul? Is this the "seat" you want back?
Buck Farack
2:19 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Fed up, you sound like a real smart fella but you're wrong on this one ; )
Buck Farack
3:05 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Fed up, good question. It was just the impression I got from the manner in which you post.
Fed up
2:30 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Buck, what makes you think I'm a "fella"?
Michael Chang
2:41 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
@Buck, you actually may want to reread the legislation, considering I pulled this directly from the State House website.
(13) have received a certified and binding vote on a ballot question at an election in the host community, in favor of such license; provided, however that the vote shall take place after the effective date of this chapter; provided further that upon receipt of a request for an election, the governing body of the municipality shall call for the election to be held not less than 35 days but not more than 90 days from the date that the request was received;
If you dont believe me here is the link:
http://malegislature.gov/Bills/187/House/H03702
Look in Section 15(13)
Buck Farack
3:02 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Michael, I read the legislation... there's nothing in it that says a town HAS to vote on it or that it is the method the town must use to determine if they want a casino. It's a necessary step IF the town decides it wants to proceed with a casino but it's not a requirement if they don't ; )
Moe
2:55 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Read sections above that in chronological order where it states that the first step is to negotiate a "HOST COMMUNITY AGREEMENT" with the Governmental Body (Board of Selectmen)....
Follow along: 1.) Reach an agreement with the BOS 2.) Go to a vote of the town 3.) Get State approval
Kraft / Wynn sent a letter to the BOS to request they begin Step 1. The BOS voted the other night to say that they choose not to enter into a Host Community Agreement....In simple words. They voted that they will not start Step 1, which means that you can't just jump to step 2.
The process that the legislature laid out is exactly what is happening here.
Buck Farack
3:03 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Thanks Moe
Moe
3:05 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
We really should vote on things this big.
Remember when we all went to the polls and voted on the Casino bill that we are talking about?
Oh wait, our elected Representatives did that.
Remember when we all went to the polls and voted on the Patriot Place development?
Oh wait, our elected Representatives did that (We voted on a Liquor Lic.package)
The legislature thought about this process and debated it and they passed a law that first requires the Board of Selectmen or City Council or Town Council or Whatever come to an agreement first with the Casino Developer. Our board voted as they are obligated to do as our elected representatives. It was 3 - 2 against entering into discussions. Pretty simple I think.
Why did we not hear abrout process when the board voted 3-2 to continue the process with the developer?
Michael Chang
3:10 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Well what moe said speaks to my post, the Selectmen have changed their mind in the past. Who knows what could happen once a formal proposal has been submitted.
Michael Chang
3:07 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
The selectmen are free to change their opinion on this. The legislation states the timelines apply only after a formal proposal has been submitted. The selectmen have 90 days to make their final decision after the proposal is formally introduced. So until the bill is introduced all of the votes that have happened so far are moot. Hopefully some of the selectmen who have come out against this will realize that a project with potentially millions of dollars in revenue deserves a vote from the full town.
Moe
3:18 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Correct Michael. Boards are free to change their mind at any time and take votes. Which is why this will play out during the annual election this year. No doubt, Kraft and Wynn's consultants will be busy on blogs and coffee shops to influence the election.
The 90 days is actually the time they have to schedule a Referendum vote of the town after a "request for election" is made. But as was pointed out before, it cannot go to a referendum until there is an executed Host Community Agreement which again, is negotiated with the Board of Selectmen. The majority of the board voted to inform the potential developer that they choose not to negotiate that agreement. So it is dead. no way around that.
Unless of course the board takes another vote and a majority choose to begin negotiating a Host Community Agreement. They are definitely not obligated under law to do that though.
Buck Farack
11:00 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
Michael, I'm not sure what you mean by "So until the bill is introduced..." With the recent vote and the current bylaws in effect Wynn cannot apply for a gaming license or do much of anything else. IF the BOS changes their mind (that's a big IF) then they can start the process. If that process ultimately leads to an agreement by the town to a proposal by Wynn, then a vote would be required. Moe is right, this will play out in the election this year assuming someone runs against the one pro-casino selectman and the one anti casino selectman who are up for re-election. Basically, two pro casino candidates would need to win in order for there to be any change. Given the current environment I think that's a long shot at best. I'm sure the Wynn group will do what it can to support the pro casino candidates but their bungling of the PR battle so far doesn't really cause much worry, in fact I think any candidate perceived to be supported by outside interests will be soundly defeated. The anti casino folks are angry & motivated; make no mistake, they'll show up at the polls in numbers. The supposed "silent majority" we keep hearing about but which hasn't materialized anywhere just won't get the numbers out in a mid-term type election.
