CASINOSNO! RESPONDS TO THE ARRIVAL OF LAS VEGAS

For a while there was a pig pile of anti-casino'ers commenting on the SJ blog whenever a story appeared about that subject. Now there's a pig pile of pro-casino'ers whenever a story appears. What's going on? Money from special interests who hire companies who specialize in going on blogs (like this one) and posting comments favorable to their employers. For a while, Dennis Bailey was the only one with cash. Now the Nevada people have jumped in with a bigger bank account than Bailey, so the pro postings outnumber the con by a large number. Which is why policies allowing anonymous posting can easily be exploited and promote dishonest discourse. I urge all on this blog and everywhere else to identify themselves.

I agree with Phil that I’m sure it’s no coincidence that after the sale of the casino to the Olympia group, the online comments on casino stories at the Sun Journal are now mostly positive. I also think that the fact that Seth is no longer in charge probably helps with the reduction of negative comments. We know that there is a good possibility that the Sun Journal blogs are currently being manipulated but the fact that we know that is a great equalizer.

The fact that Phil can come on here and talk freely about that is a great way for all of us to communicate about this issue. I don't beleive it would be much different if Phil used his own name or a screen name.

Read what is printed on blogs with the knowledge that they are a microcosm of our society. Some posters are more honest, kind and helpful. Some are more dishonest, mean and manipulative. Take everything you read with a grain of salt and make up your own mind if what is printed is valuable to you or not.

We have all come to know each other through our online persona's. If you've been posting here for awhile, you have already established an identity. If you want people to take you seriously here, be a responsible citizen. No one should feel the need to further identify themselves.

PHil - you sound like you're a lackey for Ms. Norris and the Rumford Reporter crowd. It's none of your business who I am, and I don't understand your paranoia.

I'm still against the casino. And no, I"m not paid by casinos no. I'm just a native (from Mexico) who doesn't want to see the region ruined.

By the way, has your committee brought any jobs to the River Valley yet?

PORTLAND – The proponents of Question 2, the Oxford County casino, have enlisted the aid of Clyde Barrow, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, to make the case for their casino. An article by Barrow defending the Oxford County casino appeared in the Portland Press Herald last week, and Barrow is scheduled to meet with the Oxford County Commissioners next week along with the proponents of Question 2.

Barrow is well known in casino circles for his pro-casino findings. His “research” is controversial, to say the least. Editors, reporters and members of the public should be aware of Barrow’s background and dealings, such as:

Although Barrow talks at length about the economic impacts of casinos, he is not an economist. His degree is in political science.

Barrow is the director of the Center for Policy Analysis, which studies casino gambling in New England. He purports to be an independent analyst, but his conclusions always favor the casino industry and questions have been raised about his impartiality.

In 2006, Barrow received $20,000 from the Rhode Island Buildings Trade Council, which was supporting a Harrah’s casino for that state, for a study showing the positive impacts of a Harrah’s casino. Records show that at the same time Barrow received payment from the union, Harrah’s donated $25,000 to the Trade Council. Greg Mancini of the building trades group told the Boston Globe that he went to Barrow to add “intellectual heft” to the pro-casino position. “We went to Clyde Barrow and asked him to prove it from an academic point of view,” Mancini said. “He said, ‘Yeah, I can do that. But it’s going to cost money.’”

Lincoln Almond, the former governor of Rhode Island, called Barrow “one of Harrah’s paid consultants” who lives in a “fantasy world” of illusive casino benefits.

In 1999, Barrow’s group received funding from the Visions Group, a business group then pushing for a casino in Salisbury, MA. Other communities and groups in favor of a casino have also hired Barrow, and he has been a paid spokesperson at conferences sponsored by the casino industry.

A casino developer who controls land in New Bedford and Palmer, MA partially funded one of Barrow’s “studies” that supported a casino in that area of the state.

Barrow’s “research” often shows how states are losing money to casinos in neighboring states. But his numbers are based on flimsy research and often don’t add up. For example, during last year’s debate over plans for three casinos in Massachusetts, Barrow claimed that his research showed that 35% of the patrons at Foxwoods hailed from Massachusetts. He reached that conclusion by hiring students to record license plates parked at Foxwoods over a five-day period. However, Foxwoods officials said based on their own analysis of license plates, credit card receipts and other data, the number of Massachusetts patrons regularly visiting Foxwoods is actually much lower.

Rep. Dan Bosley of Massachusetts told the Globe that Barrow's studies are speculative, rely on a sample of casino patronage that is too small, and assume values for calculating total spending that cannot be verified. “Given Dr. Barrow's flawed research, it's a little embarrassing that he is a tenured professor at a public university,” Bosley said.

