Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The Sound... of Silence

April 13, 2010

Dear Representative Flynn,

I realize my opinion is meaningless to you, since I am not a member of the gambling industry, only a constituent, but I nevertheless urge you to oppose any slot legislation before the house.  The House does not even remotely understand the ramifications of this legislation on creating sovereign nations - most especially here in our region of the State.

Mary Tufts
Bridgewater, MA

April 27, 2010

Dear Ms. Tufts,

Thank you for your letter regarding your opposition to the casino/slots legislation which we are currently debating on the House floor. I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts with me.

As you know, I have been at the forefront of the legislation and debate over the inclusion of slot machines at the state’s racetracks for over 10 years. I realize that we disagree on this issue.

My purpose in fighting for this legislation has always been about the citizens of the 8th Plymouth district. The hundreds of employees laid off at the Raynham track and the many more unemployed in other fields are in desperate need of jobs, support, and hope. While this legislation is far from perfect, it will mean jobs and revenue to the Commonwealth, benefitting every citizen.

I hope you can understand the reasons for my support of the gaming legislation.


Rep. Dave Flynn
Dean of the House

April 28, 2010

Dear Representative Flynn,

Thank you for responding. However, I find your claims about job creation to be misplaced. Casino and slot parlor jobs are far from the good paying jobs we need in this state. Your tunnel vision regarding the Raynham dog track has blinded you to other job creation possibilities - including jobs which would not saddle the people of Massachusetts, including the citizens of the 8th Plymouth district, with more addiction, bankruptcy, foreclosure, child abuse and neglect, and which wouldn't siphon discretionary dollars away from our local small businesses.

Furthermore, if you truly had the best interests of the citizens of your district at heart, I sincerely doubt you would have voted against an amendment that would have prevented gambling interests from contacting gamblers who had voluntarily placed themselves on a self-exclusion list.

Seriously, I would like to hear what possessed you to vote for such an insidious and predatory practice. Have you really so little understanding of what addiction does to individuals and families, or do your sympathies merely begin and end at the dog track?

Your constituent and neighbor,
Mary Tufts

Today is June 2, 2010.

I have still yet to receive a response from Rep. Flynn explaining to me his reasons for voting against the self-exclusion ammendment.

Local reps Calter, Canavan, Canessa, Fagan, Haddad, Gifford, McCarthy, Koczera, Brady, Bradley, Webster, Quinn, and Nyman also voted against this ammendment - which passed by only four votes.

If one of those names belongs to your rep, please contact them and ask what reasoning they used to come to the conclusion that marketing to those on problem gambling self-exclusion lists was a good thing. And please, let me know what they say.

Because the silence is killing me.


Middleboro Review said...

One might suggest that since the Speaker was closeted behind closed door with the Industry drawing up the legislation, why make more work for them?

And since the Bobble Heads were more inclined to protect their committee appointments and please the Speaker, why make waves?

It makes sense to ask.

Even silence is an answer.

Anonymous said...

"This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper."


I've been waiting for "comments" to roll in.

As allways,

Thank you.

Whoops! There's one. At 10:33.


Anonymous said...

You may be interested in what some of the wampanaogs have to say

read the archives