Milford Voters Deliver Emphatic 'No' On Casino
Voters in Milford yesterday said “no dice.” No blackjack or slots either. In fact, there was nothing ambiguous about the denial they delivered yesterday to the developers of the proposed resort casino near the junction of Interstate 495 and Route 16.
With a 57-percent turnout for Tuesday’s special election, voters soundly rejected the plan for a 200,000-square-foot gaming floor, 500-room hotel, restaurants and shops that was put forth by the owners of the Foxwoods resort in Connecticut. The final tally was 6,361 votes against and 3,480 in favor, a spread of nearly 2-to-1 - 65 percent to 35 percent.
The decision leaves only one proposal for the sole resort casino on the eastern end of the Bay State, which includes Worcester County. The only proposal on the table is one for Everett by Wynn Resorts. Earlier this month, voters in East Boston rejected a planned resort casino on the site of the Suffolk Downs racetrack. However, voters in neighboring Revere said yes, leaving open a possibility that the plan could resurface as one located solely in Revere.
The Milford vote, coupled with a narrow rejection in Palmer of plans for a resort casino, will likely eliminate the possibility of a resort casino landing in Central Massachusetts. However, Leominster is one of three communities being considered for the state’s sole slots parlor license granted under the 2011 gambling expansion law.
In Palmer, a recount of ballots is scheduled for next week. The Palmer developers, the owners of the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut, lost at the ballot box by less than 100 votes out of more than 5,000 that were cast. Palmer falls within the western zone of the state, which covers everything west of Worcester County. The only remaining proposal in that zone is one by MGM Resorts for Springfield.
Meanwhile, the chief opponents to the Foxwoods proposal, the group Casino-Free Milford, posted a “Thank You Milford!” note on its website today after the vote.
“From our very first meeting held around a kitchen table, we acknowledged that we would be fighting a David vs. Goliath battle,” read the note, written by the group’s co-chairmen, John Seaver and Steve Trettel. “We knew we would never be able to match the dollars of the Foxwoods’ campaign. We also knew that money does not buy you everything.”
Lobbying by both opponents and proponents intensified in the days leading up to the vote. Both Foxwoods Massachusetts and Casino-Free Milford sent email messages earlier this week to plead their cases.
The $1 billion Foxwoods proposal would have given the town up-front payments totaling $33 million and annual payments of $34 million, some of which the developers argued could reduce property taxes in the town of about 27,000 people. Foxwoods also said the casino would have created 3,500 permanent jobs and 3,000 construction jobs, with a commitment to filling those slots with people from Milford and surrounding towns.
“There's been some talk about Foxwoods just making promises, but we've made guarantees,” the Foxwoods email pitch read. “We truly believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the quality of life for those in Milford and the surrounding area.”
Meanwhile, Foxwoods President and CEO Scott Butera said he accepted the will of the voters.
“We respect the choice Milford voters made today,” Butera said in a statement. “Throughout this process we’ve gotten to know Milford and thousands of its residents. While we worked hard to offer a resort casino we believe would benefit the area, the town made a decision similar to many other communities across the state. Though the outcome isn’t what we hoped for, we have a high regard for the residents of Milford and will part ways having learned from the experience.”
(Image credit: freedigitalphotos.net)
Read more
Bolton Wins Spot At Table In Slots Proposal
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments