Voters in the Massachusetts town of Milford yesterday said “no dice.” No blackjack or slots either. In fact, there was nothing ambiguous about the denial it delivered yesterday to Foxwoods’ proposed $1-billion resort casino.
With a 57-percent voter turnout for Tuesday’s special election, voters soundly rejected the plan put forth by the owners of the Foxwoods resort casino in Connecticut. The final tally was 6,361 votes against and 3,480 in favor, a spread of nearly 2-to-1 – 65 percent to 35 percent.
“We respect the choice Milford voters made today,” Scott Butera, Foxwoods president and CEO, said in a statement this morning. “While we worked hard to offer a resort casino we believe would benefit the area, the town made a decision similar to many other communities across the state. Though the outcome isn’t what we hoped for, we have a high regard for the residents of Milford and will part ways having learned from the experience. We invite everyone to come visit Foxwoods in Connecticut.”
The decision leaves only one proposal for the sole resort casino on the eastern end of the Bay State, which includes Worcester County. The only proposal on the table is one for Everett, by Wynn Resorts. Earlier this month, voters in East Boston rejected a planned resort casino on the site of the Suffolk Downs racetrack. However, voters in neighboring Revere said yes, leaving open a possibility that the plan could resurface as one located solely in Revere.
The Milford vote, coupled with a narrow rejection in Palmer of plans for a resort casino in that town, all will likely eliminate the possibility of a resort casino landing in Central Massachusetts. However, a recount of ballots in Palmer is scheduled for next week. The developers, the owners of the Mohegan Sun casino in Connecticut, lost at the ballot box by less than 100 votes out of more than 5,000 that were cast.
The chief opponents to the Foxwoods proposal, the group Casino-Free Milford, posted a “Thank You Milford!” note on its website today after the vote.
“From our very first meeting held around a kitchen table, we acknowledged that we would be fighting a David vs. Goliath battle,” read the note, written by the group’s co-chairmen, John Seaver and Steve Trettel. “We knew we would never be able to match the dollars of the Foxwoods’ campaign. We also knew that money does not buy you everything.”
Lobbying by both opponents and proponents intensified in the days leading up to the vote. Both Foxwoods Massachusetts and Casino-Free Milford sent email messages earlier this week to plead their cases.
The Foxwoods proposal would have given the town up-front payments totaling $33 million and annual payments of $34 million, some of which the developers argued could reduce property taxes throughout the town of about 27,000 people. Foxwoods also said the casino would have created 3,500 permanent jobs and 3,000 construction jobs, with a commitment to filling those slots with people from Milford and surrounding towns.
“There’s been some talk about Foxwoods just making promises, but we’ve made guarantees,” the Foxwoods email pitch read. “We truly believe this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to improve the quality of life for those in Milford and the surrounding area.”
Meanwhile, in an interview with The Boston Globe, Foxwoods chief executive admitted the uphill climb the plan faced.
“There was always a lot of opposition,” he told the Globe after the votes were counted. “We tried to change people’s minds and educate people, but we weren’t able to do it. It just wasn’t meant to be.”