Janet Kennedy
7:01 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
It is my feeling that I would like to hear what Mr. Kraft and Mr Wynn have to say. Stop worrying about keeping the old character of foxboro alive. The old old selectmen blow that when they didn't let Michael Jackson play. That is why Mr Kraft was able to buy the team. How come no one complains about the Country Music Fair. Also Foxboro had a racetrack and you know they did gamble plus you have the lottery at the stores . Also the Schools have fairs plus the church's do also. Also one person doesn't speak for foxboro. Let us hear about the casino. With no money coming no Town Hall
Monica Staaf
1:10 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Who is stopping you from hearing more about the casino? Bob Kraft & Steven Wynn have already spent money on mailings, media advertising, including their informercial on Foxboro Cable Access, in which they promised thousandas of jobs, public relations, door-to-door campaigns, pro casino signs, etc.
They have space and funds to host their own forum, hire their own lobbyists to override the town on Beacon HIll, make independent expenditures to lnfluence the outcome of the selectmen's race in May, You'll hear plenty about the casino; perhaps they'll even include some data next time to back up their promises.
angelfox
11:50 pm on Thursday, December 29, 2011
Where is the outrage that you were not invited to the Kraft/Wynn meet & greet back in December?. They only chose a select # of Foxboro elite to join them. You are mad at the selectmen? Blaming others for being more vocal? Pathetic! No body asked for the town's opinion back in Dec. Oh, But now because casino plan A did not go so well.. on to plan B(a trap to pit town folk against one another). No one's rights were violated it was a non binding vote! These selectmen were given an impossible job and can only be vilified by this huge mess. Please place your blame on Kraft/Wynn for going about the casino plan all wrong from the start!
Dave
10:34 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
Well said angelfox. If this whole proposal is "so good" for the town, why is it being met with such outrage by the majority? Remember Foxboro, this casino is FOREVER. You can't go back. No one in their right minds wants a Casino in their own town.
Michael Chang
11:47 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
@ Buck, I used the wrong words when I said once the bill is introduced, I meant the formal proposal is introduced to the town. If the proposal answers the towns concerns of increased traffic and crime, the amount of expected revenue, as well as the mitigation process that could come to Foxboro (power and water issues just to name a few) some of the selectmen might just change their mind.
Buck Farack
2:16 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Michael, thanks for the clarification. I think the only way the selectmen change their mind at this point is if there are new selectmen elected in May. We'll see.
Michael Chang
11:50 am on Friday, December 30, 2011
@Dave arent their like 10,000 registered voters in Foxboro? I dont know about you but I havent seen over 5,000 voters at any of these meetings. The "majority" that you speak of, even at the highest numbers I have read, is 600 people at the meetings, and I think thats a bit high. The real majority of voters in Foxboro havnent put out their opinion one way or another. Hopefully the selectmen realize this and give the people a chance to decide
Buck Farack
7:10 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Michael, even during a presidential election you're lucky to get 50% turnout. When one side shows up 6-7 to 1 and when the selectmen report an overwhelming constituent email/telephone response against the casino, when social media and traditional media bear out those numbers, when every board in town is against it one doesn't need a town vote to know that 2/3 is never going to happen. You don't put a town through this ordeal to satisfy the few who aren't happy about it.
Janet Kennedy
2:38 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Monica calm downand angelfox calm down also. I want to see the plans and see what they might offer . We needed the facts. Plus the ones that went to the meeting have lived in foxboro for years. I am just annoyed at some people who think they speak for everyone in foxboro.
angelfox
3:27 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Janet stop being apathetic. There is a lot to be annoyed and worried about regarding this topic. You want your opinion heard. Join the club.
Mike
5:03 pm on Friday, December 30, 2011
Mr. Kraft is an honorable man. He said he would not pursue the casino if the town did not want it. He will stand by his word.
Dave
1:13 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
town Manager Kevin Paicos calls on Kraft and Wynn to drop casino plans calling a further push 'Outrageous'
http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/12/31/news/10730060.txt
Chris
9:33 pm on Saturday, December 31, 2011
What's "outrageous" is Kevin Paicos asking for a raise and bonus after telling town employees no raises or new hires.
Jeanne Dyer
1:20 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
It saddens me to see reports of increasing polarization in Foxboro given that each side is driven by the same instincts. One side cries for tax relief and is desperate for jobs to restore their quality of life while the other fears loss of a lifetime investment in property value and maintaining the quality of life here in Foxboro. Can't we see a way clear to help each other? That's what community means to me. What are the No Casino folks doing to help that valued minority of underwater and out-of-work neighbors? What are the Pro-Casino folks doing to protect the community from the harmful side effects of a short-term decision with long-term consequences? A Sophie's choice: one side fears risking the future while the other side is worried about making it to that future. The most polarized citizens need to take a moment to live in the other guy's shoes. His concerns could just as easily be theirs one day. The quality of life in this town is not only determined by outside forces. I submit that how we treat each other is far more central.
Buck Farack
5:17 pm on Sunday, January 1, 2012
Jeanne, while I applaud your sentiment there's nothing the no casino crowd really can do to help the underwater out of work neighbors - they're busy enough making their own lives, paying taxes ect. There's absolutely nothing the underwater out of work neighbors can do to protect the community from the harmful side effects of a casino because the have no control over them, the side effects will come regardless.