Wallgren’s story continued:
Rejection of the idea of a casino in town would send a message to state and federal officials who must act on other aspects of the tribe’s casino proposal.
“This way, people get to actually vote on whether they want a casino, rather than just voting on a flawed agreement,” said casino foe Richard Young. “This would send a message to the selectmen, and I think at least some of them would take it to heart. They could fight this. Other towns have fought and won.”
Another casino foe, Jacqueline Tolosko, said: “I’ve been told by [state] Senator Marc Pacheco and by [US Representative] Barney Frank that if residents of this town don’t want a casino, they will back us. I think the vote on this is very important.”
Opponents have said they hope a negative vote would have some impact on how state and federal authorities react when the tribe looks to put the land in trust and obtain a compact for expanded gambling.
Exactly. So why does the Globe continue to ignore this important wrinkle? Last Thursday, Wallgren got the nuances right: the first vote was on the agreement with the Wampanoags; the second vote was on the casino itself. Today’s editorial blasts past all that. When is the Globe going to get it right?
in a bit of an about face, came out last week squarely behind bringing casino gambling to Massachusetts. (In the editorial’s words, “As public attitudes and the state’s needs have evolved, so has this page’s view of casinos.”) Does anyone know how solid the alleged firewall between newsies and editorialists is over on Morrissey Boulevard?
If the residents didn’t want a casino then why did they vote in favor of the agreement with the Mashpee Wampanoag’s?
No two are alike.
Jim: You seem to be jumping into this a little late. I recommend my posts starting on Saturday at Media Nation. But here are a few possible reasons. I’ll try to be fair and balanced, even though Middleborough is my hometown (I no longer live there), and I’m adamantly opposed to the casino.
<
p>
1. Article 2 was essentially a vote on the agreement with the Wampanoags, whereas Article 3 was an advisory vote on whether the town wants a casino at all. Pro-casino forces repeatedly told people that the casino was coming whether the town wanted it or not, and that they’d better vote in favor of the best deal they could get. Thus, it was perfectly reasonable for someone to vote “yes” on the agreement and “no” on the casino. There are people who’ve said that’s exactly what they did. Indeed, a town assessor told me he was for the agreement but hopes the state will kill the casino.
<
p>
2. OK, fair-and-balanced time. Article 2 was binding, Article 3 was advisory. Reportedly about half those attending left before voting on Article 3. Casino opponents, having lost on Article 2, obviously had the most incentive to stay and vote on Article 3. So it could be strictly a function of casino supporters’ taking off and not bothering to vote on Article 3. Still, as Sabutai, who was there, has pointed out, Article 3 drew the second-largest number of voters in the history of the Middleborough town meeting. Not to be sneezed at.
What I still don’t understand is the statement:
<
p>
<
p>
What makes this statement true? Is it possible or I guess legal that the casino could come no matter how the people voted? What recourse did the pro-casino people have if artcle 2 was voted down?
<
p>
If the vote didn’t matter and the casino was coming anyway then I understand your point. If not then I am still at a loss.
<
p>
BTW – I am against casino gambling in MA.
<
p>
that the tribe could have built some sort of casino regardless of what the town did. However, to have the kind of casino they want — i.e., one with slot machines, which is apparently where all the money is — they have to get the state to approve “class III gaming.” And, IMHO, if the town meeting had voted down the agreement, the tribe and the selectmen would have had zero chance of getting class III gaming through the legislature. It’s dubious already, with DiMasi generally opposed and Deval undecided, and if the town had voted “no,” I just find it hard to imagine that it would have gone through.
<
p>
So, could the tribe have built a casino regardless of the vote? Yes, I think so (at least as I understand the gaming laws). Would they have done so? Very hard to say. It’s unclear at best whether it’s worth the investment to build a casino that can’t have slot machines. And even if they did, a class II casino would be much less disruptive than a class III, because far fewer people would come.
that there are other details left out. If not a casino, the tribe could build other things on the land… a museum or something beneficial and positive… or housing, in a town already struggling with population growth.
<
p>
The plan presented is also a casino in sheep’s clothing… a five star resort with fine restaurants and shows and golf course–and a casino.
<
p>
And yes, once the land would be put into trust at the federal level, it becomes the tribe’s “reservation” and they can build anything they want on it, including a Class II gaming facility (bingo and card games).
