Milford Voters Reject Casino, by a 2-1 Margin

Milford voters have rejected a resort casino application by a 2-1 margin, with 6,381 opposed and 3,480 in favor, according to official results.

Voters in each of the eight precincts in Milford rejected the $1 billion development proposal put forward by Foxwoods Massachusetts. The community-wide referendum ends the casino bid in Milford, as under state law, voter approval was required for it to advance to state consideration. 

In brief interviews following their voting, some residents on Tuesday said they had concerns about the traffic the resort casino would bring to Milford, its effect on the town's water resources, and generally the image of being a "casino town."

"It's going to drastically change everything," said resident Bernie Hickey, after voting at the Portuguese Club. "And traffic? I don't even want to talk about traffic."

The vote to reject the host community agreement between the town and Foxwoods  came in every precinct, across all neighborhoods.

By precinct, these were the results: Precinct 1, 376 yes to 409 no; Precinct 2, 391 yes to 821 no; Precinct 3, 415 yes to 669 no; Precinct 4, 396 yes to 523 no; Precinct 5, 540 yes to 1217 no; Precinct 6, 475 yes to 780 no; Precinct 7, 434 yes to 988 no; and Precinct 8, 453 yes to 954 no.

The voter turnout was 57 percent, a high turnout, but shy of the presidential election turnout in November 2012, which drew 72 percent of the town's registered voters.

Following the vote results, Casino Free Milford supporters celebrated at PiNZ in Milford. John Seaver, a former Milford selectman and co-president of the organization, said the 65 to 35 percent vote against Foxwoods sent a "strong and outstanding" message. "We're so proud of the Milford people," he said. "The town was saying loud and clear: 'You can't buy us'."

The fact that the vote to reject came across all eight precincts means it cut across the town's demographics, too, he said.

"The people of Milford shouted. They didn't speak, they shouted," said Steve Trettel, a co-president of Casino Free Milford.

Milford Board of Selectman Chairman Bill Buckley, also at the Casino Free Milford party, was the only member of the three-member board who would not sign the host community agreement with Foxwoods, and voted against it.

Following the results, he said that he had expected the proposal would be defeated, but not necessarily by a 2-1 margin.

"People were making a decision about what their future looked like," he said. "In the end, it came down to some basic quality of life issues." To some extent, he said, people also had questions about Foxwoods MA, with frequent changes in the plan and makeup of the development team. He cited the departure earlier this year of the project's Chief Development Officer David Nunes, who then publicly blasted the project, before coming back.

Foxwoods Massachusetts officials waited for the results at the Crystal Room on Cedar Street. In an interview with the Boston Globe, CEO and President Scott Butera said the loss came, in part, to confusion about what a resort casino really is.

‘‘I think people are afraid of the unknown," he told the Globe. "There’s a lot of myths about what casinos are. They are not these crazy hedonistic places. They’re actually very nice resorts that have a lot more to do with just games.’’

Butera told the paper he wouldn't rule out a further interest in Massachusetts, if the opportunity arose.

In several precincts Tuesday, election workers said they saw several first-time voters, in part because they usually were accompanied by someone who announced that, said Ed Ross, a warden for Precinct 2. Some people were not clear about where they should vote, another sign that they hadn't voted since the town re-drew its precincts. The Town Clerk's office fielded numerous calls throughout the day from confused voters.

Foxwoods Massachusetts had hoped to develop a nearly 200 acre site at I-495 and Route 16. Its plans included nearly 1 million square-feet of retail, gaming and hotel space, and a package for the town that included a $25 million annual tax payment for the developed property.

The original application was filed in January with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, and set off a 10-month campaign that ended Tuesday. The project was one of two, possibly three, for the single resort casino license available in the greater Boston region.

The remaining resort casino applications for the Boston region are in Everett, proposed by Wynn Resorts of Las Vegas, and the possibility of a new plan for the Revere portion of the Suffolk Downs property.