In a 2010 article, Senator Anthony Petrucelli referenced the MASSIVE infrastructure improvements required for a SLOT BARN – yes! A SLOT BARN! Because that’s what you’ll get! at the SUFFOLK DOWNS location.
COSTS?
The REPORT is referenced HERE
Since there is NO indication that the reporter possessed or received more than the Senator’s summary, I called the Senator’s office and requested a copy or information about where it might be obtained.
NO RESPONSE!
I sent this letter:
February 21, 2012
Senator Anthony Petrucelli
State House
Room 424
Boston, MA 02133
Re: Public Records Request
Honorable Senator Petrucelli:
In a March 18, 2010 article by John Lynd in the East-Boston Times Free Press, you referenced a report prepare by John Vitagliano of Seagull Consulting regarding infrastructure improvements itemized here:
In his study, Vitagliano suggested widening Route 1A from Curtis Street in East Boston to Mahoney Circle in Revere. This would include property taking and cost $40 million; widen Revere Beach Parkway in Revere, Everett and Medford at a cost of $90 million; perform a Copeland Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $75 million; perform a Mahoney Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $30 million; perform a Brown Circle grade separation in Revere that would cost $25 million; install a Route 1A to Route 16 connector on Railroad Ave. in Revere at a cost of $45 million; construct a haul road in East Boston at a cost of $20 million; build a Route 1A-Chelsea Street Bridge connector in East Boston that would cost $40 million; perform a Route 1A/Boardman Street grade separation in East Boston that would cost $10 million; build a Route 1A-Route 16 interchange that would cost $15 million; perform a Revere Street grade separation in Revere that would cost $10 million; improve traffic signalization along the Route 1A corridor at a cost of $5 million; and finally mitigation for traffic impacts on the local communities would be $15 million.
The total cost of the improvements would have a price tag of $420 million according to Vitagliano.
This is a request in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. Chapter 66, Section10) to obtain a copy of the report prepared by Mr. Vitagliano.
As you may be aware, the Public Records Law requires you to provide me with a written response within 10 calendar days. If you cannot comply with my request, you are statutorily required to provide an explanation in writing.
You prompt attention is appreciated.
I sent this letter (certified), received on FEBRUARY 24, 2012.
USPS – https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackConfirmAction.action
Tracking #:70112000000252605663
NO RESPONSE!
Do you see a pattern here?
On Facebook, I was a ‘Friend of Senator Petrucelli’ and posted the letter on his facebook page asking about the REPORT.
I’m new to this stuff and don’t know how it works, but the Senator UNFRIENDED ME!
How UNFRIENDLY!
I have cried myself to sleep ever since!
But, WAIT! This slimey deal gets even better!
Both Senator Anthony Petrucelli and Boston Mayor Tom Menino received ‘charitable contributions’ from one of the owners of SUFFOLK DOWNS who was just sooooo charitable even though he lives in WYOMING, he took pity on the poor children of Boston and wanted them to have Christmas gifts.
The Boston Globe recommended that the ‘donations’ be returned, we won’t get into whether the Senator charity has cleared up its legalities.
Although they were technically legal, one might argue that the intent was to escape CAMPAIGN DONATION LIMITS.
Read HERE
Setting aside PAID FOR ACCESS, the MASSIVE cost of infrastructure, the slimy, backroom politics, 95% of Massachusetts residents believe politicians are CORRUPT. And this is why.
But, regrettably there’s MORE!
The CASINO VULTURE hovering to invade SUFFOLK DOWNS is financially INSOLVENT. That would be Caesars, formerly known as Harrah’s.
(On the right side, you’ll find links to both names. When Harrah’s determined that 90% of their profits originated from 10% of their patrons, they targeted, marketed, pursued and comped those patrons – low rollers!)
Caesars selling properties to raise $500 million
The party’s OVER! This is a bankruptcy waiting to happen!
While it looks like you might have a point, the tone of this post is over the top. Your reminder to the Senator of the public records law comes across to me at least as patronizing. I see no indication that you have done the easiest thing, which is to call the Senator’s office to follow up on your letter.
I’m happy to stipulate that the tone of the post is more histrionic than some.
Having agreed about that, in a time when we are destroying public transportation because of Big Dig debt and struggling to close a structural $160M/year shortfall in that vital area alone, what is your reaction to the proposal to spend four hundred twenty million dollars on making sure that
victimscustomers of the new slot barn have easy access to it?I agree that we all want to be calm, rational, reasoned, and gracious as we deal with officials (apparently like Mr. Petrucelli) who seem to be making decisions that have terrible impact in exchange for personal power and/or wealth. I’m not accusing anyone of illegal bribery or graft — I’m instead suggesting that this proposal does, in fact, pass all the smell-tests of a good old-fashioned perfectly legal sell-out of the public interest. The kind that happens all too frequently here in Massachusetts.