But I’ve heard it said that if the Wampanoags were determined to ram this down everyone’s throat, the most they could do is bingo. I’m not sure whether that’s true or not. But if it is, then yes, they have a legal right to open a gambling emporium on that site regardless of what the town and the state say, but bingo would obviously not be a very big draw.
“Class II gaming,” which is the most they can do without the state legislature taking action to approve class III, is basically high-stakes bingo, as I understand it.
<
p>
As I’ve mentioned before, I really have to wonder whether the tribe’s financial backers would be willing to underwrite a class II casino. I just can’t see that it’d be worth it to them.
Perhaps this issue was confusing enough to lead some people to believe that they needed to vote for the best deal possible because a casino was coming (however unpractical a class II casino is – or may be). Maybe the second vote is an indication of this or maybe not. It is impossible to know.
<
p>
However, it would seem that the voters of Middleboro held, for all practical purposes, the power to stop this and did not.
I hand-delivered a letter to the Middleboro Town Clerk challenging the town meeting voting results — not sure that’s the appropriate process, but it seemed necessary, barring a determination from the Secretary of State, to raise questions. ComCast has re-broadcast their video of the town meeting.
As voters entered and registered, one hand was stamped with red ink.
Clearly visible on the Comcast video are adults inside the ‘secured voting area’ with no red marks on their hands.
Most of those lacking the red marks on their hands are wearing the orange tee shirts of the casino supporters.
I watched the crowd milling and noticed the lack of red marks prior to the vote, but needed to confirm that it appeared clearly on the video.
Prior to the general audience voting, Middleboro Police Officers were called to the front to vote first.
Clearly visible on the Comcast video is a Police Officer on the field, mingling with the crowd, stuffing a wad of ballots into the ballot box as it is moving past him.
ALL those distributing ballots, counting ballots, and volunteering were casino supporters.
That I am aware of, 2 people entered the ‘secured’ area without going through the voter registration area. I have asked that the security videos taken from the high school roof by the state police be made available for viewing.
Surely to dispel my suggestions of questionable conduct, those videos should be made quickly and widely available.
The security proceedure was illusion only.
Others are now coming forward with additional ‘ballot stuffing’ complaints that they will commit to writing to be FAXED to the Secretary of State, who will undoubtedly sidestep the issue.
Please recall that when you viewed the news story Saturday evening, you watched lines of Middleboro voters departing the high school because of work or other commitments.
The unofficial attendance count is 3862
The ballot count was 3722
Surely more than 140 voters were recorded departing the site.
I have requested that volunteers be allowed to count the ballots that were not distributed.
Will they conduct themselves honorably or destroy the ballots?
<
p>
So, please don’t think Middleboro voters are schizophrenic, but perhaps the vote isn’t what you thought it was.
I believe it is the AG’s office, not the Sec. of State, that has jurisdiction.
As I detailed elsewhere, I saw similar registration dodging by casino advocates and would like to follow up your letter with one of my own. You may also want to cc the Middleboro Gazette, Brockton Enterprise, etc.
<
p>
I don’t know what step casino opponents are/were planning, but given their lackluster campaign, I don’t feel comfortable waiting for them to take the lead.
just hit the Globe.
That ‘local assessor’ has somewhat destroyed whatever credibility he might have had. First he was against it, and even appeared on Jim Braude’s program in opposition.
Then he had a perverse conversion, appeared on Jim Braude again, then supporting the casino, or maybe it was the Agreement.
He appeared arguing each side at a Senior Housing Development.
Flip Flop doesn’t quite describe his process or thinking!
Twice others and myself attempted to dissuade him because of his failure to adequately understand the issues from either side.
<
p>
His Flip Flop doesn’t quite rise to the level of Selectman Adam Bond saying in front of an open mike AT TOWN MEETING that the voters are idiots! Ooops!
And while negotiating the first flawed casino agreement that resembled swiss cheese with all of its holes, he called the opposition ‘braying donkeys’and when I asked him about it, he insisted that Chris Wallgren had misquoted him.
While that might go unnoticed, he was suddenly and privately confiding to others after casino negotiations began that he was running for office, as he was grabbing the tv cameras and radio interviews.
<
p>
But oops! He switched from being active in the Republican Town Committee to the Democractic Town Committee!
<
p>
So rest assured, when you hear that name, he thinks you’re an idiot also!