Benjamin Cronin, Ph.D’s Reply to Loring Tripp III, Planning Director for Boston South Real Estate, Casino Developers
[This was originally a reply on the All Things Plymouth Facebook page, to a comment by Mr. Tripp on my first article, on the County Commission meeting on March 31st — Ben Cronin]
In his self-evidently copied-and-pasted (it is addressed to a person named Wendy; there is no Wendy on this thread), corporate propaganda posted above, Loring Tripp III, Planning Director for Boston South Real Estate Group, the same casino interests who lost 85%-15% last year in Wareham and are seeking to engross upon our commons for their private enrichment (his employment is a fact Mr. Tripp never admits explicitly, though he does use the first person plural “we” to refer to his employers), makes a series of spurious arguments that are easily refuted.
He by turns insults our intelligence, threatens the townspeople, and admits openly that he is part of a corrupt “revolving door,” in which former regulators follow up their public service with lucrative jobs serving well-heeled corporate interests.
Indeed, Mr. Tripp appears not to have read the article, as it describes Attorney and Plymouth Town Meeting Member Richard Serkey making the compelling case that the land cannot be used for a casino with current zoning. Does Boston South intend to seek a ⅔ vote at Town Meeting to change that zoning?
The very premises of his arguments – that deference should be paid to the desires of predatory outside developers, rather than to the will of the People of Plymouth and of Plymouth County; that it is their claims which from the outset take precedence, rather than those of the people of Plymouth County – are false, and so, therefore, are his conclusions in favor of his corporate paymasters at Boston South Real Estate.
Let’s examine this in detail.
1. Mr. Tripp argues that one of the primary motivations of his paymasters is to alleviate the terrible financial problems Plymouth County is experiencing. This is hard to take seriously. For someone who later boasts about his experience in government, Mr. Tripp seems not to realize that counties in Massachusetts are almost wholly extraneous, their functions having overwhelmingly either been devolved to the Towns or taken over by the Commonwealth. The following county governments have been abolished in Massachusetts: Berkshire, Essex, Franklin, Hampden, Hampshire, Middlesex, part of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Worcester.
Yet somehow people in Boston, Salem, Lenox, Springfield, Amherst, Medford, and Worcester all manage to get along without county government.
The simplest expedient would be to abolish Plymouth County as a governing body, since it has self-evidently become the civic equivalent of an appendix, a useless sack, filled with poison.
If the county were actually defending our interests, that would be one thing. As it is, Commissioner @Greg Hanley believes it is our job to fend for ourselves. His colleagues, Mr. Valanzola and Ms. Wright (who is up for reelection), wouldn’t even speak to us. Instead of our elected officials refuting Mr. Tripp’s specious arguments on our behalf, we, the people, are having to do so directly. If that is the case, let’s have it done with and get rid of county government, since all we are getting out of it are threats to privatize our commons.
2. The other proposals are moot and immaterial. None of them should be built. The county government should be abolished, the land preserved. Problem solved. Ecotourism is growing far faster than casino gambling and horse tracks, which are dying industries. People come to Plymouth for history, nature, and a calm place outside of our metro areas. Not a cut-rate Encore with abused animals.
3. “Vince Gabbert, one of the principles [sic – I believe Mr. Tripp means “principals”; the only principles that Boston South seems to have are limitless greed and shameless exploitation of other people’s resources] of Boston South is one of the Nation's most renowned experts on thoroughbred racing and facilities,” claims Mr. Tripp.
Mr. Gabbert is a Kentucky horse-racing executive and lobbyist. He would say a horse-racing is a good idea, wouldn’t he? I’m sure he thinks it’s humane, as well (does Mr. Tripp?) This is rather like saying a tobacco executive is excited about the market for cigarettes in your town. No thanks.
4. Mr. Tripp’s claim that his paymasters actually want to help improve traffic at Old Exit 5 is risible and desperate. That’s like someone telling you they will help put out your fire and showing up with a can of gasoline. Again, no thanks.
5. Mr. Tripp somehow believes that advertising his role in a type of public corruption so blatant it has become part of political science textbooks in college classrooms – “the revolving door,” in which regulators/public officials move onto lucrative positions at private corporate interests, or sometimes vice versa, is a good thing, though I don’t think it is the selling point he believes it is.
It is good, no doubt, for his own personal finances that he was able to parlay his experience on the Plymouth Planning Board helping developers decades ago into a job representing powerful corporate developers today. Ditto John Lippman, who also worked in government, as is confessed above. Whether the people of the County will likewise benefit or look kindly on these relationships seems doubtful to me.
6. Remarkably, Mr. Tripp responds to questions about water with an evasion and a not-so-subtle threat. His answer to how they will protect our water is essentially that if we don’t give his land jockey bosses our woodlot, they will develop a much more desirable piece of property elsewhere in Plymouth.
How about we just reject the land barons’ desires in both places?
7. None of the long permitting, etc. process Mr. Tripp lays out needs to be gone through whatsoever. The people of Wareham rejected his bosses’ overtures overwhelmingly last Spring; the people of Plymouth are overwhelmingly likely to this May. The developers should save themselves the trouble and call the project off now.
8. The development interests behind this project are the same behind the rejected (85% to 15%) proposal in Wareham last Spring. One of the reasons it was rejected was the gross environmental recklessness of the developers, including trying to build on land that is already protected, and on the headwaters of Red Brook, the only stream in Massachusetts with ocean going (salter) brook trout. It is again, risible that we should take any advice whatsoever on environmental matters from the O’Connell clan of Quincy developers that are behind both proposals.
9. Mr. Tripp asks who will benefit? Mr. Tripp will, of course. But the people who cut his paycheck will do even better.
Those of us who won’t? Everyone else.
10. Finally, a question of my own:
Commissioner Greg Hanley replied to Attorney Serkey after the meeting of the County commission on the 31st of March – Serkey asked Hanley how he thought Boston South Real Estate Group would respond to the fact that the County was attempting to lease you land they know cannot be developed under current zoning laws; Hanley replied merely that you were “well-heeled.”
Given that you intend to pay $450,000 to merely lease undevelopable land that the public doesn’t want developed, Mr. Hanley must be correct.
What is your response?
In any event, we should reject your fallacious arguments, and your unwanted racetrack and casino.
Thank you.