There is a time and place for justified “righteous anger”. Maybe for you and me, this doesn’t rise to that level — however, I’m not at all surprised that others have a different reaction.
When public officials abuse the public trust, they should not be surprised when the public reacts with over-the-top anger.
Actually, the wording of the records request is almost verbatim from the office of the secretary of state, who suggests that one cite the Public Records Law, no matter of whom one is requesting records.
As someone who is fighting the slot barn soon to be proposed by Plainridge Racecourse in Plainville (where I live), as well as all other forms and locations of expanded gambling in Massachusetts, I can understand the passion of the post. When dealing with these slimy characters — including a good many legislators — it becomes frustrating beyond description to be ignored, patronized, lied and condescended to.
Corruption like we’ve never seen before is the future for Massachusetts if we don’t stop this downhill slide now. Repeal the Deal!
“INFORM YOURSELF! INFORM YOURSELF!”
Christopher, I never figured out what your game is, but would HIGHLY recommend that you review the Public Records information included in the link.
The synopsis is also readily available on the Secretary of State’s web site.
Those words are VERBATIM what is recommended for inclusion for enforcement of the Public Records statute.
This is a request in accordance with the Massachusetts Public Records Law (M.G.L. Chapter 66, Section10) to obtain a copy of the report prepared by Mr. Vitagliano.
As you may be aware, the Public Records Law requires you to provide me with a written response within 10 calendar days. If you cannot comply with my request, you are statutorily required to provide an explanation in writing.
The statute does not suggest or request a ‘follow-up’ phone call. The letter was delivered certified mail and signed for. It was received.
Beyond that, my friend, I posted the letter on Senator
Petrucelli’s face book page with a polite request for the REPORT.
The Senator UNFRIENDED ME! And now it appears as if he has removed himself from facebook.
I asked for a REPORT!
SIMPLE!
It was a TAXPAYER PAID FOR REPORT.
Are you suggesting that my tone has ANYTHING remotely to do with his refusal to provide that REPORT? If so, I might suggest that Senator Petrucelli is hiding something by his failure to forward the REPORT after a polite phone call and the above letter.
It’s time to behave like a GROWN UP and expect that the arrogance of Senator Petrucelli needs to be set aside. Senator Petrucelli had a bogus charity that failed to legally conform and much else.
This is a SCAM! And taxpayers are supposed to fund this?
Christopher, I WON’T!
…was suggested boilerplate language for making this request, so I’ll take my comments on those lines back. I also wasn’t suggesting that a phone call should be legally necessary, but that is certainly what I would do if I didn’t get a response from a legislative office within a couple of weeks. I wouldn’t get upset over Facebook; for all we know it’s some intern running that. Yes, I did look at the report (once again lapsing into that annoying habit of assuming what I know and have seen on this issue) and I said you may have a point. I react viscerally to certain tones and attitudes regardless of the merits of the argument (and suggest that such ultimately TAKES AWAY from the argument you are trying to make. I also don’t see the scam here. We can debate the wisdom of this or that project, but there’s plenty of precedent for public infrastructure investments to benefit private establishments like sports venues for example.
The Secretary of State has done a wonderful job explaining in 13 pages the basics of the Public Records Law:
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/prepdf/pubreclaw.pdf
Christopher, You inevitably comment and then use your ignorance of the issue as an excuse when one would certainly expect that the Senator’s staffers would be remotely familiar with the M.G.L.
What should have been uneventful – OBTAINING A COPY OF A TAXPAYER FUNDED REPORT that should have been available, has turned into a BIG MAGILLA because it might seem someone doesn’t want it seen.
What are they hiding?
Senator Petrucelli received a $6,000 charitable donation (to a charity that is of questionable legality) from a WYOMING DONOR with pending issues before his Committee. Mayor Tom Menino received a $10,000 charitable contribution from the same donor.
Did you read the articles?
Please provide examples of + $500 MILLION infrastructure investments that have taken place without public discussion.
…pick up the phone and follow up before assuming the worst. Things fall through the cracks sometimes. I never said there were specific examples of EXACTLY the same set of circumstances; stop trying to put words in my mouth. Even you acknowledged that what happened relative to money might very well be legal.
Would it hurt you to address the substance of the complaint, rather than the process by which the OP pursued it?
I asked above, and I don’t see a response yet — what is your reaction to the proposal to spend four hundred twenty million dollars on making sure that
victimscustomers of the new slot barn have easy access to it?Christopher, You make unsubstantiated comments such as:
“….there’s plenty of precedent for public infrastructure investments to benefit private establishments like sports venues for example.”
