Middleborough eyes potential of a casino ballot rule

MIDDLEBOROUGH - Mary O'Neill, 73, applauded Governor Deval Patrick yesterday for his administration's plan to require that state-licensed casinos be subject to a binding voter referendum in the communities where they would be built.

O'Neill said she was disappointed in July when she didn't get to participate in a Town Meeting called by Middleborough leaders, the pivotal meeting where voters overwhelmingly authorized a plan for a Mashpee Wampanoag casino resort on 500 rural acres but also, through a show of hands, supported a nonbinding, anticasino resolution.

"I didn't attend the Town Meeting on the football field this summer because I was afraid I couldn't take the heat," O'Neill said. "I feel disenfranchised at not being able to vote that day. I'd like to see the binding vote required."

Patrick's secretary of housing and economic development, Daniel O'Connell, told the Globe on Wednesday that the local referendum provision would be included in draft casino legislation expected to be submitted to the Legislature next week. Patrick has proposed licensing three casinos in Massachusetts - one each in metropolitan Boston, Southeastern Massachusetts, and Western Massachusetts - that he says would generate $2 billion in economic activity and 20,000 new jobs.

Patrick hedged on the referendum proposal yesterday. During a radio show on WTKK, he said he had not been briefed on the details and cautioned that the draft legislation is subject to change. He suggested that he is not completely committed to the idea of a local referendum, despite O'Connell's comments in the Globe interview.

"My point has been that nobody ought to ram one of these three resort casinos down the throat of a local community," Patrick said. "There has to be local community input, as there is in any large development. How we get that local input, I think, is on the table."

Mixed signals from the administration notwithstanding, the concept of a referendum was enough to trigger a debate in Middleborough on whether the divided town would have to revisit the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal casino question.

The tribe is on a parallel track to pursue a casino through a federal approval process reserved for Native American tribes - a more arduous route that would allow the Wampanoag to circumvent Patrick's casino licensing system but could take longer to win approval. Tribal representatives have said they are interested in bidding for one of the three state casino licenses envisioned by the governor, so a referendum requirement could be significant.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the tribe and its outside investors said the casino backers believe the support the tribe has already won from the community, in the July Town Meeting would satisfy Patrick.

"I think what the governor is looking for is the same type of ratification that happened in Middleborough to happen in other locations," Scott Ferson said. "My impression is he's looking for local support. Clearly what we have in Middleborough is demonstrated support by a mechanism that I think is even more rigorous than a ballot: a Town Meeting vote."

Selectman Adam Bond, who helped negotiate the casino deal with the tribe, said he was puzzled by the notion of a ballot vote requirement.

"I think it's an abdication of authority" by Patrick "to some degree," Bond said. He predicted that the tribe would go the federal route if a referendum provision makes it into the final legislation.

On the opposite side of the debate, Richard Young, president of the anticasino group Casinofacts, welcomed the ballot requirement.

"My biggest problem this summer was there was never any forum where people in Middleborough could discuss their differences," he said, pointing out that the proposed agreement was made public just four days before it had to be ratified. "Instead, it was allowed to boil by the selectmen, who kept everything secretive."

Christine Wallgren can be reached at CLWallgren@aol.com