Bellicose Bumpkin

"doing something dumb like pouring millions of dollars into a project that has very slim chances of success"

BB,Didn't someone just give $250.000.00 two months ago? I see it a different way, I see it as the Wamps are on a fast track and the State needs to slow down with commercial until they see what happens here. Maybe they already made a deal? Like a one billion dollar resort in Middleboro with slots at the tracks. Only time will tell.

What is the glass half empty thought on why they gave that money in July?

What is the glass half empty thought on why they gave that money in July?.

The pre-payments amount to slightly more than normal property taxes would give the town anyway. The half-empty part is that Middleboro is spending the money needlessly on things that are only marginally related to the casino. What they should be doing, and what I've said over and over, is hold on to that money. It might be OK to spend some of it for planning that would benefit the town with or without a casino. Then, when it looks like the casino is a sure thing, spend it.

But back to point. The difference is that you see the money as this amazing gift of largess and benevolence from the tribe. I see it as basically property taxes from the investors.

"The difference is that you see the money as this amazing gift of largess and benevolence from the tribe"

Please if we are to have a conversation. Do not put words in my mouth… I said, I quote "Didn't someone just give $250.000.00 two months ago?"

Nowhere did it say gifts from the tribe!!!!

On another note, The State is back pedaling real quick! Whats up with that? The only thing going on is Hmmmm! at the federal level… Ask Hammond Bearse whats going on.. LOL!

One mention of "we are driving this bus" and look what happens.

Wampy World is over. The only thing left in the glass is warm Kool Aid. Drink up my friend

All the tracks should be levelled, and trees allowed to grow. Fill your party bus up with a billion dollars and all the pols. on the hill and drive it off a cliff. Your theory is ridiculous.

Be nice to MSM Party Bus guys.

Mike – you asked for my "half empty" view of the money – implying that your view is "half full".

Actually I see I misread your question. I was answering generally what I thought of the money, and you were asking specifically why did they give the money in July if things are collapsing as I say.

It's a good question. The answer, I believe, is that $250K is pretty short money to the investors compared to what they've spent already. That $250K keeps them in the game until they sever the agreement or until the next year.

Remember that all the payments have come not from the tribe but from the investors.

I've been predicting for just over a month that we were days or weeks away from the end – with "the end" being defined as the investors severing their agreement with the tribe. I'll eat my words of that doesn't happen by the end of the year – but will be shocked if it doesn't happen by Dec 1.

And one more thought on why the investors ponied up $250K in July if they were going to bail …….

According to REELWamps and other scuttlebutt, the investors agreement with the tribe doesn't expire until Oct. or Nov. They may have been contractually obligated to make the payment.

But mark my words – they won't make the next one.

The biggest joke here is that we are all wondering what is happening. We have a BOS that is supposed to represent us but is acting like they don't know what is going on and they are afraid to ask.

Why not drag the tribe before the BOS and make them tell us what the the plan is, or we back out now.

What other business deal would go down like this? The future of Middleboro is being held in limbo by a bunch of nit wits.

We were rushed into this deal but now the tribe and the investors act like they have all the time in the world and Middleboro will wait.

Who wrote this deal anyway?

"Who wrote this deal anyway?".

Adam and Dennis Whittlesey. The absurdly low payment structure was caused by Jack going off half-cocked and negotiating an agreement on his own. Once that bar was set so low, the BOS were unwilling play hardball to get it back up. They just rolled over, took what they were offered, and wound up with an agreement that was marginally better than the one we started with.

"Fill your party bus up with a billion dollars"

I wouldn't say that much, But on a weekly basis now. I am running alot of money down to CT!

Its all good…

"Running a lot of money down to CT"

Keep doing it, its all good, because you sure aren't going to be doing it in Middleboro apparently. Oh well.

Mike,

Allow me to correct a few "mis-perceptions" you might have.

The state isn't backpedaling.
One might also make the argument that the escalating costs of predatory gambling are becoming more evident with the fiscal desparation of other states.

That you happen to be "running alot of money down to CT" has little to do with the prognosis or with any contribution the Tribes make to the state or host communities.

Foxwoods is imploding, even as it was reported:
"We'll be asking creditors to take a big haircut," a tribal adviser told the New London Day.

