It was reported in today's Globe http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2007/10/04/local_voters_would_rule_on_casino_idea/ that the Governor's plan will include a requirement that a potential host community hold a binding election to dis/approve the siting of a class III casino in their town or city.
The REGION should vote to approve/disapprove if a
potential class III casino is sited in a locale of
<25,000-30,000 population. Abutting communities
within the 30 mile radius of a proposed class III
casino should participate in a ballot election. If a
decision, the magnitude of a class III casino, is
decided by residents of one small community and the
residents of the wider region that will be adversely
impacted are not allowed to participate in the voting
process, democracy is breached.
Enterprises the size and scope of class III gambling
institutions with projections of 40,000 daily visitors
and known negative collateral impacts, require
specialized approval and siting conditions.
I hope these conditions will be endorsed by the
regional Selectmen's Coalition surrounding Palmer and
the Southeastern Regional Coalition surrounding
Middleborough as well as members of the Legislature.
Smart growth planning (that has been touted by the
current Administration, the Legislature and the
previous Administration) discourages large-scale
development in regions that are not previously
developed or require significant infrastructure
development. Smart growth policies encourage
development clustered around public transportation,
existing housing stock and resources to support
growth. These considerations need to be included in
the siting of any large-scale enterprise along with
environmental and historic considerations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This article is very interesting for many reasons. First of all, it states that hosting towns will need to vote and approve a casino and that Middleboro already voted yes in July. From where I stand, a non-binding vote is a non-binding vote so Middleboro should insist on a binding vote to this specific question if all this comes to fruition. As a Carver resident, I too believe that area towns need to be part of this vote. Why? Well, considering that I live closer to the proposed casino site than most Middleboro residents, I should be able to vote too. So should Raynham, Wareham, Bridgewater, W. Bridgewater, Plympton, Halifax, Kingston, Plymouth...have I forgotten anyone?? The second interesting thing in this article is the NIMBY effect...I love it when people say "yeah...a casino is a great idea, three casinos is even better, as long as it's not in my town...but casinos are good for MA because I don't want to have to drive to Connecticut to gamble..." And we anti-casino people are being criticized for being NIMBYS! Another interesting point is that people are now concerned about the negative effects a casino could have on Boston...hmmmmm....sooo, does that mean negative effects are okay in say, Middleboro? Palmer? perhaps Lowell or Dracut? Why is a casino "good" for these towns and "bad" for Boston? Disgusting! The last time I checked, the southeast region had quite a large tourist industry. Keep fighting Truth to Power...what you say is so true! I grew up in Hampden...very close to Monson...I know the area and know how horrible a casino in that area would be.
Great points carverchick.
Monson center is closer to the proposed epicenter of the casino site than portions of Palmer.
Lakeville might appreciate being included in a regional voting process, too.
I beg to differ some. Item three voted on at the Special town meeting resulted in a no vote for a casino while item two did allow for a contract signing with the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe. Someone needs to tell me why item two overrides item three? Oh and it is just possible that by our bylaws we can't vote on the matter again for some time.
Post a Comment