“Middleboro’s Nosy Neighbor”

“Gladys Kravitz” is a hoot, but she can sting, too. Here she is on casino proponents who supposedly mocked Jacquie Tolosko, leader of the anti-casino group CasinoFacts.org, when she became emotional:

It’s difficult for me to comprehend what kind of sociopathic low-brow trailer trash would do that sort of thing to a person so courageous as to stand before three-thousand strangers and speak from the heart, but clearly they’re charter members of that same sad deluded faction which actually believes a casino is their friend.

Kravitz has a warning for the media as well, writing that “it’s apparently going to be up to us to get the word out about the NO vote, because the Fourth Estate seems to have taken a vacation day.”

A reporter’s best friend

Jeff Keating, writing for the Greater Boston Blog, makes a terrific find — Government Center, a collection of computer-assisted-reporting (CAR) resources at Boston.com. I especially like the Dunkin’ Donuts finder. But seriously — this is great stuff, and I’ll add it to the list of resources I give my students.

Here are a few of Media Nation’s favorite CAR sites:

Have any I should know about? Please pass them along.

Put those shovels down

The most complete story on what comes next for Middleborough is this one, which appears in the Cape Cod Times and The Standard-Times of New Bedford. Obviously there’s a long way to go before anyone breaks ground on a casino. Reporters Curt Brown and Don Cuddy write:

Despite the overwhelming vote in favor of a casino, [casino opponent Richard] Young said he feels the public expressed its true sentiments Saturday when it rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town.

But only about half the voters were still at town meeting when the nonbinding question was decided.

True, but as I have already explained, that doesn’t negate the validity of the question. And half of nearly 4,000 is still a huge turnout for a town meeting. Sabutai comes through again in a comment on Blue Mass Group, placing in their proper perspective the “yes” vote on Article 2, to approve the agreement with the Wampanoags, and the “no” vote on Article 3, to reject the casino itself (bolds are his):

I realize there is an interest in spinning the votes on 2 and 3 to undercut questioning of the result. The media has embraced the spin of the town officials and the pro-casino side. Fact is, having some 1,500 people vote on a question is probably the second-highest total in Middleborough history. Given that the third article pre-dated the second and was submitted by petition, it’s interesting that it was relegated to “garbage time”. Again, the interests of the Tribe came before the interests of the citizen of Middleboro. I’m not expecting that the votes wouldn’t be close on those two articles considering how the town was divided, but they should at least be consistent. The fact that the votes were not indicated the failure of this meeting.

Speaking of spin embraced by the media, the Globe today still can’t bring itself to mention the “no” vote on Article 3. What is going on over there?

Finally, here is what Casinofacts.org, the anti-casino group, is saying about Saturday’s vote:

Middleboro says “Yes” and “No”

The article to enter into an agreement with with Tribe passed. The article about whether or not people wanted a casino did not pass. I think this is very telling on the effect of “vote yes or else”.

So Middleboro said “Yes” to an agreement(or else) and “No” to wanting a casino.

Now that the vote is over, we’ll be taking a few weeks to catch up on work, home, family and decide what the next steps will be.

I’m not going to stop posting on this, but I am going to turn it down to a slow simmer, and keep watching as the story unfolds.

Hilarious. A Media Nation reader passes along this e-mail from Stephen, a downtown lawyer: “So when is Middleboro going to change its name to John Kerry Ville? (We voted for the casino before we voted against it.)”

The Globe’s stunning omission

I’m stunned that the Globe failed to report that Middleborough voters, shortly after approving the agreement with the Wampanoags, turned around and rejected the casino itself. Despite publishing two stories (here and here) featuring four bylines, the paper somehow couldn’t find an inch to include that crucial fact. The Globe managed to do better in its online coverage yesterday. And as I’ve already noted, the Herald gets it right in its own Sunday story.

So, for that matter, does The Standard-Times of New Bedford, whose deep reporting on yesterday’s proceedings shows that this fight is a long way from being over. First, consider this, from Steve Decosta’s story:

After casting their votes on the agreement and before the final tally was announced, the body, on a hand vote, ironically rejected a nonbinding question to approve casino gambling in town. Only about half the voters remained on the high school athletic field for that tally.

“I don’t think that’s a true indication of how people feel, because so many people had left,” said Marsha Brunelle, selectmen chairwoman.

Asked if that outcome tainted the vote on the agreement, Mr. Marshall [Glenn Marshall, the Wampanoag chief] said: “It’s the end of a hot day, people get tired, people leave. The true number is the one that got counted.”

But casino opponents would not minimize their victory.