4 Tribes have defaulted on their loans. Commercial casinos around the country have filed for bankruptcy, restructured their loans or taken other steps to avoid default.

Wynn liquidated his Macau holdings to bail out Las Vegas.

To see only one side, your side of revenue arriving ignores the bigger picture of the rest of the state and country.

Market saturation!

Mohegan Sun pays $500,000 to its host community, Montville, CT. That payment doesn't even amount to the appropriate real estate taxes and ignores the impacts.

Mohegan Sun may lose its "Sovereign Immunity" if the CT AG prevails in challenging the liability immunity of DUIs.

There are other cases making their way through the courts that will further erode this issue.

The CT casinos pay CT only for the slots revenue. Of course they're wildly profitable under those circumstances.

If you didn't have to pay taxes, didn't have to contribute to schools, public safety, town government or have insurance and avoided any risk, you'd pocket more money too.

What was 'sold' to the town as the world's largest bingo hall was significantly downsized according to the Tribe's own comments in April.

Mohegan Sun has recently done the same. The impacts will be the same, but the $$$ to towns and the state will be far less.

Kerzner and Wolman spent +$2 million to keep Harrahs out of RI, eliminate competition – pocket change! That may be why they kept the Wampanoags on the hook for so long until they got out from under the loser in Twin River through bankruptcy court.

The Hawaii SCOTUS decision renders LIT non-existent. It's worth taking the time to read. The majority of states signed on as Bumpkin pointed out elsewhere.

"Why not drag the tribe before the BOS and make them tell us what the the plan is, or we back out now."

Has "The Tribe" ever been in charge?

Am I misunderstanding? If indeed this is "party over" for the tribe, it's a Pyrhhic victory for your side, isn't it?

I suppose some small fraction of your supporters might just be NIMBY's : gambling, sure, bring it on, just not HERE, but my impression was that most of you are opposed on moral, social and financial grounds.

If so, how would killing the tribe's casino by State blessed casinos be a good thing in your eyes?

Oh, well: you and I have a lot in common (and my wife thinks you are one of the nicest people she's met in Middleboro), but we're far apart on this. I don't see this as necessarily having any affect on the tribe's chances.

On the other hand, I'd LIKE seing the State do this – although I'd want to see more restrictions on smoking and ideally I'd like to put limits on how much people of ordinary means would be allowed to lose at a MA casino (yes, troublesome for the poor casino operator: tough nougies!).

My bet is that the dog track folks have made their back-room deals already and the public won't have much to say about any of this.

Go down to Foxwoods with a bus full of people and make the owners/investors happy. Bring any winners home? Or did they all get a room comp'd so they could wake up to the breakfast buffet, and then spend more money they don't have. It's all good.

If so, how would killing the tribe's casino by State blessed casinos be a good thing in your eyes?.

I'm not sure that's what I said, but don't disagree.

Speaking only from myself. My preference would be no casinos anywhere – I think they are an economic zero sum game at best, and even possibly a net economic loser. Without rehashing all the arguments, I hate the whole thing – the addiction, regulatory overhead, cannibalism, etc. But forget that can of worms for now.

That said, if there are going to be casinos, I would far prefer commercial ones to tribal ones. I consider the tribal casinos to be a regulatory nightmare. The sovereign nation stuff is very poorly defined and being challenged all over the country – most recently in CT by a woman who was injured by a drunk driver and is suing Mohegan Sun. The ability of the towns/states to control things like smoking are limited or at least muddied.

I don't see this as necessarily having any affect on the tribe's chances..

I'd wouldn't really disagree but if there were an effect, I'm calling it a negative one.

On the other hand, I'd LIKE seing the State do this – although I'd want to see more restrictions on smoking and ideally I'd like to put limits on how much people of ordinary means would be allowed to lose at a MA casino (yes, troublesome for the poor casino operator: tough nougies!)..

Right. Casinos wreak havoc with the addicted. Those sorts of limits would be a great idea. And what's up with all the smoking?

Either way I don't want any large, high impact development in town – but if we had to have a casino, I would just prefer a commercial one – whether it was run by tribal interests, Trump, Wynn, or whoever.

And BTW – your wife is clearly a superior judge of character.

"Bring any winners home?"

Every time I go I think. When you are going for adult fun and entertainment. I think everyone I bring there gets that at least. I know they get it on the bus ride down and back.