When I ask for an example, you move on, change the subject, muddy the issue and ignore me. You’ve done it before on the Dems forum.
The Foxborough PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, to prepare for the Kraft/Wynn Follies was protested and stopped, even as backroom deals moved the lines on the map to fulfill secret promises.
Where is there ANY evidence of + $500 MILLION taxpayer dollars being spent with NO PUBLIC DEBATE?
I will again label this a SCAM! And Massachusetts taxpayers are supposed to stroke the egos of Mayor Menino and Senator Petrucelli and pay the bill?
The referenced 2009 report indicates unknown land takings and since energy/oil price effects road construction, the cost is NOT $420 MILLION, but rather significantly higher. Since Senator Petrucelli refuses to provide the report that he ordered and had in his possession, we can’t confirm the accuracy of the 2009 estimates.
Below, is Senator Petrucelli’s charity SCAM – yes SCAM!
When he has refused to answer questions and feigned ignorance:
IMO, this says it all:
…to stick to what I addressed, which I said right from the beginning was about tone and attitude rather than substance?
MiddleboroReview: I don’t remember all the details, but I know that this is hardly the first time that infrastructure improvements to benefit developers has been on the table. The subject that sticks out in my memory is Gillete Stadium, but I think Fenway has benefitted as well. I don’t know costs or circumstances, but that misses the point entirely about my complaint on this string.
SomervilleTom: I haven’t directly responded to your question because honestly I don’t HAVE a strong opinion on the substance of this one. This post just made me feel like I was reading the Drudge Report with its bold headlines crying, “SCAM!”, and saying things like the Senator is ignoring me when a simple phone call could well clear things up.
Think you’re completely within your rights to react to the style, Christopher.
I’m don’t generally favor public funding of infrastructure improvements for the exclusive benefit a single business, but at least some of the roads named above are heavily trafficked already (they may all be – I don’t know the area that well). Do we know that these changes would only benefit a slot barn at Suffolk Downs? Have the improvements identified been needed for years, and they’re now being tied to the slots proposal as a way to move them forward? Are residents of the area in favor or opposed? The tone of the piece demands outrage without providing answers to questions that it would be good to know before deciding whether to be outraged.
On balance, I would have preferred not to see the casino bill pass, and I wouldn’t favor public-funding of road work to benefit a slots barn only, but I don’t think this piece has made the case that that’s what’s going on here yet.
Based on its corporate documents, the foundation should be registered with the AG’s Division of Public Charities and file annual financial reports. This appears to be an unregistered charity closely tied to a state legislator that accepts donations from persons seeking permits from the Commonwealth. If you contacted the Division, they would tell you that lots of small charities have not registered. The circumstances here raise at least the appearance of impropriety, and the AG should make this charity register.
As Amber has pointed out (more than once? one hundred times?) the legislature is exempt from the Public Records Law. This is another example illustrating why the exemption should be eliminated.
The Legislature is exempt from public records law.
Citing the law in a demand to a member of the Legislature will go no where. (except maybe to get yourself de-freinded, de-listed and otherwise eliminated from routine correspondence)
A demand under public records law would need to be made to an agency, the treasurers office perhaps, that may be party to the report.
In the wake of the Probation Dept. scandal (with pending indictments), the Chelsea Housing scandal and much else, the circumstances surrounding the Slot Barn legislation have followed a similar path of backroom deals, secret meetings and slimy conduct.
1. PUBLIC RECORDS
When I requested the REPORT from Senator Petrucelli, I was fully aware that legislators have EXEMPTED themselves, perhaps falsely believing they occupy an exalted position.
The requested REPORT was paid for with taxpayer funds. Senator Petrucelli was quoted in an article referring to that REPORT.
What’s he hiding by failing to produce the REPORT?
That’s the issue.
2. OPEN MEETING LAW
Here’s yet another exemption that is simply inexcusable.
The PUBLIC and the MEDIA were excluded from Conference Committee discussions, just as they were excluded from all other discussions.
State Rep. Kathi-Anne Reinstein excluded the public with this
excuse [SHNS]:
3. STOCK OWNERSHIP
Secretary Bialecki, the Governor’s Slot Barn Cheerleader who was unable to answer basic questions posed to him, owned and profited from investments in the Gambling Industry, just as State Senator Stanley Rosenberg has.
It’s interesting to note that in New York State, outlawing stock ownership was an issue raised by Governor Cuomo.
4. CHARITIES
This successfully avoids campaign limits, public disclosure and scrutiny.
In the case of Senator Petrucelli, it would appear that his name is attached to a charity that fails to comply with the statutory requirements, as well as his failure of disclosure on the Ethics form.
5. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Some states actually prevent the GAMBLING INDUSTRY from making political contributions.
6. FOXBOROUGH
Are we going to ignore that the lines on the map were moved?
Is that the REAL reason the Governor vetoed the legislation in 2010?
This, too, has an expensive taxpayer funded requirement – a $100 MILLION commuter rail extension whose annual estimated loss is $4 MILLION that will be funded by communities lacking a voice.
The developer is currently being investigated by the SEC for FCPA violations and there are other additional problematic issues.
All of this is before we address the flaws in the legislation or the COSTS and IMPACTS.
What will we continue to tolerate?
– and it makes your posts seem like wild speculation and allegations (IMHO).
Also, can you provide a link or source to where SHNs reported that “and surely at the request of gambling interests who can make undisputed wild promises that are unsubstantiated and never be held accountable.”
I found the first part of the quote, but not that part of it.
What SHNS reported:
Kathi-Anne Reinstein, a Revere Democrat who organized the SECRET CLOSED DOOR briefing, told the News Service the session was closed TO THE PUBLIC so state reps would “feel comfortable to ask any questions without having any type of criticism”…..
http://www.wickedlocal.com/arlington/newsnow/x255177489/Gambling-addiction-treatment-agency-could-fold#axzz1pkf5g3Zr
my editorial comment, carefully noted in its original version, since it is unclear who was invited to this CLOSED DOOR MEETING:
and surely at the request of gambling interests who can make undisputed wild promises that are unsubstantiated and never be held accountable.
What we do know is that:
1. the lines on the map moved from 2010 to 2011 adding Foxborough to the mix (We also know that planning for the Kraft/Wynn Foxborough Folly pre-dated the passage of the legislation, as did the report indicating commuter rail expansion will cost the MBTA ~ $100 million, with an estimated $4 million annual loss to be passed along to communities along its route.) Of course, the SEC investigation of Steve Wynn for FCPA violations is more recent.
2. Senator Petrucelli’s ‘charity’ was not legal at the time he received a charitable contribution from a part owner of Suffolk Downs
3. there is an ‘infrastructure report’ paid for with taxpayer funds, produced by Vitagliano, referenced by Senator Petrucelli in a newspaper article and no one seems able to produce it
4. we know that the Governor’s Office took an inordinate interest in the PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE TO NOWHERE at taxpayers’ expense that would have benefited Bob Kraft/Steve Wynn
That is not my opinion, but that of others.
It is created by conduct such as what surrounded the Expanded Gambling legislation and there are numerous other examples that can be raised – the Probation Dept. scandal, the Chelsea Housing scandal, the Collaborative Education scandal. Many of which stem from the failure of oversight and the failure of a watch dog or whistle blower reporting outlet. Beacon Hill can’t even pass the Expanded Bottle Bill, supported by 77% of Massachusetts residents because of ‘vested interests.’
Meetings are conducted behind closed doors by elected officials self-exempted from Open Meeting Laws and Public Records laws.
A gubernatorial candidate promised to end the Big Dig culture on Beacon Hill, yet perpetuated it with his own backroom deals.
That same ‘candidate’ agreed to support an INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS of Gambling and developed amnesia after re-election, even while making promises he can’t keep in one of the secret meetings – and responding to me that nothing was going on behind closed doors – when I knew for a fact otherwise.
That same Governor, believing that his cherubic smile fools all, defended Secretary Bialecki’s stock ownership at a time Bialecki was the Administration’s ‘point person’ on the issue and couldn’t answer pertinent questions.
The appropriate response might have been a recognition that this is prohibitive legislation that is sorely needed.
That same Governor publicly stated that he would not accept GAMBLING contributions, yet did, until he was caught.
I endured the uncomfortable seats to hear the propaganda spewed during the phony ‘debate’ process. Because of back problems, I left the gallery and paced the State House Halls where I witnessed Gambling Industry lobbyists on their cells phone, wearing clothing that cost more than my entire wardrobe, dictating terms of the legislation. No attempt was made to reduce their voices or conceal their terms. Pathetic! Truly pathetic!
And yet when a dastardly Republican submitted proposed ethics reform that would have mandated that lobbyists be labeled, remember the uproar? remember the comparison to Nazis?
And the Gambling Commission is a disgrace that few have considered, beginning with a Commissioner who sees no problem schmoozing with the Gambling Industry.
Unless this changes, it won’t be 95% who believe corruption is widespread, it will be 100%.
Will we continue to support and defend corruption?
This guy could squeeze a buffalo of a nickle. Try him now he just finished school and maybe has some time to speak with you…….This is not a personal attack…..It’s the truth….top secrect party on Saturday. I wonder if he is getting CASH gifts