Wednesday, June 11, 2008

The Top Ten

10.) New regulations. No more casinos beyond a 25 miles radius from tribal government! And guess what? The Mashpee tribe's government is 39 miles away from the property in Middleboro.

9.) No ties that bind. The new regs also require that the Tribe prove it has historical ties to the land.

8.) No Trespassing signs. Other Tribes are making what appears to be legitimate claims to the property in Middleboro.

7.) Don't Tread on Us. The Supreme Court will be reviewing the case of Carcieri v. Kempthorne this Fall or next Spring. If the court rules for Carcieri, there will be no Land into Trust in Massachusetts, further making it extremely premature for the Governor to proceed with any compacts or negotiations with the Tribe.

6.) The wagons are circling. Surrounding communities have a voice in the decision to take the land into trust and they're using it. 18 towns have formed a task force. Plympton even formed it's own task force and seven towns around Middleboro have already voted to oppose a casino there.

5.) Article 3. Middleboro doesn't want a casino.

4.) The Governor doesn't want a Middleboro casino. Which is why he had his people compile a 70+ page document opposing the Tribe's application to take the land in Middleboro into trust.

3.) The Truth Will Set Us Free. The legislature must approve any Class III gambling compact. If the governor goes around the legislature, they will sue him. Hell, I will sue him. And if the legislature has to decide, there will be hearings at which they're going to find out this whole 'gambling is inevitable' thing is nothing but a big fat crock of Boston baked beans.

2.) Bond, Adam Bond. The only thing that is inevitable about this whole casino business is that Adam will eventually say or do something to make casino opponents fight even harder.

And now, the number one reason why a casino isn't coming to Middleboro...

1.) This ain't Connecticut.

This is Massa-freakin-chusetts. And the year is 2008 not 1990. It's the digital age. We have e-mail, the Internet and yes... even BLOGS to instantly spread the word, to expose shady shenanigans, to motivate, educate and inspire, as well as to share information, resources and talents. And from my work with the folks of and Casino Free Mass, I can personally attest to the amazing resources and talents at work to keep our great State casino-free.

All of us - you, me, us, them - we form a powerful network that didn't exist back when Skip Hayward and his merry band of lawyers had their way with the State of Connecticut and ushered in an era of the world's largest Casinos to a State once best known for Yale, shipbuilding and people who wore shirts with little aligators on them.

This ain't then, and they aren't us.



carverchick said...

Bravo Gladys! This is the best top 10 list I have seen in a long time. The Guv is playing his silly "inevitable" game. It didn't work before and it isn't going to work now.

Thanks once again for telling the TRUTH. Something our own Governor apparently isn't able to do.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic, again you hit a bullseye! and for extra points I now know you could cover another 10DIFFERENT reasons on why it "ain't comming"
"Tell us more", Tell us more"

With so much against this tribe it amazes me they, BOS, can honestly say to Middleboro residents, "it's a done deal" Didn't any of them do their homework???? I read their application, then read all land into trust reg.s then more importantly, the regulations on GAMING/CASINO!! You were right! and still are right! Doesn't anyone in Middleboro read?? Thank you Gladys for steering me in the right direction to READ for myself! I did & now I can see the brainwashing that went on last summer & still going on. This is all new territory for MA, we need to be educated in this "PROCEDURE"
Keep on!

Anonymous said...

Keep on blogging! Ain't gonna come anyway. Guv's just drinking the KoolAid.


Raymond Tolosko said...

Absolutely brilliant.

Anonymous said...

Gladys, Glad to hear David Letterman is supporting the casino opposition!

Isn't everyone?

Unknown said...

Gladys: Bill over from Dan Kennedy.

You make it sound like Connecticut had a choice.

I was there.

We didn't.

Fortunately, one of the tribes (The Mohegans) are reasonable and understand community.

Not so much the Mashantuckets.

But they both had more solid claims to the land than the Massachusetts tribes.

Gladys Kravitz said...

Bill, I'm so sorry if I made it sound that CT had a choice. I didn't mean it to, and I KNOW the PEOPLE (unlike their governor) had no voice whatsoever. The state of CT had vigorously resisted legalized gambling for many years.

But mostly because, as you've pointed out, the two CT tribes already had existing reservations. In MA, the Mashpee are trying to take the land in Middleboro, to which they have no historical ties, and which other tribes lay claim to, into trust simultaneously with their historical land in Mashpee. This is a whole different animal according to Federal law, and subject to more obstacles.

I point out that MA in 2008 is not CT in 1990 as my number 1 reason because a.) the Tribal aspect is different, for many reasons, and b.) because we have these crazy blogs and other digital avenues by which the truth seeps out, no matter how inevitable some interests want us to believe gambling or casinos are in our state. And because I really believe that CT would have had a fighting chance in the same decade. And I do point this out because the situation today in Middleboro, and Massachusetts as a whole, is SO OFTEN compared with the one experienced in CT, and as a result labeled, "inevitable"

Reading 'Without Reservation' by Jeff Benedict, my heart went out to the people of CT who had their rights trampled on due to greed, ego and misinformation. One vivid memory is the page where lawyers are using a sharpee to draw, without any knowledge of the land or the people who live there, the new boundry lines of the Pequot reservation. And Bill, I vowed I would do my best to see that that same thing didn't happen here.

Thanks for visiting,

Anonymous said...


That comment and your explanation about CT made me so sad.

What was done was horrible! Just horrible!

God Speed!

And thanks for a great blog!


Anonymous said...

Reason #11 and #12 might be added to the list:

Shawn Hendricks and Sol Kerzner


Anonymous said...

No casino! Yah! No wonder those folks are in a stew!


Anonymous said...

First, thank you Bill for bringing this to light, thank you Gladys for the excellent explanation and it shows your compassion.
We have to use CT as our measuring stick as these are the only tribe owned casino's that are in our vacinity. However, as usual Gladys you rightly pointed out what the reasons/differences were to get to that end result, casino's!


Anonymous said...

I just have one question.
If the Tribe applied for the land into trust prior to the new regulations, do the new regulations apply to their application?
If the land into trust application was submitted under the old regulations, will the application be considered under the old rules?

I guess that's really two questions, maybe asking the same thing, but I'm sure you get my drift.

Gladys Kravitz said...

According to some of our folks familiar with IGRA, The Mashpees would not likely be grandfathered under the old regs for the following reasons:
Sec. 292.26 What effect do these regulations have on pending
applications, final agency decisions, and opinions already issued?

These regulations apply to all requests pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2719, except:
(a) These regulations do not alter final agency decisions made pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 2719 before the date of enactment of these regulations.
(b) These regulations apply to final agency action taken after the effective date (June 19, 2008 08) of these regulations except that these regulations shall not apply to applicable agency actions when, before the effective date of these regulations, the Department or the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) issued a written opinion regarding the applicability
of 25 U.S.C. 2719 for land to be used for a particular gaming
establishment, provided that the Department or the NIGC retains full discretion to qualify, withdraw or modify such opinions.
NO final action has been taken on their application. Obviously, there are many things which must be done before any final action can be taken. Therefore the new rules apply. The NIGC has not issued any written opinions, the Mashpee are not at that point in the process.


So, to summarize, it says;

1. The new regs don’t change any decisions that have already been made.

2. The new regs apply to any decisions made after May 20th 2008.

3. The old regs can be applied to applications which have not had a decision, but have written opinions from the NIGC. (and even then, it says CAN be applied, the DOI or NGIC retains the right to qualify, withdraw or modify the opinion. Meaning that even if and opinion HAS been written, the application might still be processed by the new regs. Lots of discretion there).

On top of this... Middleboro selectman Bond has proclaimed that the Tribe will be grandfathered - and he is always wrong.

carverchick said...

In response to Smoking Owl's question - which is an excellent one - Gladys you are spot on with your answer!

The Tribe is currently going through an environmental review from the March 25th BIA hearing. They need to address comments made and write and submit a draft environmental impact statement. The draft EIS will go through another public comment period at which time it will either be accepted or denied. If denied, they need to address or fix whatever caused the denial and go through another review. If approved, then the BIA will submit the LIT application with EIS to the Secretary of the Interior for approval or denial. If the Tribe does not have that application in and approved by the Secretary before August 25, 2008 the new regs apply. An EIS can take years to complete. We are anticipating seeing a draft by the end of this year or early next year. We are prepared for it.

The NIGC can make recomendations or submit opinions regarding certain applications, but the DOI can reject those opinions at their discretion.

So yes, Mr. Bond is incorrect in saying the Tribe's application falls under the old regs. But by his own admission, he had based that statement on only briefly skimming the regs. and even he said he wasn't sure. It would be interesting to know if he has had time to read the changes and if he still thinks the application falls under the old regs. - which it doesn't.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your informed responses. As always you have provided a wealth of information.
It is no surprise that Mr. Bond only skimmed the regulations. Apparently he also just skimmed the Agreement with the tribe, and thought by only giving the voting public a few days to read the entire agreement, the deal was in the bag.