A letter from Plainville resident to the
Massachusetts Gaming Commission about their upcoming decision as to the fitness
of Plainridge to operate a gaming facility:
Dear Commissioner Crosby,
As you are making your decision about whether to allow Plainridge to
move ahead in the application process or be disqualified because of concerns
about the toleration of Mr. Piontowski's "cash withdrawals," I hope you consider
these facts, as well:
• Plainridge was in violation of the Massachusetts
charitable gaming laws for more than a decade with their so-called "Plainridge
Raffle." The Attorney General has recently concluded the investigation about the
raffle, and Plainridge has agreed not to repeat their offense. Why the AGO has
seen fit to treat the matter with such laissez faire is beyond me, especially
when Plainridge — with their many lawyers always at the ready — must have known
they were breaking the law. Moreover, while the AGO has found that no charitable
monies were misspent, they ignored the fact that Plainridge used the raffle to
ingratiate themselves to a town in which they have lobbied for expanded gambling
almost since they opened the track. Plainridge received a great deal from
running illegal charitable gaming — they garnered the goodwill and loyalty of
residents who were not aware that laws were being broken on their behalf.
The AGO refuses to give me anything in writing about the case. Perhaps
they'll be more forthcoming for you.
• As you know, Plainridge sued
Thomas Keen, a resident of Plainville and a co-founder of No Plainville Racino,
for defamation due to an anonymous posting on the group's Facebook page. Mr.
Keen successfully defended himself in court, and Plainridge dropped their
subsequent appeal, citing "more important matters" (around the time they were
ridding themselves of Mr. Piontkowski).
• In response to an inquiry
about the projected length of blasting at the track earlier this year, residents
who live on Harness Path (abutting Plainridge) were told that Plainridge is in
possession of a 1999 Mutual Non-Interference Agreement between Francis Daddario
and GTWO, LLC that could mean a serious lawsuit if anyone living on Harness Path
dares to speak up against anything going on or anything that they fear might go
on at Plainridge. The Mutual Non-Interference Agreement is a matter of pubic
record (Norfolk Registry of Deeds, BK 13350, PG 416, recorded 99 Apr -2) and is
attached here.
The agreement says that the parties are "not to object to
any such future development plans of the other by any of the following means:
oral or written opposition to governmental permits, approvals, and or rezoning,
at or in connection with hearings, town meetings, administrative proceedings
and/or administrative or judicial appeals." The threat to use this Agreement
against the residents of Harness Path to keep them from speaking at "hearings,
town meetings, etc." when they live so close and are among the most affected
from the addition of slots is a serious one, indeed, and should be considered
when weighing the fitness of Plainridge to operate a gaming facility in our
town.
Respectfully,
Mary-Ann Greanier
No comments:
Post a Comment