In an editorial in May, SeaCoastToday.com took issue with Barrow calling complaints by casino “skeptics” as “rhetoric.” “By labeling opponents ‘skeptics’ and their words ‘rhetoric,’ Dr. Barrow goes beyond describing the poll results,” the editorial stated. “He casts a negative light on anyone who would oppose or even question (those pesky skeptics!) the idea that Massachusetts should welcome casinos. Unfortunately, Dr. Barrow is starting to look more like a lobbyist — and less like someone whose research happens to receive private funding.”

· Nevertheless, in an e-mail to Oxford County Commissioners, the backers of Question 2 describe Barrow as “one of the most respected” experts of casino gambling in the country. He sure is respected by the casino industry.

Contact: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963

I know it looks like we're actively trying to defeat the casino initiative with this site but honestly; we just post what's sent to us.

We will be glad to post stuff from the Olympia Group if it was sent to us. We just think that people should be aware of both sides of issues to make informed decisions.

This is why I love this site. An impartial administrator who allows a free flow of ideas.

For those who support the casino in Rumford, feel free to thank Mr. Rob Cameron for causing them to consider Oxford instead of Rumford. Anyone who believes OXFORD highlands will be located in Rumford is very gullible. Mr. Cameron's tactics to delay a vote on the concept of a casino caused them to think were not as receptive to the concept. This type of thinking is what drove Wal Mart across the river, as well as other retail outlets. Thanks alot Rob, you certainly don't have my vote in November.

Isn't it curious that the Oxford BOS voted UNANIMOUSLY to support construction of the casino in their municipality? Apparently, the NIMBY philosophy is restricted to the River Valley.

I think we can thank Seth rather than Rob C. for any lack of consideration regarding Rumford as a casino location. (Did he even have your vote prior to this??) Rather than being completely up front about things he made things appear shady even if they weren't. I don't think closed door secret sessions with the selectmen helped. If Seth had made it clear (to everyone) why their support was needed he might have gotten it. Him being the messenger also didn't help, I'm sure Olympia would have a much different approach should they investigate our area with a much better result.

Is Ms Palin, oops, I mean Norris aware that the video second from top of her blob, oops i mean blog is anti-casino? Did some clever person hack it?

xmashen wrote:Is Ms Norris aware that the video second from top is anti-casino?

Yes, she posted it intentionally to warn the good citizens of the "propaganda" and scare tactics used by CasinosNO!

Remember, she's relentless in her search for the truth and the betterment of the community, and will not stop providing us with the facts behind the issues so that we can make better, more informed decisions at the ballot box.

From The Rumford Reporter:

"But, don't let this kind of media propaganda created by CasinosNO! with
their doom and gloom music scare you like they have been successful at
doing in the past."

C has a good point. When people behave in responsible and straight forward ways, it builds trust. Seth and the TRR crew have created a town where there isn't much trust right now. When Mark lied to everyone at a public meeting he didn't build a whole lot of credibility either.

According to the Sun Journal, Rumford is being looked at as a possible site for the casino. They will make their decision based on things like the esthetics of the property, traffic patterns and where they will be able to make the best investment. If the property in Rumford fits their criteria, they’ll build here.

Admin wrote:C has a good point. When people behave in responsible and straight forward ways, it builds trust. Seth and the TRR crew have created a town where there isn't much trust right now. When Mark lied to everyone at a public meeting he didn't build a whole lot of credibility either.

According to the Sun Journal, Rumford is being looked at as a possible site for the casino. They will make their decision based on things like the esthetics of the property, traffic patterns and where they will be able to make the best investment. If the property in Rumford fits their criteria, they’ll build here.

Admin,

You're correct that they will build there if Rumford meets their criteria...assuming that an overall positive attitude of the population and the elected officials is NOT one criterion. If I were Mr Harrold looking at Oxford and Rumford, and one demonstrates an overwhelming support for the casino while the other is less than enthusiastic, I would go with the former - life would be easier there.

PORTLAND – Not a single Mainer has contributed to the campaign for a Las Vegas casino in Oxford, the latest campaign finance reports reveal.

The spending reports by the casino proponents show that Las Vegas-based Olympia Gaming is the sole contributor to the campaign to put a casino in the town of Oxford, spending more than half-a-million dollars in just 14 days on television, radio and newspaper advertising.

“Their signs say ‘Yes on 2 for Maine,’ but they should say ‘Yes on 2 for Vegas’,” said Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, the grassroots organization opposed to the expansion of casino gambling in Maine. “Clearly, Las Vegas has everything to gain from Question 2, and Maine people have everything to lose.”

