Every City Councilor Speaks on Racetrack Proposal – Public Hearing to be Held
There was significant discussion at the Gardner City Council meeting of July 1, 2024 with most councilors stating they felt an obligation to hold a public hearing so that both further information and public views could be obtained. No date was selected, but the vote to schedule a public hearing was 9 to 2 on an amended motion to also have a pre-permitting meeting with the Department of Environmental Protection.
A few councilors expressed irritation with Councilor Thibeault-Munoz who effectively silenced the rest of the Councilors at the last meeting in June by raising an objection to the item, thus tabling it to the July 1st meeting, but also ending discussion. Munoz apologized to his fellow councilors at this meeting.
Chief concerns of Councilors: Traffic, water supply, wetlands, and the amount Gardner would actually receive. Listen to the meeting on any device. CLICK PLAY.
In other matters, the City Council voted to respond to Paul DeMeo’s latest open meeting law complaint with a response stating there was no violation. —- The increase in sewer rates was approved for 2nd and final printing.
View of the each of the City Councilors on this matter – (For their complete remarks, listen to the AUDIO.)
George Tyros: “I also want to be clear that I am opposed to this as it stands. However, I think it’s extremely important that we go through the process properly, to be in compliance with state law, and to give everyone who wants the opportunity to participate and vote through all the questions and concerns. I want to add to those who are opposed, do not fall for the misinformation that is, that this item is over should the public hearing go to fail. All that would do is prevent the public hearing. It would not remove the item from consideration, and it would not make a final determination concerning racing on this parcel. Without that vote, this could potentially come up again, and again, and again.” Tyros then spoke at length about his concerns.
Brad Heglin: “I support holding an informal meeting and public hearing as is required. This will allow us to formally hear from the public and raise important questions we have and get more information on all aspects of this proposal. I also want to note that a public hearing is only the next step and as a city council can take as much time as we need after that. There is nothing to rush this process and we have no deadline. And we shouldn’t rush it.” Heglin then spoke at length about his concerns.
Karen Harden: “I want to start by saying that I used to own horses that were stables on this property, so I’m very familiar with the property and the steering for horses. Just so everyone is on the same page, as I have seen a lot of misinformation, tonight’s vote is not a final vote. Last meeting, as tonight, all we are being asked to do is hold a public hearing and another public meeting to discuss this in more detail. This is all standard. I really cannot think of any reason not to do this. We should get more information, ask more questions. I hope that for anyone who supports or who opposes this, you wouldn’t want the council to accept or dismiss anything that comes before us without doing our homework. Having a public hearing is an important part of this process.:
Dana Heath: “Before we say yes or no to this proposal, we certainly have to get more information and make sure our questions are answered. But I think it’s important that this business, like any business when it comes to Gardner, is treated fairly and given a fair process. I believe this Council and this community is more than capable of engaging in a mature, reasonable, and rational discussion without personal attack or rumor spread. I want to add my chief concern is the residents in my neighborhood and the impact that this could have on them and on that area of the city. One thing I haven’t really seen in the information we have been given so far is what steps in the proposal are there to lessen those impacts. What those are and if that is even possible will weigh heavily on my decision. I’m specifically concerned with traffic.”
Judy Mack: “Supporting this item for a public hearing doesn’t mean that I support the proposal. These are separate items. Make no mistake, I have raised concerns about this proposal. Many raised by Councilor Tyros that I would not repeat them over again. But most importantly, the water supply. The purpose of a public hearing is to allow all stakeholders and citizens to speak about an issue that is in front of this Council for a vote. This vote is for the city. As much as someone may be opposed to any issue, without allowing the public and all stakeholders an opportunity to speak and be heard, in my opinion, it is wrong and not how we as a legislative body should conduct business on any issue that affects our citizens and cities.”
Calvin Brooks: “We should also have a discussion about the financial ramifications of this project. How much money is promised? How much of that promise is realistic? What are the fiscal or financial gains to the city of approving this project, or, conversely, the fiscal or financial costs of not approving it? You can tell my background here is financial. I also think that the public, the citizens of this city, should have an opportunity to express their views.”
Paul Tassone: “As far as this proposal, I will not be supporting a public hearing for the high parks in the city of Gardner. I feel as though Gardner does not want racing and the impact that it will have on the people who built their homes in that particular area, the people who live in that particular area, the water in the watershed. I will not support it. Moving forward, I’ve heard enough. I’ve answered several phone calls. I’ve listened. I have not had one person come to me and state that they were for racing or they were for this project.”
Craig Cormier: “I think a public hearing is great in most instances. I do believe that there’s not many things we shouldn’t be talking about before we vote on them. I do have an issue with trust in this particular proposal. They’ve been before us before, and the way they approached it the last time is leaving me with a real issue trusting on this proposal that we’re going to get the information that we need. So I hope if we do move forward with a public hearing that we do have answers to all these questions that we need to make a proper vote.”
David Thibeault-Munoz: “…my reservation surrounding the proposed racetrack grew. I found myself particularly triggered by the rendering of the proposed racetrack which was surrounded by water on all three sides, located less than one mile upstream from Pearly Brook Reservoir, which feeds Crystal Lake, our primary drinking water supply.: He also stated “This is a bad deal for the city. Bay State and their investors’ interest is solely financial and for their gain, not ours. Simply put, their primary goal is to obtain a gaming license to be able to manage online betting, but at what cost and whose expense? As you are aware, my primary concern is the proposed racetrack’s potential long-term impact on our drinking water, the destruction of wetlands, and in turn the negative impact that this would have on Gardner’s future and present residents.”
Alek Dernalowicz: “I do have major reservations about this project as currently constituted. Many of the issues have been brought up, but traffic, the environmental concerns, and the actual economic benefits that the HCA reportedly provides, I think is lacking. But to change our process and do a different process for this project than we would do for anyone else, I don’t think we have a great precedent to set. We need to go through the process outlined….. take the steps, be willing to hear both sides at a public hearing where members of the crowd hear and others come to make their case. The proponents can come to make their presentation. I think that’s only fair. I think it’s our job to be fair. So I will be supporting the motion to have a public hearing and schedule an informal meeting“
Elizabeth Kazinskas: “I want to explain a few things. There is nothing unusual, rough, or unique about this process. Many, many times a year we receive petitions from businesses or other entities seeking permission to do something in the city. Different licenses, permits, zoning changes, and others. The process is always the same. It gets added to our agenda. In many cases, it is referred to a committee. In many cases, a public hearing is held. We follow the Gardner City Charter, city ordinances, city council rules, and Massachusetts state law. Every process we go through is mandated by the rules, ordinances, and laws, and then you vote. I’ve seen many claims that this is being rushed. That is not so. I’ve seen many claims that council is not listening to the public. That is not so. I’ve seen the claim that the council is not responding to residents. That is not so. I’ve seen the claim that I am, quote, pushing this through, and that is not so. I am deviating slightly in making this statement, but I think it is important to do so to correct the rampant misinformation and speculation. Normally, as council president, as most of you know, I would give my opinion at the informal meeting as the council president does not engage in the floor debate. Again, this is how the process is designed to work. The council repeats petitions, councilors debate the items, excuse me, when they’re not prevented from speaking by an objection. We work through the process. This is the best way that has been worked out over many, many years to make sure the council can get through the city’s business and those appearing before us can get a fair and consistent process. I am not supportive of this proposal. After carefully considering all the information we have been given, nothing has changed in my past and initial hesitancy on this project. However, I think we need to hold the public hearing to give everyone the opportunity to have their questions answered, have a discussion, and make sure everyone has the information they need to make an informed and educated vote. That is our responsibility. .“