Use this search box to find articles that have run in our newspapers over the last several years.
| By G. Michael Dobbs Managing Editor CHICOPEE State Rep. Joseph Wagner fired back at the remarks made recently by Mayor Michael Bissonnette concerning the casino debate. Bissonnette accused local representatives of taking orders from House Speaker Sal DiMasi who was in opposition to Gov. Deval Patrick's plan. "The remarks are beneath the office he [Bissonnette] holds," Wagner said during an interview with Reminder Publications. Only four Western Massachusetts representatives voted in favor of the governor's plan, Wagner noted. He said his vote denying the bill was because "it simply was not a good piece of legislation for several reasons." Wagner said he was not against casino gambling in theory. In a Jan. 24 press release, he noted that for him to support resort casino gambling the legislation would have to meet two criteria: a detailed analysis of the economic costs and a commitment from the governor that Western Massachusetts would be the site for a casino. What made Wagner leery of the governor's bill was that it extended the definition of Western Massachusetts to include Worcester County, he explained last week. Wagner questioned how Chicopee and the region would benefit from a casino built in Worcester. Wagner was also concerned about the governor's analysis of the impact casinos would have on the state lottery. He said that Massachusetts has the most successful state lottery in the nation and he was not convinced that casinos wouldn't try to get as much of the gambling dollar that they could. Saying that these were his issues on the casino bill, Wagner asked, "How do we get from there to being in someone's back pocket?" He said that leadership in the House doesn't mean, "I do what the speaker wants." "I express my concerns to the speaker," he added. He also noted the governor's budget with the projected casino revenue was "out of whack" because the state could not have put the casino regulatory apparatus in place in time to collect casino licensing fees in time to fulfill the Fiscal Year 2009 budget. Wagner said he was proud of the funding he has brought to the city. Among those recent accomplishments has been $30 million for a women's correctional facility, $155 million for the two new high schools and funding for every major road and bridge improvement. He called Bissonnette's remarks "cheap personal attacks directed at the speaker and me." "Personal attacks do not help this city," he added. "It's a curious thing that people would bite the hand that feeds them. "[Political] disagreement is okay or least it ought to be," he said. On his position on the telecommunications legislation that would assess a property tax on telephone poles, Wagner said the Appellate Tax Board has ruled in favor of the tax. He said that when asked to support the legislation in the House, his reaction was to question whether or not this tax would impact consumer's telephone bills. "Of course it is a pass through. It's more money mayors will have to spend," he said. On the local option meal tax bill, Wagner asked why he should support an additional tax for Chicopee consumers to pay when they dine in other communities. He noted Bissonnette has stated he wouldn't impose the tax here, so the tax wouldn't help Chicopee. When asked if he could work with Bissonnette after this exchange, Wagner said, "I can work with anyone. It's my job to help the city to move forward its agenda on the state level." In response to Bissonnette's written statement, Wagner submitted the following: "Last week Mayor Michael Bissonnette offered an opinion on this page that the legislative hearing on Governor Patrick's resort casino bill had a rigged outcome. He argued that state lawmakers in opposition to his view on resort casinos were more interested in preserving committee assignments, offices, prime parking spots and chairmanships. There is no basis in fact for these inflammatory statements by the Mayor, and they are beneath the office he holds. "The Joint Committee on Economic Development & Emerging Technologies heard more than thirteen hours of testimony from both casino proponents and opponents. A poll of committee members was conducted and was held open until noon on the day following the hearing. Informal polling showed that committee members were deadlocked, with nine members in support of the casino bill, nine members in opposition and one member reserving his right and not declaring a position on the bill. Final polling numbers found ten members in opposition to the Governor's bill, eight members in support of the bill and one member reserving his right. Two committee members thought to be opponents of resort casinos actually voted in support of the bill. Hardly a rigged outcome. "The Committee's report was sent to the House floor the following day and the proposal to establish resort casinos was defeated by a 108-46 margin after more than six hours of debate. The wide margin of defeat suggests that most members had serious concerns about the measure. Many members were concerned that the Governor's proposal understated the impact of casinos on state lottery revenues. The bill did nothing to address the economic costs associated with resort casinos. There were no provisions in the Governor's bill guaranteeing the establishment of a resort casino in western Massachusetts, contrary to his statements in support of a western casino. The Governor also did not help his cause here in western Massachusetts when he expanded the region to include Worcester County. "It is clear that the defeat of the Governor's casino proposal last week had less to do with rigged committee hearings and self-interested lawmakers than it did with the Governor not having sufficiently addressed fairly obvious and legitimate questions and concerns that many House members had." |