The Las Vegas corporation has spent nearly $40,000 a day on consultant fees, advertising and other expenses since announcing their interest in the Oxford referendum. Besides television and newspaper advertising, the campaign reported spending nearly $160,000 with CDM Communications, an advertising agency in Portland. Their full PAC report is HERE.

In contrast, CasinosNO! reported raising $77,700, all of it from Maine residents, and no spending on advertising. The full report is HERE.

“So which campaign is really for Maine,” Bailey asked. “It’s important to remember that casinos aren’t built from the money of winners, they’re built from the money of losers. Las Vegas is here to make losers of us all, and that’s why we need to vote no on Question 2.”

CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963

They will suck the money out of Maine.

On a day when local opponents of a proposed gambling casino in the town of Oxford are planning a news conference, the Sun Journal published an article concerning the Paris selectmen who failed to vote last night in favor of a motion supporting the casino. Two of the selectmen spoke out against the casino:


No vote on casino in Paris

By M. Dirk Langeveld , Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
PARIS - A vote of support for the proposed Oxford casino resort by Paris selectmen didn't materialize Monday after a motion endorsing the plan couldn't hold a second.

Selectman David Ivey had asked that the item be put on the agenda.

"The town of Oxford did it, and I think we should follow suit," said Ivey. "And I think other towns are going to be right behind us."

On Oct. 2, Oxford selectmen and that town's economic development advisory committee voted to support having a casino in town if the question passes a referendum in November. Olympia Gaming, the Las Vegas-based group backing the project, announced a week later that the casino would be sited in Oxford.

The proposed $184 million resort casino would include a hotel, casino with table games and slots, spa, and conference center. Proponents say that the resort will create 907 jobs with an average salary of $35,000, while opponents argue that the development would lead to social problems, profits being transferred out of state, and other issues.

Oxford would receive 2 percent of the casino's annual profits, or $2.8 million after its fifth year in operation. The county would receive 1 percent, or $1.4 million after the fifth year.

Selectman Lloyd "Skip" Herrick seconded the motion for the purposes of discussion, but later withdrew the second. Herrick said he believed the decision was an individual one rather than a municipal one.

"I don't think it's the economic answer for the state of Maine or Oxford County," said Herrick. "I've always felt that you can't open the door for one town, city, or municipality in this state and close the door on every other recommendation."

Chairman Raymond Glover said that while the project would create jobs and add value to the area, he was not sure if he could support the casino on behalf of the town.

"I do not support the gambling issue." said Glover. "I do not think economic development based on gambling is beneficial."

PORTLAND – Two Maine legislators appearing in a television commercial for the Yes on 2 campaign voted against the Oxford County casino bill when it came before their committee last April.

Sen. Deborah Plowman of Bangor and Rep. John Patrick of Rumford appear in the ad pledging to “fix” the many problems in Question 2 “when it passes” on Nov. 4th. “We fixed the racino bill and we can fix Question 2,” the legislators say.

The ad can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23emfSWlggo&eurl=http://72.32.87.19/

But when the bill for the Oxford County casino came before the Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee on which Plowman and Patrick sit, they both voted against it.

“They couldn’t hold their nose and vote for this stinker of a bill when they had it in front of them,” said Dennis Bailey, executive director of CasinosNO!, the grassroots organization opposing Question 2. “Now they’re telling Maine people they should vote for it, but don’t worry, the Legislature will fix it.

“If their actions weren’t so outrageous and irresponsible it would be funny,” Bailey continued. “They’re telling Maine people to vote for a law they know is bad, a law that they themselves didn’t vote for, and gamble that the Maine Legislature can improve it. I don’t think Maine voters will take that bet.”

Bailey noted that while Plowman and Patrick think the law can be changed, other state leaders aren’t so sure. Secretary of State Matt Dunlap told the Portland Press Herald that the Legislature is "extraordinarily reluctant to tinker too much" with legislation that reflects the will of voters. Sen. Lisa Marrache, who also sits on the Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee, said the Oxford casino bill would require “an extreme makeover.”

When the Oxford County casino bill came before the committee last April, legislators had several options for dealing with the citizens initiated bill: they could vote it down and send it to voters in a referendum; they could pass it and then amend it; or they could have voted to place a competing measure on the ballot for a casino without all the problems contained in Question 2.

“They simply voted no and sent it to the voters,” Bailey said. “For some reason the casino bill was beyond repair last April, now they want Maine people to put this bad bill into law.”

Several statements in the ad are also questionable. Plowman says, “Some people have said the language in Question 2 is confusing.”

“Who said it’s confusing,” Bailey asked. “The language is crystal clear. It will lower the legal age to gamble from 21 to 19. It allows 18 year olds to work in the casino dealing cards. It gives Las Vegas a 10-year monopoly on casinos. It puts the president of the casino, a man from Las Vegas, on dozens of boards and commissions that have authority over health care, education and the environment. Nothing confusing about that.”