Just installed new DVD and 1000 watt surround sound.

You should hear those movies Ooops sometimes I forget where I'm writing this is not bogo's forum… LOL!

Obviously my wife is a superior judge of character – she married me

Sure, I'd rather see State run casino's too – though given this State, there will probably be more corruption than there would be with the Indians.

I really wish that at least part of your efforts would be to push for loss limits based on income – a "gambler's license" idea. I would absolutely support you on that and it doesn't mean you'd have to give up fighting the "no casino" fight – it would just be a fallback if you lose that.

My thought is that casino gamblers would be forced to use the "Dream Card" like things so many casinos already have. You'd get a default limit of some amount – a few thousand per year, perhaps. To get that raised, you'd need to prove to an independent board that you can afford to lose more.

This would stop the "ruined lives" aspect of gambling. It would tick off the casinos – do we care?

Obviously my wife is a superior judge of character – she married me .

Another great theory gets mugged by a gang of facts ……

I like the "loss limits" idea and will run it up my contacts. Unfortunately these guys(casino operators, state pols) don't give a rats-you-know-what about doing something that might be good for society but affect the bottom line.

Well, *some* of the Pols care and it could be easier to get their votes with something like that. Play it up enough and it might get uncomfortable NOT to be in favor of it.

Were I trying to do this, I'd try to find a sweet spot that the casinos could live with even if it was higher than I'd ideally like. So if they said they could accept a $10,000 default, I'd grab it – half a loaf is better than none.

Jessie,

Allow me to correct one "mis-perceptions" you might have.

Most of my trips are responsible people that don't want to drink and drive.

That said most of the trips I have been doing are on Saturday nights going to the Shrine Nightclub.

They are dressed to the nines and are going straight to the nightclub.

Its not all about predatory gambling for some.

Its about having a safe and fun nightout..

Note the time and date.

Jessie and Limo are having an exchange that is, dare I say it ,,, civil.

"Jessie and Limo are having an exchange that is, dare I say it ,,, civil."

Can't you do something to rile one of them up?

"Note the time and date.

Jessie and Limo are having an exchange that is, dare I say it ,,, civil."

Word has it aerial spraying of large amounts of prozac started last weekend.

I have always been civil. Its all of you who have just misunderstood me. :~)

Mike,

I said –
Mohegan Sun may lose its "Sovereign Immunity" if the CT AG prevails in challenging the liability immunity of DUIs.

I didn't suggest that your customers were anything other than "responsible."

I blogged about it. Case closed.

Mike,

There is nothing to stop the Mashpee Wampanoags or Mohegan Sun from building an 'entertainment center' in Massachusetts.

If predatory gambling were such sound fiscal policy, there are many states whose streets should be paved with gold.

Could it be that as many experts have testified, the costs exceed the tax revenues?

Could it also be that the Speaker of the House doesn't have the votes to assure passage of predatory gambling and doesn't want to embarrass himself?

Could it be that since New Hampshire has appointed a Blue Ribbon Gaming Commission, Massachusetts can do no less?

I've spoken with a large number of people within the last several months who gave no serious consideration to the issue of predatory gambling.

They are the ones in a poll who would go along with expanded gambling because they didn't understand the costs and expenses.

When I've presented some of the issues, they quickly realize that they supported something they didn't understand and will research the issue further.

It has been estimated that for every $1 in tax revenue paid by gambling, the cost is $3.

When proponents present revenue projections and job creation figures, they're overstated.

They ignore the costs of oversight, enforcement, regulation, investigation, incarceration, auditing, community impacts, infrastructure improvements, gambling addiction.

The State of New Jersey employs 1500 state employees dedicated solely to the issue. What does that cost? Let's include not only salaries in our calculations, but healthcare, pensions, benefits, office space, training, state owned vehicles, gas and maintenance. Let's be honest about the numbers because it appears Clyde Barrow included only salaries in his reports.

Small businesses such as yourself, are the lifeblood of new job creation.

You create a 'multiplier' effect within the local economy that creates other new jobs.

You hire someone who goes to the local barber. You have your vehicles repaired locally and the mechanic spends his pay locally.
You use local services and create local jobs. You call the local plumber. You go to the local restaurant.

When that single dollar is spread around in the local economy, that's called the 'multiplier' effect because it makes that single dollar more valuable. That's what creates jobs.

