Murphy closes with an anecdote about Ted Eayrs, a town assessor in Middleborough, who says he voted in favor of the agreement, but then turned around and voted “no” on the nonbinding question because, all things considered, he'd rather not see a casino come to town at all.
Indeed. Eayrs told me the same thing several months ago, saying he hoped the state would step in and kill the casino.
The second vote matters. I'm glad Murphy knows it, but I'd be even more glad if his newspaper would acknowledge it, too.
I also want to call your attention to a terrific story on the front page of today's Globe about the effects of casino gambling. According to reporter Stephen Smith, the rate of gambling addiction is twice as high as it would otherwise be among people who live within 50 miles of a casino. Smith writes:
Psychiatrists and compulsive behavior specialists have shown that gambling can turn addictive in much the same way that alcohol or illicit drugs do, through a process in which the brain causes the dependence and then is damaged by it. Gamblers can be treated — with counseling, medication, and 12-step programs — but success is far from guaranteed. A year after entering treatment, studies suggest, about half of gamblers return to the slots and gaming tables.
How many times have you heard casino proponents say that people are going to gamble anyway, and that Massachusetts might as well benefit from the tax revenue that's now going to Connecticut? In case there was any doubt, now we know: That's less than a half-truth.
And look at where our population centers are. If Gov. Deval Patrick's plan for casinos in Western Massachusetts, Southeastern Massachusetts and north of Boston comes to pass, then at least two-thirds of state residents — maybe more — will be within 50 miles of a casino.
Over at Blue Mass. Group, Charley Blandy links to a Boston Business Journal editorial that's dripping with disdain for Patrick's view that building casinos equals economic development. My favorite line: “We now have a governor who defends a major policy initiative on the basis that it won't be 'the end of civilization.' What an endorsement for setting the stage for ruining more lives to gambling.”
Disclosure #1: I write the “Mass.Media” feature for CommonWealth.
Disclosure #2: Just click here.
…then all they had to do to get on record was to have a SINGLE person ‘doubt the count’, which would have forced tellers to take an actual count. Instead, they rely on a ‘show of hands’ which waxes and wanes with the telling.
Peter — You, who hold town meeting so sacrosanct! What are you thinking of? You know very well that a “yes” vote by a show of hands or a voice vote is just as much “yes” as a roll call or ballots. What do you mean by asking if proponents were “serious”? Of course they were serious. A vote was taken. They won.
They are as serious as a heart attack, which you will learn if the now-dead Middleborough casino plan somehow lurches back to life.
They didn’t have any supplies ready to go, the selectmen moved to close debate at the earliest possible moment. The moderator only allowed division when cited chapter and verse by the town bylaws by a member of the finance committee. Even if a parliamentary expert had been present at that point, and not weak from sunstroke, I doubt they’d have been listened to.
They didn’t have supplies, huh? They were taking a big risk if they didn’t. If one person rose to doubt the count, and the moderator said he was correct, it takes 20 people to rise to force a written vote. And ANY moderator knows this! And refusing to recognize a town meeting member can invalidate the entire proceedings!
<
p>
It is my opinion that the Q. 2 folk were more interested in creating a non-binding talking point than they were in proving how may were against. A count would ruin their story line.
<
p>
I’ll just point out that talking points (non-binding or otherwise) and story lines work best when they are A) true and 2) surprising. Or, put another way: who cares if they proffered the question with the most cynical of motives or the purest of intent… Neither could have change the outcome.
Your optimism, while misguided, is certainly cute. They took a risk when the Town Administrator staged the auction, they took a risk when they turned over security to a man who stands to directly profit from a certain vote, they took a risk when they had a vote on accepting a report that was not produced for the electorate.
<
p>
They took a lot of risks on the assumption that the voters would accept them like bleating sheep given enough money was promised. They were right.
<
p>
Given that the “moderator” ignored me for 30 minutes on this question, I guess the proceedings are invalid. Oh, whoops, they’re not.
<
p>
The “Q2 people” were interested in a clear vote on an issue, but since the selectmen were uninterested, they had to settle for a hand vote.
Coming way from that article, it really clarifies how ruthlessly the “investors”/hustlers use Native American tribes for their own ends, and how truly incompetent that town management of Middleborough has been this decade.
<
p>
Had someone come calling to build a coal-fired power station or rendering plant in Middleoborough, these selectmen would have jumped at the chance.
I remember reading that the Middleborough Board of Selectmen signed the agreement with the Wampanoag with considerable alacrity shortly after the vote. But when exactly?
<
p>
If they signed after the adjournment of Town Meeting, then the second resolution arguably amended and partially rescinded the first vote.
<
p>
If they signed before the second vote, then the second vote arguably breeched the contract.
They signed it about 20 minutes after the vote count was announced. The generic vote on opening the casino (the third of the day) is as legal as the one on the Wampanoag contract, as official as the first, as democratic as the first. But since it was non-binding, it was ignored.
<
p>
Scathing indeed.