Plowman also takes credit for “fixing the racino bill,” the 2003 referendum that resulted in Hollywood Slots in Bangor.

“That’s certainly open to interpretation,” Bailey said. “The Legislature added things to the bill, like payouts to off-track-betting parlors, that the voters never approved. The committee was whipsawed by lobbyists representing every corner of the gambling industry. There’s no way to tell what we’d end up with if Question 2 passes.”


CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963

CasinosNO! has written a letter to Maine TV stations asking them to cease airing a Yes on 2 campaign ad featuring a state legislator pledging to fix the many serious problems with Question 2 if it passes, when in fact the legislator making the pledge is prohibited from running for re-election and will not be a member of the Maine Legislature next year. CasinosNO! believes the ad is a deliberate attempt to mislead voters into believing that a consensus exists for "fixing" the law should it pass, when no such consensus exists. It is particularly misleading and deceitful to have a Maine Legislator pledging to fix a law when in fact he will have no role in doing so.

See the attached letter sent to Maine television stations today.

Dennis Bailey
207-749-4963

Don’t Gamble Away Maine’s Future

Oct. 18, 2008

Dear Station Manager,

An advertisement airing on your station by the Yes on 2 campaign is false and misleading.

The advertisement features two state legislators who say they will “fix” Question 2 “when it is passed” by voters on Nov. 4. However, the legislator making that pledge, Rep. John Patrick, D-Rumford, is prohibited from running for re-election this year and will not be a member of the Legislature during the next session to fix the casino bill or anything else.

In the ad, Rep. Patrick says, “We sit on the committee that oversees Maine gambling laws.” While it’s true that Rep. Patrick was a member of the Legislature’s Legal and Veterans Affairs Committee during the last session of the Legislature, he will not be a member of the committee, nor a member of the Maine Legislature, should this bill pass and return to the committee for action. The suggestion that he continues to have authority over Maine gambling laws is false and misleading. (A list of term-limited legislators can be found at http://janus.state.me.us/house/123_term.htm)

Rep. Patrick further states in the ad, “We pledge when Question 2 passes the committee will change it to meet existing Maine law.”

Rep. Patrick is in no position to speak for the committee since he will not be a member of the Maine Legislature. In fact, there is no guarantee the Legislature will do anything to amend Question 2 if it passes. As Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap noted in Sept. 22nd article in the Portland Press Herald, “the Legislature tends to be ‘extraordinarily reluctant to tinker too much’ with legislation that reflects the will of voters.”

This deceptive advertisement is a deliberate attempt to mislead voters into believing the many serious problems in Question 2 can and will be fixed, when in fact the Legislator making the pledge will have no role in making those changes next year, or whether any changes will be made at all.

In the interest of accuracy and fairness, we request that you cease airing this false and misleading ad.

Sincerely,

Dennis Bailey

CasinosNO!

It's like " let's pass a bill to kill dogs, but don't worry, cuz we really won't kill YOUR puppy and we will make sure that only the really bad dogs get off'd. Trust us!"

"oh, and by the way, even though i won't be there to vote for the protection of your pup, you can still trust me, because I know whoever takes my place will back me up".

PORTLAND – The former mayor of Ledyard, CT, home to the Foxwoods casino, will join Dennis Bailey of CasinosNO! for a presentation at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday at a meeting of the Oxford County Commissioners in South Paris.

Susan Mendenhall, who served as Ledyard’s mayor and a member of the town council, will relate her experiences dealing with the a nearby casino. She will warn the commissioners about the cost of providing town services for the casino and other related impacts.

Bailey will present the Commissioners with a 20-page report in response to an economic impact study given to the Commissioners two weeks ago by the casino promoters.

The meeting will be held at 11:30 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 21 at the Oxford County Courthouse, 26 Western Ave., South Paris.

CONTACT: Dennis Bailey, 207-749-4963

There will be a debate between the casino's Yes and No groups tonight on CH 13 at 7pm, if anyone is interested.


Jason

Jason, thanks for the info...hopefully can catch some of it.

Just got this in an e-mail from my wife.


Casino Forum Debate

Wednesday, Oct. 22^nd from 6-9pm

Mountain Valley High School Auditorium

Debating will be Pat Lamarche of the YES side and Dennis Bailey of the NO side. John Hopperstad from WGME Ch. 13 will be the moderator. Our local access channel will be taping as well.



Thank you,

Beverly



Beverly Crosby

Administrative Assistant

River Valley Growth Council

60 Lowell Street

Rumford, ME 04276

P: (207) 369-0396
F: (207) 369-0356