Predatory gambling is a dollar exchange that gives your dollar to the casino investor and there it stops.

We need to create local jobs and a sustainable economy.

We've all witnessed what casino gambling by the financial industry has accomplished. Something for nothing doesn't work.

For more information, check out:
United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts

Casinos limiting their patrons spending based on their losses vs income would mean they have a conscience.
That's like telling the guy who owns the local Dairy Queen, to not sell ice cream to overweight people.

You can't just ask businesses to limit their revenue by being everybody's nanny. Casinos want your last dollar, and then some. That's their bread and butter and they will never submit to setting spending limits in their establishments.

Besides, who would want to submit to a credit check or financial background check by a casino? Talk about letting the fox in the henhouse!

Anthony-
You seem like a sharp guy. Do you think that our state could solve some of its financial problems by taking a good hard look at spending, rather than counting on a dubious financial windfall that everyones thinks casinos will be?

Mike-
I understand the one dimensional arguments to bring gambling to MA; all anyone ever sees is revenue and no one can agree on the costs. Which is exactly the way the industry wants it.

BB-
You have stated the facts and given us information about the negative impacts caused by casinos. Scary stuff, indeed. Maybe not all of it is true, but I can't help but think where there's smoke, there's fire. There has to be something financially wrong with casinos.

Don't you all think its time taxpayers demand fiscal responsibility from our elected representatives? The casino debate has kept us from constructive discussion about what needs to change here in MA. Instead,we are all arguing about a "pay day" that casinos will supposedly bring while our leaders on Beacon Hill continue to mis-spend our money with little or no accountability.

Why aren't we demanding better? Its lunacy that we would give Beacon Hill more money to mis-spend. What proof do we have that any revenue producing idea has ever solved our budget shortfalls? If any had, we wouldn't be agruing the cost/benefits of casinos, would we?

You can't just ask businesses to limit their revenue by being everybody's nanny. Casinos want your last dollar, and then some..

True. But you can build restriction like that into legislation for a new business like a casino. I don't think it's very likely, but it would be a great thing.

"Do you think that our state could solve some of its financial problems by taking a good hard look at spending, rather than counting on a dubious financial windfall that everyones thinks casinos will be?"

No.

Conservatives always worry about waste, but income is far more important.

What do you do at home when your expenses outpace your income? Do you start giving up everything "non-essential" or do you try to make more money?

I try to make more money.

There will always be waste, and yes, of course it should be looked at. I keep my thermostat down and plan my automobile trips. But cutting back will never solve money problems. Budget cutting is a bad game, at home or in government. It's better to have some slop and waste than to scrimp and cut – again, at home or in government.

As to casinos particularly, I don't care whether they make money for the State or not. I simply believe that people enjoy this activity and it should be allowed. I'd like to see restrictions, yes, but banning it outright is wrong. You (generic you) have no right to impose your morals on other people. I do agree with protecting people from disaster; thar's why I'd like to see loss limits.

Jessie,
Allow me to correct another "mis-perceptions" you might have.

That people are actually listening to you!

It seems, based on the tense the Reel Wamps writer used, that the event has already taken place, and "was poorly attended"..

If you re-read the post, it sounded to me like the tribe had run an event that was poorly attended … then … asked Mboro to do a fundraiser.

That people are actually listening to you!.

Ooo – that's cold.

I would advise staunch pros and staunch antis to avoid going down the road of debating the casino. We've been doing that for 2 years and nobody is going to change their minds.

IMO, clarifying or emphasizing your position/belief is fine but trying to sway the other side is pointless – again IMO.

Either way, I hope things stay civil. Every now and then, I feel like Middleboro is a reincarnation of the Hatfields & McCoys. Other times I feel like there is hope for normalcy between the feuding parties.

The Middleboro issue will go one way or the other. And somehow, life will go on.

Anthony,
I wouldn't call gambling an activity. I'd call it wishfull thinking. A hold up is an activity, but I guess they go hand in hand. As far as "loss limits" you and BB, don't make me laugh. We all know who will be running these "entertainment centers". The poster made a hell of a point about spending, and let me leave with this. I'll start supporting casinos when the state allows me to check a box that says "I wish not to support any form of welfare including all social programs that are included in the state budget".From there I'd call it even.