Foxborough Selectmen Want a Casino Meeting

The Foxborough Selectmen are expected to have a meeting on the Wynn Resorts' Casino.

(Updated March 18)

The Foxborough Board of Selectmen will be looking to hold another forum at the high school on the Wynn Resorts plan to build a casino on Route 1 on land owned by Robert Kraft.

Chairman Lawrence Harrington wanted to hear from resident Marc Todd, who wrote a letter to the board asking them to look into forming a negotiation team to be prepared for the casino project to go forward, but was advised by town manager Kevin Paicos not to continue the discussion because it wasn't on the agenda and was a violation of the opening meeting law.

Todd has expressed his opposition to the casino. (His letter to the board of the selection is on Foxborough Patch.)

"We need to be more of the leaders that we were voted in to be," said selectman Lynda A. Walsh. "(We have) to prepare ourselves for what is coming down the road."

Harrington wanted to allow Todd to speak at Tuesday's selectmen's meeting, but was advised by town manager Kevin Paicos not to continue the discussion because it wasn't on the agenda and was a violation of the opening meeting law.

Harrington said he also received a letter from Stephanie Crimmins of Say No to Foxborough Casino group.

Foxboro Born March 14, 2012 at 01:46 PM
Larry Harrington is going to force this casino on the people of Foxboro, then he's going to move permanently to his vacation house in Hawaii.
Dave March 14, 2012 at 01:49 PM
So the 3-2 note in December really did mean nothing? I thought the board decided no. The elections in May can determine which way the town wants to go. If anti-casino candidates win the board can stop the project from ever advancing, if pro-casino candidates win that is the time to form a negotiating committee. This latest action is in direct contradiction to the December 3-2 NO vote. This isn't leadership, it is chaos.
Foxboro Born March 14, 2012 at 02:09 PM
I think Steve Crosby, the Gaming Commission, should investigate Larry Harrington.
JAS March 14, 2012 at 02:28 PM
The 3-2 vote against and the 3-2 vote in support were both uneccessary and unbinding. Residents know this plan is moving forward and I am sure they want to know more. They probably have dozens of questions after seeing Wynn release the design 2 weeks ago. Sure we only saw the design and some proposal hints, but having a vote now is more responsible then the votes before when they didnt even know what the resort casino was going to look like.
Buck Farack March 14, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Harrington, Wynn et al must be getting desperate because they realize Harrington doesn't have a prayer at re-election.
Foxboro Born March 14, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Yes, the sales pitch will continue. And anyone who wants more information can get it. Doesn't mean the town has to help promote the casino at their own expense.
Steve March 14, 2012 at 04:47 PM
If you have some sort of evidence that Mr. Harrington has broken any rules or laws, you should man up and file a compliaint with the proper authorities, if not stop speading lies. And I thought the anti-casino group considered themselves the "moral" group.
Foxboro Born March 14, 2012 at 05:35 PM
Selectmen Chairman Larry Harrington learned of the Kraft Group's interest in a resort casino on Route 1 as long ago as a private meeting with New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft in early August. Harrington, who has increasingly fought for public consideration of a Wynn Resorts casino project proposed on Kraft-owned land, never disclosed that meeting to the public. http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2012/01/07/foxboro/10758087.txt
Deborah A Stewart March 14, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Foxboro Born, you must be a very close BFF to Mr Harrington. You seem to have so much information regarding his personal life, his professional life etc. Gee, feel free to ask someone in Boston to investigate and while you are at it add Lorraine Brue and Kevin Pacios to the list and what about the No Fox Vegas site! Ummm are they a non profit yet? JUst wondering. Anyway, go for it, while you hide behind your pseudo name. FB could mean so many different things.
Warrior March 14, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Trying to establish a committee to negotiate with Wynn when your board voted not to negotiate with Wynn is not being a leader, it is being a weasel. Here’s an idea, Lynda Walsh. Why don’t your honor the decision of your Board?
Chris A March 14, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Foxboro Born, Did you read your own link? The meeting was initiated by the Kraft group to discuss water/sewer and general office park developments. The anti's are trying to spin this into more than what it really is. ---------------------------- "I invited Kevin and Larry to a meeting in August to discuss water and sewer and a general update on the status of the office park development," Murphy said. "The discussion turned to other development options because water is a lynchpin of that. The town manager asked the Krafts directly if they had been approached by gaming interests because he had been.
Foxboro Born March 14, 2012 at 06:06 PM
There is no spin. He knew about the casino from a meeting with Kraft and didn't tell anyone. What else does he know?
Bill March 14, 2012 at 06:17 PM
I hope Capolla gets in. She's been a state rep so she knows how to deal with Beacon Hill. Otherwise, we are in trouble.
Dave March 14, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Mr Todd wrote a strong letter in December urging the BOS to vote to tell Kraft and Wynn the town was not interested. His latest letter is in direct contradiction to what he urged the Board to do. I don't understand it. The May election should determine next steps, acting now is premature and dangerous. You can read Mr Todd's original letter here, dated Dec 22. http://nofoxborocasino.com/lettersstatements/
JAS March 14, 2012 at 07:03 PM
I think it's smart. He knows that Wynn wants to move forward and the townwide vote probably will too. Foxboro might as well start now and be prepared. If this does go through, Foxboro needs to make sure they are getting the most out of Wynn.
JAS March 14, 2012 at 07:05 PM
The casino is the big elephant in the room every meeting. They must address it for the sanity of all.
Warrior March 14, 2012 at 07:28 PM
Why is Harrington doing this if it is a violation of the open meeting law?