“That’s the root question,” said Jacqueline Tolosko, president of the anti-casino group Casinofacts. “We’re really encouraged. The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”

Think about the cluelessness of Brunelle’s comments. Only 25 percent of the town’s registered voters took part in approving the agreement with the Wampanoags. As has been meticulously and widely documented, turnout was held down because of the midsummer heat and humidity, which kept elderly residents and people with health problems away. People who had to work or who couldn’t find child care were kept away, too.

As for people leaving, well, town officials all but told people to leave by staging a disgraceful signing ceremony with the Wampanoags as soon as the agreement was approved, but before the casino itself was put to a vote. [Well, no. See correction, below.] That action in itself ought to be the subject of a legal challenge on the grounds that it was a ruse aimed at making people think the meeting was over.

Even so, the vote to reject the casino was a legal (if non-binding) vote on a warrant article properly put before town meeting. Officials have no right to pretend that vote never took place. Again, think about Jacqueline Tolosko’s remarks: “The town just said it doesn’t want a casino. How can that not have weight?”

The second Standard-Times story, by Steve Urbon, expands on Sabutai’s report about improper influence on the part of casino proponents. Look at this:

Another opponent, Richard Young, pointed to Bill Marzelli and his dozens of orange-shirted casino backers and complained that while they were allowed to wear the T-shirts and white hats that read, “Vote YES for Middleborough’s future,” the police confiscated his side’s yellow leaflets, which explained a few opposition talking points. “I’m not allowed to give you anything to read,” he said.

Do I need to point out that the town’s two police unions have endorsed the casino? This strikes me as sufficient in and of itself to throw out the results of yesterday’s vote. No wonder police didn’t want the media watching.

Let me expand on something I wrote earlier. No doubt some people voted “yes” on the agreement because they would genuinely like to see a casino come to Middleborough. But there were others — plenty of others, I suspect — who voted “yes” because they were told, repeatedly, that the casino was coming whether they wanted it or not, and that they might as well negotiate the best terms that they could.

Last week, New England Cable News’ “NewsNight” program devoted a half-hour to the Middleborough debate. In the first segment, Ted Eayrs, a town assessor and former selectman, debated Greg Stevens, a casino opponent. In the second, I debated town planner Ruth Geoffroy, who favors the casino.

If you watch both segments, you will see that Eayrs (an opponent until recently) and Geoffroy each talked repeatedly about the supposed inevitability of the casino as a reason for approving the agreement. Let me share something else with you that you will not see in these segments: As we were leaving NECN, Eayrs told me that though he favored the agreement as the best way of protecting the town’s interests, he hopes the state will step in and stop the casino from ever being built.

Well, gee, that’s exactly how Middleborough residents voted yesterday, isn’t it? “Yes” on the agreement, “no” on the casino itself.

Gov. Deval Patrick will have a major say in what happens next. Without his wholehearted approval, a casino will not be coming to Middleborough. The governor needs to consider the fact that voters yesterday said “no” to the casino. Patrick should say no, too.

Update: This is really incredible. The Globe runs a slideshow of supporters and opponents of the casino — and the first two are of supporters wearing orange shirts! The message is cut off, but the first guy is also wearing a white cap that says “Yes to Middleborough’s Future.” Remember, the opponents’ leaflets were seized by police.

Update II: NECN gets it right. This report is particularly good on how opponents were marginalized and shunted aside. It also mentions the “no” vote on the casino itself.

Correction: According to this story, in the Cape Cod Times, the vote on the casino itself was held while the ballots on the casino agreement were being counted. WBUR Radio reports it the same way. That’s a significant difference, and I regret the error.

“Overwhelmingly defeated”

Laura Crimaldi’s story in the Sunday Herald says that the casino was “overwhelmingly defeated” when it was finally put to a vote. This despite the fact that Middleborough officials were so disrespectful of the process that they staged a signing ceremony after the agreement with the Wampanoags was approved, but before the non-binding advisory question on the casino itself was put to the voters. No wonder people left early.

Sabutai’s account says that the show-of-hands vote on the casino was “much closer” than an earlier vote to cut off debate, but he doesn’t say how close. No doubt accounts will differ. I hope we see something more definitive. Not that the margin matters, but, symbolically, it would be helpful if everyone understands that people voted against the casino.

“When they got to vote their conscience, they did that,” casino opponent Richard Young is quoted as saying in Crimaldi’s account.

I love the way Sabutai ends: “The ball is in the General Court. May they prove to have more wisdom than the selectmen of Middleboro, more patience than its people, and more temperance than its moderator.”

