.

Letter to the Editor: Jobs for Foxboro Issues Rebuttal to No Foxboro Casino Claims

Verifiable data refutes misleading allegations regarding Wynn Resorts DVD.

 

From Jobs for Foxboro:

Jobs for Foxboro (JFF) released a detailed rebuttal to misleading claims published on the NoFoxboroCasino.com website.

Exposing NoFoxboroCasino.com’s claims as wrong, the JFF rebuttal counters every claim, citing peer-reviewed, independent national studies and other widely available public information that demonstrates how the economic benefits of a destination resort casino far outweigh impacts.

“Widely available, independent, and verifiable evidence directly contradicts the nonsense that NoFoxboroCasino.com continues to publish,’” said Scott Farmelant, spokesman for Jobs for Foxboro. “Truth is, community after community across the United States have comfortably integrated destination resorts and reaped tremendous economic benefits and millions in new tax revenue in the process.”

NoFoxboroCasino.com’s recent “rebuttal” to the Wynn Resorts DVD and letter provided inaccurate data reportedly taken from the 2001 study by professors Earl Grinols and David Mustard. (http://129.3.20.41/eps/le/papers/0509/0509001.pdf.) Statistics cited by NoFoxboroCasino.com are not included in this Grinols and Mustard study. Nor are the cited statistics included in a 2006 study by Grinols and Mustard called “Casino, Crime and Community Costs.”

NoFoxboroCasino.com continues to make its claims based work by Grinols and Mustard that has been proven to incorporate flawed data. A 2008 study by economist Douglas Walker highlighted serious flaws in Grinols’ and Mustard’s 2006 study, such as selection bias and incomplete data.  

In addition to citing unsubstantiated percentage increases in crime from an unknown location, NoFoxboroCasino.com also cites and attributes a statistic to Boston Magazine regarding school rankings that was never published.

In the detailed, five-page rebuttal, Jobs for Foxboro noted more than 20 points, including:

  -A February 26, 2012 report by the Associated Press demonstrated that major crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft) fell by 35-percent and 25-percent in the Connecticut communities that host casinos.

  -The Town of Foxboro has more than $100 million in future obligations, including unfunded employee retirement liabilities and capital debt, undercutting any claim that Foxboro does not need new revenue sources.

-Voters in Iowa, who by law must vote on whether to approve or reject casinos every eight years, endorsed legal casino gaming in 2010 by an average of 78.5-percent, up from 74-percent in 2002. This fact undercuts claims that casinos are not widely accepted in communities where they are located.

 -The leading opponent of a casino recently developed in Pennsylvania, Rev. David Wickmann of the Moravian Church, admitted that predicted dire consequences related to crime never came to pass and that the casino had no impact on the community’s character. Reverend Wickmann is one of many former casino opponents who later declared they had been wrong about feared impacts.

Wynn Resorts will create 4,000 permanent jobs and thousands of additional jobs in construction and related businesses. The proposed resort would deliver amenities such as a five-diamond hotel, a convention center, a luxury spa, up to 10 fine dining establishments, a performance arts theater, and high-end retail shops.

About Jobs for Foxboro

Jobs for Foxboro supports the resort destination concept unveiled by Wynn Resorts. The organization is comprised of Foxboro residents and is committed to engaging the Town about the potential benefits and issues associated with a mixed-use destination convention hotel and casino. 

As a best-in-class operator of resort destinations, Wynn Resorts is capable of delivering thousands of sustainable jobs to the region and creating a lasting revenue stream for the town that provides a secure financial future for Foxboro.

By engaging in positive dialogue about the potential benefits and issues associated with the proposed development and gathering credible, verifiable third-party research regarding the impacts of destination resort casinos (such as the United States National Gambling Impact Study conducted by a panel of leading academics and experts under the direction on the President, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader), town residents will be best able to make an informed decision at a town-wide referendum.

 