Buck Farack March 14, 2012 at 08:28 PM
No JAS, it's self serving. "Foxboro might as well start now"? Not so fast, the BOS hasn't agreed to enter negotiations so setting up comittees is completely inappropriate. You don't do somthing like this because you "might as well start now". The May election will tell everyone what they need to know. Everyone will have their vote count, if they elect two pro casino Selectmen then they'll overturn the December vote and proceed with negotiations. If they elect two anti-casino selectmen then this thing gets put to bed for good and Wynn can't apply for a license with the current bylaws in effect. What's happening here is completely underhanded but I think Wynn & Harrington know he's not going to be re-elected so this is their only play. Remember Wynn's quote in Sunday's Globe: "If we get by the voters in Foxboro..."? In the end I expect the Selectmen will reaffirm the 3-2 vote and Harrington will be done for good.
Dave March 14, 2012 at 08:38 PM
Exactly and well stated Buck. This is nothing but a shortcut attempt to circumvent May's elections. Why wait for the elections and lose if Harrington can muscle through a committee now? It is more crap being unleashed on the town and community by 1 selectmen with a clear agenda to move the casino process forward. The May elections should determine the next steps, anything prior to that is wrong. The Dec vote is being completely ignored if they start forming committees and begin negotiating.
JAS March 14, 2012 at 08:56 PM
I know they have not agreed to enter into negotiations, but we all know that one member on the BOS is prone to switching votes. That could easily happen again. The BOS had 0 clue what the casino was going to look like when they voted. Sullivan basically switched his vote last second to appease the barrage he was taking from a not-so-polite opposition in attendance. It's not a big shiny, flashy 40 story building. The design and renderings are much different than many expected. I know the pro side has many resources on their side, but I've been hearing more factual arguments on the pro side than on the opposition lately. Who knows if that effects Sullivan?
Buck Farack March 14, 2012 at 10:25 PM
JAS, IF that happens again you begin the process, not now. The Sullivan argument is absurd. If the BOS decides it wants to hear the proposal then the clock starts and they can set up committees, fact finding etc. There's all the time in the world. The election is a month and a half away. This is nothing less less that Harrington trying to make an end run on the BOS and ram something through now because he knows he's out in May. I'm sure he has his reasons.
Buck Farack March 14, 2012 at 11:46 PM
JAS, f"actual" arguments from the pro side? You wouldn't be talking about the rebuttal from the Wynn Group that started with: "There is no evidence directly linking casinos to negative side effects. Independent studies show that changes in crime, bankruptcy and other outcomes..."? That's laughable and completely invalidates the rest of their bogus info. Here's a link to the April 1994 Congressional hearings where the CEO's of the 7 top tobacco companies swore under oath in front of Congress that tobacco is not addivctive: http://www.jeffreywigand.com/7ceos.php What would mitigation payments promised by Wynn be for if there are no negative side effects? It's fine if you want to say the revenues and jobs outweigh the negative side effects but to blow smoke up everyone's butts and deny what every person on the planet knows to be true? Please...
Buck Farack March 15, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Care to re-think the Sullivan argument JAS? http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2012/03/15/news/11177722.txt Lol
JAS March 15, 2012 at 01:51 PM
Haha that was awkward timing
JAS March 15, 2012 at 01:59 PM
What would Harrington get out of ramming this through? You are assuming he has reasons (and are wrong) but I do not see some personal satisfaction from Larry or a last hurrah trying to get this through. He's weighing opinions from his constituents and making informed decisions. Marc Todd is against a casino. Larry happens to think he makes a good point and so do I.
JAS March 15, 2012 at 02:05 PM
There are negative side effects and everyone should weigh negative effects to the positive ones.Im just saying that many of the negative facts are coming from sources that are bushleague or biased. Grinols and Mustard study ignores many key factors. Not to mention they are apart of the Christian economists. A bias against gambling???? NOOOOOOOOO
JimD March 15, 2012 at 02:54 PM
Perhaps we as a town should have been more proactive in attracting a desirable business to that parcel. Most people seem to agree that the biotech park idea is a good one but when it was first proposed, nobody jumped up and down singing its praises. I really wish we could get a do-over on that one.
Buck Farack March 15, 2012 at 03:10 PM
JAS, of course Harrington has reasons otherwise he wouldn't be doing it. I don't know what his reasons are and won't offer my opinion here but everything is done for a reason. These aren't casual steps he's taking. I am glad you agree that there are negative side effects, the whole premise that there aren't stated in the rebuttal is insulting to the intelligence. I'd respect them more if they were up front about it, even some of it. Them trying to convince us that there are no negative side effects makes me distrust them completely and raises all manner of red flags. I have no use for Christian economists... I'm supposedly a Muslim, remember? Lol. Kidding, but there's a lot more out there than Grinols & Mustard out there. Both sides can trot out plenty of studies, articles, experiences, opinions and the other side can always poke holes in them. The pro side definitely does not have the monopoly on being nonbiased and objective. It was funny re Sullivan's comments, I thought of this discussion immediately. A real Doh! moment
Buck Farack March 15, 2012 at 03:37 PM
JAS, you're right about it being the big elephant in the room and that they must address it for the sanity of all. This is ripping the town apart. Hopefully in five weeks things will be more clear, people will have had their chance to vote.
Chris A March 15, 2012 at 06:07 PM
I believe the issue JimD was they couldn't find a tenant willing to occupy the biotech park, which Kraft wanted identified before building began. Can't blame him if no obvious suitors. They tried.


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