Local newscasts skip second vote

Just caught the top of the 11 p.m. news on Channels 4, 5 and 7. I was flipping around, so it’s possible that I missed it. But it didn’t appear that any of the three reported on the second, anti-casino vote. Shoddy.

On the other hand, kudos to Channel 5 for doing a sidebar on people who couldn’t make it to the town meeting today — not just elderly voters, but folks with respiratory problems, people who had to work and parents who couldn’t arrange for child care (kids weren’t allowed).

This is democracy? No. It isn’t.

Middleborough voter explains all

Here’s a pretty powerful anecdote suggesting that people in Middleborough knew exactly what they were doing when they voted in favor of the casino agreement but against the casino itself. From the Associated Press:

A sense of resignation that a casino was a done deal drove the decisions of several voters interviewed as they walked into the meeting.

Michelle Holden, 45, planned to reluctantly vote for a casino deal she called inevitable. Regardless of Saturday’s vote, the tribe owns the necessary land and can build so long as it secures federal and state approval, she said.

If nothing else, Holden hoped the extra revenue could help the town restore services it previously cut, like freshman sports for her 16-year-old son.

“I don’t really want the casinos here, but it’s coming,” she said. “We might as well benefit through the town.”

Over at Blue Mass Group, you’ll see arguments that the “no” vote on the casino itself doesn’t mean much because people were leaving at that point, because the vote was taken by a show of hands, because the town moderator’s visual acuity was wanting, because the vote was non-binding, etc., etc. Even Sabutai makes those points. I’m not saying he’s wrong — I’m saying it’s irrelevant. The vote was the vote, and it is perfectly reflected Holden’s sentiments.

It’s sad that people like Holden have come to believe that the fight is lost already, and that the best they can do is negotiate the most favorable terms of surrender. You can always fight. You can go to court. You can lay down in front of the bulldozers.

But the inevitability of the casino is the prime message being pushed by the cynical casino proponents. Don’t believe it.

Middleborough rejects casino

Despite all the propaganda, despite the loathsome efforts of casino supporters to cast opponents as friends of the Ku Klux Klan, Middleborough residents today did the right thing and said “no.” Keep that in mind when you hear that folks who attended the town meeting approved the selectmen’s proposed deal with the Wampanoags. To wit:

  • The Enterprise: “After a grueling four-hour town meeting in more than 90 degree weather, more than 3,000 voters at today’s historic town meeting voted overwhelmingly to accept the agreement to put a casino in town.”
  • The Globe: “Voters in Middleborough today approved a historic agreement to bring a casino to the semi-rural town 40 miles south of Boston.”
  • The Herald: “Middleboro OKs casino by 2,387 to 1,335.”

So, is Media Nation hallucinating? Not at all. Here is the key, explained farther down in the Globe story:

The voters, however, sent a mixed message. In a separate, non-binding question before the town meeting, the residents voted no on a proposal to have a casino in the town. Town officials insisted that the open ended question — approved by a voice vote — had no impact on the agreement with the Wampanoags. But casino opponents were nonetheless cheered by that result.

That is not a mixed message at all. That is a clear message that though the voters believed the proposed deal was the best they could get, their preference is no casino at all. Over and over, the townspeople have been told that if they rejected the deal, the casino would be built anyway, and the town would get far less than it would by signing the agreement. Thus the “yes” vote on the agreement was entirely predictable.

But they rejected the casino itself, and that ought to be the end of it. It will be interesting to see how the pro-casino forces spin this one. I just hope the media catch on better than they have so far.

Update: Here is the warrant for today’s town meeting. As you can see, Article 2 was on the agreement, and Article 3 was on the casino itself. Here’s what voters said “no” to in Article 3: “To see if the Town approves of the creation of a Gambling Casino Resort Complex within the Corporate Boundaries of the Town, or act anything thereon.” Clear as a bell.

Update II: Great report from Sabutai at Blue Mass Group. Check out his description of orange-shirted, pro-casino union forces, who pushed their way into the crowd and apparently even managed to cast some voice and hand votes. The “yes” vote should be challenged immediately because of this shocking breach of protocol. Remember, town police took some pains to keep the media at bay — why couldn’t they do the same to the IBEW?

On the map

The New York Times today has a good and important front-page story on how simple mapping tools offered by Google and Yahoo! are changing the way we communicate. If you want more, Wired went deeper last month.

The revolution in free, Web-based software tools is astounding. Less than a year ago, when I showed my students mash-ups such as ChicagoCrime.org and this Boston.com mash-up of political contributions in the governor’s race, the likelihood of a non-programmer pulling off such a feat seemed nil. Now anyone can do it, and publish the results to the world.