Councilor Eddy Defends Position on Slots

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Kate Nagle, GoLocalWorcester News Contributor

Worcester City Councilor William Eddy on Wednesday contacted GoLocalWorcester to defend his position on a slots proposal in the city.

Following the story that ran in GoLocal on Wednesday on City Council candidates in which Holy Cross Professor of Political Science David Schaefer addressed Eddy's re-election chances against challenger and former Councilman Gary Rosen, Eddy reached out to further to clear his stance.

In the article, Schaefer stated that challenger Rosen needed to run on the issue of slots, "given Eddy's status as one of the slots proposal's most partisan and sharp-tongued defenders on the Council."

In a phone conversation with GoLocal local late Wednesday afternoon, Eddy said, "I'm not going to get into a debate with the Professor here. However, there's a difference between personal beliefs, and public policy decisions."

Rebuttal to Statement in GoLocal

Councilor Eddy responded to Schaefer's assertion in Wednesday's article in a strongly worded e-mail to GoLocal.

"Your "independent expert analyst" completely (and knowingly) misrepresented my position on gaming. For the record, I will restate my position, something that both [you] and Mr. Schaefer know having been present several times when I have said it."

"Again, I am not personally supportive of gaming proposals or gaming in general. There is a reason that I have never been to one of these facilities, including Foxwoods, Mohegan or Twin River."

"I have said repeatedly that we have yet to even receive a proposal and that any real proposal (that includes a host level hotel) should be sent to the ballot (as Massachusetts Law calls for) to let the voters of Worcester decide this issue. I have also said repeatedly on the council floor that I will take a public policy position once we actually have a proposal."

"That position seems a bit different than your "expert analysts" interpretation of my position as "one of the slots proposal's most partisan and sharp-tongued defenders on the Council."

Eddy on Slots Prospects, Schaefer Responds Back

"Look, we don't even know right now if a slots proposal is going to move forward," said Eddy. "It's almost June, and negotiations between (City Manager) O'Brien and the casino haven't even begun yet."

"So I start with a healthy sense of skepticism. I also have a high level of respect for the moral certitude of certain members of the council, such as Councilor Lukes. She has been outspoken in opposition to the matter since 2007. And I respect that. "

"Personally, gaming has zero appeal to me, as I made clear in my e-mail. I'm not however going to tell the Worcester residents that "I know better than you." I'm going to let them have their vote and have their say."

When reached for comment on Councilor Eddy's rebuttal, Professor Schaefer offered the following, as part of a longer statement addressing the Councilor's response.

"Contrary to Mr. Eddy’s claim, Massachusetts law does not “call for” a referendum on the slots-parlor proposal. It requires such a referendum only if a “host agreement” for a slots parlor (or casino) has already been negotiated and signed by the government of the town in which the parlor or casino is to be located."

"In other words, it was fully within the power of the City Council to instruct City Manager Mike O’Brien not to negotiate a slots-parlor agreement, and the matter would have ended there – just as the governments of Foxboro, Boxborough, and Holyoke have already excluded casinos from their municipalities."

"When – following testimony from some fifty Worcester citizens from numerous walks of life and various political orientations, almost all opposing a slots parlor - Mr. Eddy joined eight other councilors in authorizing the City Manager to negotiate an agreement, he was taking a “position” on the issue, whether he wants to admit it or not."

"He was saying that in principle, he would like to give Rush Street Gaming the opportunity to spend millions of dollars (which it can readily afford) in a public-relations campaign to ensure victory for the slots parlor in a referendum. (By comparison, the parlor’s opponents, led by the group VoteNoSlots, are volunteers subsisting on a pittance of donations.)"