JimD March 13, 2012 at 02:35 PM
Data can be interpreted in many different ways, depending upon what one wants to "prove". Each side can go on for years finding and quoting studies that support his/her own viewpoint. The bottom line is that a sizable portion of the local population does NOT want a casino, regardless of how it looks, regardless of the perceived harm or benefit, and for whom the quality of daily life will be diminished. For that very reason, Foxborough is the WRONG place for gaming. Why can't we pool our resources and work together to find a use that ALL can be happy with?
Steve March 13, 2012 at 03:57 PM
You are correct about the data. There is plenty of stats to make each sides case. You are also correct about there being a "sizable portion of the local population does NOT want a casino" what you neglect to mention is that there is also a sizable portion of the local population that DOES want a casino or at the very least hear a proper proposal. Perceived harms and benefits and diminished quality of daily life are subject to perception and the final project. Foxboro may well be the "wrong" place for gaming but we would need to see a complete proposal to make that determination. Our BOS members should realize that this is not a cut and dry proposition and let the town have its vote on the referendum. Since the revelation of a proposal has been made public the BOS has voted 3-2 in favor or hearing more details and the a week later 3-2 against, that is far from being a definitive statement to Mr. Kraft and Mr. Wynn and in no way reflective of how the town really feels.
Chris A March 13, 2012 at 04:42 PM
I totally agree Steve. I think some people are vastly underestimating the people who simply want to hear the full details. Not to mention some of these loud, vocal opposition people don't even reside in Foxboro. Just because people are wanting to hear more information it doesn't mean they're Pro-casino either. The BOS should stop the knee jerk reaction to the anti's who bombard them with e-mails and phone calls and step back and let the town hear the full proposal. It's amazing how so many people think they speak for the town majority.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 05:46 PM
The BOS originally voted 5-0 not to have gambling in Foxboro.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 05:54 PM
If you just want more information, get more information. Nobody is stopping you from getting information. But insisting we have a vote is foolish. What if you don’t like the proposal and vote no? If it passes, you are just are responsible for a casino being in Foxboro as everybody who votes yes. By insisting on having a vote, you are pushing the process forward to bringing gambling to Foxboro. When you have all the information you need, and then decide yes, then push the vote. Otherwise, you could end up with something you don’t even want.
Steve March 13, 2012 at 06:00 PM
FB if you actually read my comment i wrote "Since the revelation of a proposal has been made public", the 5-0 vote came with no proposal on the table.
Steve March 13, 2012 at 06:05 PM
If it comes to a vote and I vote no and this passes, so be it....democracy in action and if I vote yes and it doesn't pass, once again democracy in action. Remember it would take a 2/3rds vote to change the bylaw. If 2/3rds of Foxboro want this then it should get it. A vocal minority of Foxboro residents and area neighbors is NOT a referendum of what Foxboro wants.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 06:12 PM
You are what the people who really care about this issue are afraid of. You don't really care how it goes. You don't care how it will effect the Town. If it passes or not, so be it. And I bet you will be the first to complain when you are stuck in traffic for an hour trying to get home some Friday night while everybody getting out of work goes to the Casino. Or you will be the first to complain when your home is broken into by a gambling addict. I certainly hope you never have to complain because you or a loved one was hit by a drunk driver.
Chris A March 13, 2012 at 06:16 PM
Foxboro Born, Most of you anti's have never even been to one of Wynn's resorts. Wynn only deals in 5 star resorts. It's not fair to start assuming Foxboro is going to turn into a mini Atlantic City.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 06:18 PM
That's right. Larry Harrington knew about the casino, but the rest of us didn't. My bad.
Steve March 13, 2012 at 06:23 PM
What do you mean by "people who really care about this issue"? Do you mean the people that don't want it or the people that really want our town to benefit from the 10-15 million dollars? I assume you mean the people that don't want the casino because you are obviously only interested in what YOU want. I am an open minded individual that likes to make informed decisions, if that upsets you then maybe you should take a good long look in the mirror. I do care whether or not this gaming comes to Foxboro. I see the pluses and the minuses. I do have the ability to make an educated decision if afforded that chance. You can take your scare tactics and use them on someone else because I'm not buying any of them from you.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 06:25 PM
You are right, Chris. I have never been to one of Wynn's resorts. Just because a resort is nice, does not mean the thousands of people drinking the free beers aren't going to get into their cars and try to drive home. Just because the resort is nice doesn't mean that 5% of the population aren't going to get addicted to gambling and do desperate things because of their addiction. Just because the resort is nice isn't going to make the traffic, (and so noise pollution and air pollution) any less of a nightmare.
Steve March 13, 2012 at 06:34 PM
Wow, I"m surprised that there are people still alive in the state of Nevada what with all the drunk driving deaths caused by comped drinks at the casinos!!! They've been doing it for a hundred years at 24 hours a day, not the ONE EXTRA HOUR being proposed in MA....Enough with the scare tactics. Can't you just let the negative impacts stand on their own with out embelishing them??!! You look kinda foolish.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 06:48 PM
Wow. Has someone you known died because of a drunk driver? Maybe you wouldn't be so obnoxious if it had actually affected you.
Chris A March 13, 2012 at 07:00 PM
Where were you when they were handing out 13 liquor licenses at Patriot Place? That ship has long sailed.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 07:07 PM
You are right. The police are already over worked trying to keep up with all the problems at Patriot Place.
Steve March 13, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Yes, FB, I have known people that have died due to drunk driving and I know people that have been killed due to drunk driving. I tend to put the blame more on the drunk driver rather than on the the place where they were served. Call me silly but it is called responsibilty. Whether or not you are paying for your drinks or having them served to you at a christmas party or having them comped to you at a casino, you , the driver, are ultimatley responsible for your own actions. I'm am not overly concerned with the additional hour that the gaming commission is allowing. Other towns and cities already have this hour. I beleive the casino will actually act responsibly due to the lawsuits that have already set precedent here in MA.
JAS March 13, 2012 at 08:05 PM
Foolish?! What was foolish better yet, irresponsible was the BOS voting without seeing a proposal. Hoping to silence people is both unfair and undemocratic.
JAS March 13, 2012 at 08:09 PM
Steve could not have put it any better. Its about RESPONSIBILITY. Drunk driving accidents are not caused by casinos. They are caused because people make bad decisions and decide to get behind the wheel after drinking.
Deborah A Stewart March 13, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Foxboro Born, do you have a scanner and listen to it to see the number of calls at PP on any given weekend? Ummmm, I do not approve of drunk driving either, but where was your outrage when a local bar...very close to the Police Station was charged with several violations due to drunk drivers identifying them as the last place they had a drink? Did you attend the BoS mtg to share your concerns? Because this establishment over served several times should they have been shut down permanently? I agree with JAS here it is about responsibility.....personal responsibility. Your posts don't hold water, sorry. Let's get a vote so all can have their say and put this to rest one way or the other.
Foxboro Born March 13, 2012 at 09:05 PM
I don't think having gambling on Route 1 is going to solve the problem of drunks driving after leaving Waxy's.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »