‘Eroded values’ after considering projects

Editor: 

 I’ve read all the articles concerning the Scarborough Downs issue as well as the casino in Oxford County.  I’m really surprised and saddened that the values of Maine people have eroded so much that either project are being seriously considered.  For me the bottom line is that the gambling industry is a parasitic industry and they will do and say whatever they have to impregnate themselves into Maine’s world.  The bulk of their income doesn’t come from the rich and wealthy but from the addicted and desperate.  We’ve seen increasing crime in our world as a result of the increase in drug addiction, what makes us think that it will be any different for gambling addiction.

The gambling industry promises us the world just like bait on a fishing line. Once we’re hooked then there’s not much we can do to control the fallout.  We’ve listened for years about the added tax dollars to come from the Haigis development. Now that this is finally happening why are we do desperate to bite at the money bait from the gambling industry.  I don’t doubt that we need a new Wentworth School but we need to also pay down some of the exorbitant monies borrowed for the extravagant high school addition before we incur another huge debt.  Are we so bad at managing our personal budgets that we can’t apply the same logic to managing our town budget.  We don’t “need” an elaborate library addition or a swimming pool.  If we are prudent and manage our tax monies those enhancements will come in time.  We don’t need to sell our souls for the sake of money!  Also, what kind of role models are we being for our children.  Are they learning that money is most important?  Do we value their safety so little that we’d place a gambling industry within walking distance from their schools? 

   If we are so concerned about building a new school then Scarborough citizens need to make our local town council, school board members and services departments more responsible for how they spend our tax dollars.  If we become involved and make them more accountable I suspect there are lots of monies to be saved or diverted to bigger needs.  We need to be more vocal when projects voted down by the town citizens crop up anyway.  This Black Point Park wasn’t the first abuse of power by town employees.  When was the last time that town service departments sat down and re-evaluated how they do business with a goal of increasing productivity and decreasing costs.  We don’t necessarily need to give services up, we just need to find better ways.   I’m sure there are many town employees who can offer suggestions for how to improve and save tax dollars. If we stop acting so flamboyant and instead become more respectful of the dollars paid by taxpayer old and young we can get our wish list fulfilled without selling our beautiful community down the tubes! 

Muriel Soucy

Scarborough

Messer fully endorses proposal

Editor:

    After taking a neutral stance for several months on the Scarborough Village proposal, I’ve decided to outright endorse the proposal as being in the long term best interests of the community.  I’ve decided to do so for a variety of reasons.

   First, and foremost, I believe the improvements to our quality of life from the benefits of the proposal far outweigh the perceived impacts of the proposal.  The town council has the ultimate authority to negotiate a host agreement that locks in every benefit and establishes a strategy to minimize every impact.  This host agreement would be subject to a second referendum vote, which gives our citizens veto power over any arrangement that they feel would not be in their best interests.

   The town council can earmark where every dollar of revenue this project generates is spent.  By my calculations, the town could build $50 million in school projects, $15 million for a public safety complex, $15 million for a community center with a pool at no expense to the local taxpayer.  Furthermore, there would be plenty of revenue left after these projects to lower the tax rate at least 10 percent.  That is a maximum bang for your buck in my opinion.

   Second is the potential for substantial economic development.  On an automated phone call that was sent throughout the community, a fellow councilor stated this proposal is “limiting our future economic development choices.”  I beg to differ.  There is more developable land at Scarborough Downs than there is on Haigis Parkway. Having the racino revenue pay for the $20 million in necessary infrastructure opens up this property for maximum economic development that otherwise would never happen because the infrastructure would be cost prohibitive.

   Third is job creation.  Some opponents have stated that 500 jobs averaging $34,000 a year with benefits at the racino isn’t the economic development we prefer (although I find it hard to say no to jobs of any type in this economy).  The same argument could have been made against Cabela’s, which eventually set the stage for Fairchild and others to locate in Scarborough.  I would envision a similar scenario playing out here with the strong likelihood of significant office buildings similar to the proposed Fairchild building locating on the Downs property.  There will be jobs far beyond the racino if the entire 535-acre parcel is developed. 

   Fourth, we need to do all we can to increase tourism.  Political theory suggests we want biotech and other high paying jobs from out of state.  Political reality is this just will not happen.  Maine’s heavy tax burden, soaring energy costs and high cost of living make it all but impossible to attract top end business from out of state.  We need to stop dreaming of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow and start working on making Maine a year round tourist destination.  Cabela’s and the racino set a strong foundation for the expansion of tourism.

   I don’t dismiss that there will be some impacts, but I do find the use of scare tactics, as well as a concerted effort to spead misinformation throughout the community to be disappointing.  Some of the claims made about adult entertainment, child gambling addiction, grossly exaggerated expenses to the town, and inflated crime statistics are beyond the pale.   

   A prime example of misinformation is the following quote from SEDCO Chairman Roger Beeley in the Leader last week:  “We have serious questions about how a racino would bring high quality development to Scarborough.  If there was a racino here, could you envision Fairchild moving in next door?”  Fact:  Mr. Beeley attended the groundbreaking ceremony for Fairchild last Thursday.  Suffice to say Fairchild is coming, which indicates to me that SEDCO had serious flaws in the data analysis used to form their position statement against the proposal.

  I’ve done my due diligence on this issue.  I presented a 30-minute overview on the public record at the town council meeting of Oct. 15.  Every impact and benefit was thoroughly analyzed using objective data from multiple non-biased sources.  Please review this presentation at www.scarboroughvillage.com and click on ‘Get The Facts.’

   Board of education members Jackie Perry and Annalee Rosenblatt have taken a public position in favor of the Scarborough Village proposal.  I commend both of these women for taking a difficult stand for very principled reasons.  The fact is we have an absolute responsibility to construct a new intermediate school.  This project was soundly defeated with a 65 percent no vote a couple of years ago in a vibrant economy.  The odds of voter approval on this project in the current economic climate are near zero unless there is an alternative funding source such as this proposal.  This is a reality that cannot be ignored.

   In closing, I’ve had the pleasure of getting to know Barry Feldman and Gene Beaudoin of the New England Expedition very well over the past couple of years during the negotiations for the contract zone for the Gateway project (Fairchild, Cabela’s, etc.) and the subsequent construction.  These men are first class professionals and their work clearly shows this to be the case.  Integrity for them is more than just a word, it’s a way of doing business.  I have complete faith and trust that they will continue to be outstanding corporate citizens that will partner well with the town should they have the opportunity to build this project.

Jeffrey Messer

Chairman, Scarborough Town Council

Downs proposal looks like ‘bribe’

Editor:

   On Tuesday, Scarborough voters will be asked to approve a change to a town ordinance that would allow slot machines at Scarborough Downs. This, simply put, is another taxpayer funded bailout of a failing industry. This proposal is an attempt to bribe Scarborough taxpayers to legalize slot machines to finance the dieing harness racing industry in Maine.  More likely, the proposal is nothing more than the Trojan horse that will sneak slot machines into the town making a very few, very rich.

   Whether or not the promised $8 million flows into town coffers every year is anyone’s guess; payment will depend on the economic success of the racino. The larger question is whether Scarborough taxpayers want this kind of business development. There is little doubt that this revenue will come at an additional cost to taxpayers. Additional police and fire department costs are inevitable. More public works money will be needed to support increased traffic flow on an already crowded Route 1. Businesses considering Scarborough for expansion will likely take the town off its list because of quality of life concerns and the very real fear of paying higher taxes to cover as yet unknown costs brought on by the one-armed bandits.

   As a property owner, taxpayer, and resident of Scarborough, I will vote no on Nov. 4, and I urge all taxpayers and residents concerned about Scarborough’s future to do the same. 

  By any definition, this is a bad bet.

John Noone

Scarborough

Downs analysis needs closer look

Editor:

   Jeff Messer’s recent article advises Scarborough residents to consider “the potential financial benefits to the town” before spurning the racetrack’s most recent “promise” of $8 million a year to allow slots at their facility.

   “The fact is,” he writes, “we could build $50 million in new school buildings, a community center with a pool; the public safety complex and still have $3 million annually remaining from the funds generated by this project to lower the tax rate.”

   At first glance he presents a good argument. Yet, in reality, this essay cries out for a more rigorous analysis in at least three different areas.  

    First is that it focuses on only one half of an out-of-balance equation. It asks voters to look at some possible benefits of this $8 million but plays down the certain; and equally important drawbacks.

    All this cash coming into the town’s coffers is seen only as “income.”  The “costs” that come with it are not factored in.  Doesn’t that seem a bit shortsighted?  We all know “income” is nice; but if it doesn’t cover one’s expenses, you end up in trouble.  

    Nor does the article explain where all that money is going to come from in the first place!  The presumption is that this will be new money that no one around here had previously.  But if all this money is not “new;” if it comes mostly from people in the “neighborhood,” if it’s money that would otherwise be going to the local barber, baker; or restaurateur — then how do they benefit?

  Related to this point and underlying nearly every sentence of this piece, is an assumption that introducing slots in town would do no great harm or “cost” much. But; how can one know that slots are harmless?

  It’s not that data is unavailable.  Enough studies have been done to bury the racetrack under a mound of reports six feet high!

 Nor, if we look at Hollywood Slots, is it that the Gambling Control Board hasn’t ever suggested that such a “cost-benefit analysis” be undertaken.

 It’s simply that, in order to determine the full extent of the “costs,” one would need unfettered access to Bangor’s records — something which we all know is not about to happen.

  The inducement of so much “easy money” must certainly pull strongly upon any public official saddled with the necessity of figuring out how to pay for major projects with limited resources. That leads to the second problem with this article.

  You see’ when this same issue was discussed a few years ago, Jeff’s take on the matter was, “The character of this town is not up for sale.”  But, today, it appears that it is for sale!!   “In 2003; the estimated annual revenues to the town would have been $550, 000” he states. Clearly, that wasn’t enough for him back then.  These days,  apparently; $8 million is.  At the very least, it’s worth looking at now. And; who knows! He and the other councilors just may be able to “negotiate this number significantly higher.” Such talk, in my mind, leaves no doubt that there is some price at which Jeff is willing to vote in favor of slots, some price at which he can be convinced that it is a good idea to create a dependency upon gambling to fund the town’s most basic services — the education of our youth, the health needs of our seniors, even its public safety requirements.

 I find that extremely disconcerting.  And I certainly like his comments from 2003 a lot better than his more recent one. 

  My third objection is that the $8 million figure is just a guesswork number — no more credible than the $550, 000 was in 2003. The idea that slots revenues ebb and flow–and that they’re ebbing these days — is not dealt with. And what exactly is that $8 million?  Is it supposed to be “free” or a “gift” above and beyond any other payments that any other developer would be subject to?   Not very likely, but we don’t yet know.

 If that property were developed — without including slots — wouldn’t the assessed value come to at least $6 million or more? Wouldn’t the town, then, be selling its soul– not for $8 million, but rather a paltry 2 million pieces of silver  — or  even much less if you add back those hidden costs?

   Jeff is wrong to think that it’s OK to fund the town’s expenses in this distasteful way. I ask him and the other residents of Scarborough: Is this the way to pay for the scheduled new school buildings? Is this the right funding mechanism for “that community center with a pool’?  Or that public safety complex that would “meet the needs of the community for the next century?”

   In Dover; Delaware; Penn National — the wallet behind all of the Downs’ promises — already buys police cars for that community. Some people there think that’s just fine. But in Scarborough; you can’t even buy the cop on the beat a cup of coffee! He’s trained not to accept it. Isn’t that the way life is supposed to be? Scarborough doesn’t need slots to provide its citizens with a quality lifestyle.

Fred Kilfoil

Scarborough

Vote no on Scarborough Downs 

Editor:

   We have often heard the word “character” used as the reason many Scarborough residents choose to live here.  We need to think long and hard about what that really means to us when casting our vote on Nov. 4.

   We all know how busy Route 1 can be on a typical summer afternoon.  If the racino comes, think what the added influx of traffic might bring.  Think about trying to get to town hall or to the library.  You may need to leave your house on Broadturn Road more than a half hour ahead of time to complete this once simple trip.  Also keep in mind the continued popularity of Cabelas and the subsequent continued growth in that area.  That traffic combined with patrons trying to get to Scarborough Downs has “headache” written all over trying to navigate Payne Road (good luck trying to get to Pine Point Beach using that route!). 

   This of course hits on only one problem that will become a reality should the racino pass.  We all chose to live in Scarborough for our own reasons.  Our town’s character is desirable to most of us.  Please consider what “character” means to you when casting your vote.  Character cannot be bought and will be nearly impossible to recapture if a racino is allowed to operate in Scarborough.  Please vote no on the racino initiative on Nov. 4. 

 Jeff Ertman

Scarborough

Why I’m voting ‘no’ on Downs proposal

Editor:

   I am writing to urge my neighbors to vote “No” on the Scarborough Slots referendum. It is with great sadness that I see some town leaders sit idly by or promote slot machines for the likes of the almighty dollar.  It appears they have lost their vision and as a result they have also lost ours. 

    Since the early 1990s, town councilors have painstakingly corrected the inadequacies of ordinances to achieve and maintain the diversity and personality of the town, and its fiscal strength. Scarborough’s team of elected officials have meticulously crossed t’s and dotted i’s when it comes to the management of our economic resources – from funding SEDCO, the Scarborough Economic Development Corporation that promotes quality business development, to appointing committees dedicated to protecting the character of the town. Their work has included detailed comprehensive plans, changes in the sign ordinances, business zone requirements, residential subdivision ordinances; the addition of a new high school, a central municipal park, open space bonds and much more.  Even so, they have managed to maintain one of the lowest tax rates in the state.

   This hard work was done to guarantee that the type of development that comes to Scarborough brings much more in value than it costs in services.  This type of strategic planning is exactly what instills confidence in businesses such as Fairchild Semiconductor.  Unfortunately, that hard work may be lost because during hard times, some people panic and make poor decisions.  The “never discussed” costs to the town of the proposed slot machine casino is a case in point.  

   Two Scarborough School Board members support slot machines.  One has said, “My first priority is for the children” emphasizing that she was voting solely on the “prospect” of the money.  I’ve got news for her.  Nothing in life is guaranteed – including the $8 million proponents claim is a sure bet.  Bangor received just under $400,000 last year from slots revenue.  And we don’t have details or answers from Bangor either.  So let’s ask the questions: why the number of Bangor police officers went from 75 in 2005 to 90 in 2007; or why Bangor’s public safety budget went up regularly by about $410,000 until the racino was built?  The current increase is closer to $870,000.  We don’t know why. Why have the number of calls for service in Bangor gone up by 4,212 in the two years after the racino, but in the two years prior they only increased by 732?  These numbers are available in their financial reports, yet slots proponents who claim to have researched the issue have never bothered to check them out.  Shame on all of us if we can’t see through this million dollar marketing scheme started last summer by Penn National Gaming.  Penn spent over $140,000 in cash and in-kind services in just three months to get the voters to look the other way.  Penn breaks promises.  You can bet on that. 

  What the Village people haven’t told you is that $5 to $6 million of their promise is tax revenue expected for the buildings that could be built without slot machines. Nor have they told us about the many lawsuits in communities where Penn National has broken its contracts – three lawsuits from July through October 2008 that allege security fraud, breaking contracts and/or deceiving voters. Go ahead - “Google” it.  Guaranteed trouble, that’s what’s guaranteed.

  Another supporter says the “mood” in Scarborough won’t support higher taxes and that slots are a “small part.”  But 5,000 to 6,000 visits per day is not small. It’s huge.  Perhaps she thinks the “mood” will be enhanced by locating the largest bar in the state right next to our school complex. Shame on us if we agree, and if our mood is complacency. 

   I am very afraid! I fear that a slots casino will be located less than half a mile from the school my daughter will attend. I know that increased crime, traffic, drinking and driving and other social ills will destroy the Scarborough we know and love.  But most of all I am afraid of what we are teaching our children.  When times are tough and your chips are down, go ahead and gamble with your future.  We’re teaching them that there is nothing to lose.   

   Scarborough has rejected funding for school facilities because we voters want responsible spending and low taxes.  But is it better to take funding from problem gamblers?  And is there a guarantee those gambling profits will be passed on to the schools?   Not likely:  where are the communities with slot parlors that have top-notch school systems?  

   Slot machines are not quality development, and they are not a part of our Comprehensive Plan, our vision.  Slot machines will not maintain Scarborough’s character, or give businesses confidence in our future.  Slot machine parlors are not a responsible way to fund our community’s needs. No community should become dependent upon any kind of money from one source.

   Slot parlors increase traffic, increase crime, increase noise and light pollution and increase social service costs in ways that are well documented. More congestion? More traffic?  More crime?  Our vision?

   Money is not the answer to all of our problems.  I fear that those who believe there are no costs in terms of lost of security, safety, community character, core values and education are willing to gamble on a business model that is well known to be trouble.  Let’s challenge each other as residents of Scarborough when we look in each others’ eyes ask “What matters to you?”  Poets have said if you look straight into someone’s eyes you can see their souls.  It is true, of course, unless the view is obscured by dollar signs.

   Please vote no on Special Referendum No. 1. 

Suzanne A. Foley-Ferguson

Scarborough

It’s no time to ‘gamble that away’

Editor:

    As a lifelong resident of Scarborough, a parent, and advocate for sustainable development, I will be voting no on Municipal Referendum Question 1 on slot machines. 

    The claims being made by the pro-racino campaign remind me of the e-mails I receive each week from Nigerian oil ministry officials who have so much money that they want to give some to me.  My reaction to these e-mail scams and the pro-slots campaign is the same: if it sounds too good to be true, it is too good to be true.

    Scarborough is rich with human, financial, and natural resources.  We do not need to resort to big, out-of-state gambling interests to help us build our schools, a future senior center, and keep our taxes in check.  On the contrary, I am convinced that doing this would harm our town’s wholesome and family-friendly character which is our greatest asset.

    In the current economy, this is no time to be gambling that away.

 Roger Doiron

Scarborough

We need a town center, vote for Downs project

Editor:

   My dad would say to me, ‘Son if you want to know what is happening just follow the money.’ If you watch the parking lot across from AAA in Portland you will see a VIP bus, filling with mostly seniors and heading for Foxwoods Casino. Around 9 p.m. the bus returns everyone happy because they all had a planned day doing what they enjoy.

   Now that money I followed could have stayed right here in Scarborough by taking advantage of a plan to build a town center something this town has been wanting for the 38 years I have been living here. The opportunity to finally settle this issue is now at hand with no or very little cost to the town of Scarborough all it will cost our citizens is a vote in favor of this town center. Yes there is a caveat to having those buses stopping at Scarborough instead of Foxwoods. This caveat being a “racino” and some of you may say ‘Oh my God that means gambling in our town,’ and all the imaginary increases of all the unsavory activities to follow gambling. 

   I don’t see any of those imaginary unsavory activities considering we already have gambling in our town and through out our state. I may be missing something but I have failed to see any unsavory characters hanging around any places selling lottery tickets or at Scarborough Downs. Those running Hollywood Slots and the police speak of no increase of criminal activity. Scarborough’s planning board and our town council working together has done a great job policing what and how is built in our town but they have failed in every attempt to build a town center and even with their best effort hoping Cabelas would make Scarborough a destination stop. If anyone took a good look at the plan to build this village (a town center) that Scarborough has long wanted and with a racino, its location it can not fail to make Scarborough a destination stop, helping all related industry and local mom and pop operations. I think this is a win, win for everyone, especially our seniors.  Please think what your vote can mean to this town and its citizens and taxes.

Bill Billings

Scarborough

Don’t let slots become ‘defining characteristic’

Editor:

   The benefits advocated by the racino and slots supporters would leave one to consider this proposal a “no-brainer.”  Yet many of us question the validity of this proposal.  We’re not alone.  Many other communities have rejected similar gambling proposals in recent years.  Why?  Could it be the so-called quality of life issue?   It’s very difficult, if not impossible to measure “the quality of life.”  Yet we all recognize it when we see or live it.  Scarborough has plenty of it.

     Some will be persuaded by the revenue projections.  That’s understandable.  The numbers are pretty impressive.   Nevertheless, some things are more important than just money.  I have no doubt that a racino would be very successful, also that more money will be leaving the area than is coming in. A few people, Penn National in particular, will make a lot of money at the expense of many. 

   Scarborough is the envy of many, many communities.  Granted we have a great location.  We continue to have one of the lowest tax rates in the area.  Is it any wonder why it’s attractive to both commercial and residential development?  Scarborough has developed a well-earned reputation of providing a high level quality of life by integrating public planning with our extremely valuable natural assets.  Scarborough’s economic condition is in excellent shape unlike some communities that seek casinos and racinos.  Scarborough, and the surrounding communities aren’t desperate for more “service” jobs.  Our goal should be to attract high-paying quality jobs. 

   This referendum is very important.  I hope citizens consider it carefully.  If so, then I hope their decision will be not to support this referendum and project.  After all, this will become the defining characteristic of our community for many years to come.  

  We have to look to the future and not dwell on the past.

Roger Beeley

Scarborough

Much to consider with  proposal

Editor:

    In the past few days I’ve received many phone calls and emails from citizens asking for my opinion before they vote on, what else, but — the racino.

    While I openly advise them that I do not support slots in Scarborough, I ask them to consider more important questions. What should be asked of our candidates isn’t “how will (you) vote on the racino question”, but rather “how would (I) have voted when the petition for the referendum question came to the council?” and “how will you lead as a councilor if the voters approve the referendum?” How I vote personally, is after all personal.

    I too would have voted to send the referendum to the voters just as the majority of the council did, even though I do not support slots. The town charter and the law is very clear – you either do as the citizens ask or you change the zoning ordinance to allow the development. The town’s attorney advised the council that the charter required them to send it to the voters, yet one councilor voted against it because (s)he didn’t support slots.  That’s scary.  Your oath as a councilor is to uphold the constitution of our nation and state and the charter of this town. To take an approach that espouses ‘let them sue us’ is rogue and dangerous.

    The second question “How will I lead if slots are approved.” Should the citizens approve the slots in Scarborough it is every councilor’s responsibility to negotiate fairly and firmly. We must take a hard line position, call any bluffs and maximize the town’s position. I am concerned that others don’t have the experience to hold that hard line nor do they understand the consequences of their rogue positions.

    Some votes are personal. I ask that you gauge me and the other candidate on our full qualifications; and not just our position on the slots. I believe you will find my record of hard work as a former school board member, and as a fiscal steward as a town councilor worth consideration.

Shawn Babine

Scarborough