tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34813364.post2168546118189345902..comments2023-04-29T10:46:15.521-04:00Comments on Western Mass Politics and Insight: Sweepstakes Terms and Conditions...Matt S.http://www.blogger.com/profile/09757055831124959814noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34813364.post-14452335882940461512011-06-30T20:21:43.384-04:002011-06-30T20:21:43.384-04:00I'm sure the council did know or at least some...I'm sure the council did know or at least some councilors did. However, the paperwork from the clerks office suggested that code enforcement or whoever, clearly thought the whole things was sketchy, but was not in a position to call it illegal categorically. That's all I meant.<br /><br />I do not think the council's decision necessarily had anything to do with looking business-friendly. Some may. Others may have thought it was harmless (you and I know better). However, according to my sources, others were getting some heavy pressure to support it because constituents enjoyed going to it. Maybe that was part and parcel to the connection of the Keoughs or whoever Jennifer Burritt is, but I suspect that there were self-important voters who really liked blowing their money like this--inexplicably.<br /><br />That's so crummy about the comments. That's why I filter! lol. <br /><br />As I have said before I find Rooke's behavior in all this the most odd. I think that his brother is involved is not the big issue (let's face it Tom Rooke represents all sorts of people w/ biz before the council). It's his insistence.<br /><br />All in, it does not matter. 777 does not have the permit and they won't for another 2 years unless they convince a judge to overturn a bunch of precedent and declare Springfield's council rules supreme over the laws of the commonwealth. If that denial is not being enforced than I'm sure OBCA will get involved again.Matt S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/09757055831124959814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34813364.post-52185206829185332812011-06-30T07:22:17.827-04:002011-06-30T07:22:17.827-04:00Hi Matt,
Nice post, man. I think the crux of the ...Hi Matt,<br /><br />Nice post, man. I think the crux of the matter for cyber cafes is the so-called "sweepstakes" issue. They could all technically remain open so long as they don't engage in such activities. Problem for them is, as all grownups and people with brains know, the "sweepstakes" are the only real reason these places are open. Nobody in their right mind is going to pay $10 for 50 minutes to "surf the Web and check their email." The very notion is beyond ridiculous. In the 777 Cyber Center's case, there are at least two libraries within a couple miles (Sixteen Acres and East Longmeadow's branch) that provide the same service for free. (Sixteen Acres has limited operating hours, true, but the East Longmeadow branch is almost always open - I myself used that branch, as well as Spfld libraries, to study during my time at STCC.) <br /><br />The special permit issue is an entirely different matter, of course. The 777 could conceivably get its special permit for 30 computer kiosks (let's say for the sake of argument) regardless of the sweepstakes issue, in which case they'd still have to eventually close for lack of business if nobody can gamble there - the real and only reason people go there. <br /><br />Like you, I find the shadowy, slight-of-hand tactics of the owners and managers of these establishments particularly disturbing. Nobody seems to want to publicly fess up to actually owning these things until they're caught holding the (state registration) bag. I think it's troubling, too, how many of our city councilors were unperturbed by this. (Only three councilors out of 13 cast "no" votes in the disputed 2nd vote on the special permit.) I think this may very well be an issue where it's more about the particular owner requesting the permit rather than the nature of the business itself. (On another note, I found it irritating, too, when friends and family of the owner would post phony comments online in support of the cafes, as if they were some kind of "relaxing lounges" to rest in. That happened on my own site with my first post on this mess, and, not surprisingly, these anonymous supportive comments immediately stopped after I called them out for what they were.) <br />I also think some of these councilors are really sticking their necks out in an election year by giving the nod to a business that may well be under criminal investigation by the state come September. (Coakley's order specifically mentions "$10 for.. points," which is precisely what 777 Cyber Center reportedly charges.) If I was a challenger, this would be one of my silver bullets against the incumbent.<br /><br />And for what reason did these councilors find it necessary vote so hastily? Why didn't they just hold off on the vote until after the AG-sweepstakes issue was settled? That's what I would have done. At the very least, it would have kept their names out of a messy engagement. <br /><br />BTW: the council argument that the 777 was doing "legitimate business" and therefor they had no reason to deny the permit is, of course, incorrect. The 777, by offering "sweepstakes" games after April of this year, was in fact operating in direct violation of Coakley's original emergency order, and, as mentioned above, they may very well be named in Coakley's call for criminal investigations. The CC *knew* the 777 was operating its sweepstakes in violation of this state regulation before they voted. Whether they, or the owner, agreed with the AG's order or not is completely irrelevant. They voted in favor of a business that was operating - according to the AG's Office - illegally. Period.<br /><br />Really a disappointing situation all the way around.Bill Dustyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05673867141492129022noreply@blogger.com