GO, MAYOR SARNO!

By Frederick A. Hurst

The first thing that came to my mind when reading that the Greater Springfield Council of Churches

(“Council”) had decided to oppose a casino in Springfield and other places in Western Massachusetts

just after Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno came out publicly in support of one was, “How strange!”

I wondered where this religious powerhouse had been for the last decade when local promoters

were relentlessly pushing for a Palmer casino up to the point of securing the land, winning local

approval, gaining the partnership of a Connecticut Indian tribe that is operating a well-used casino in

Uncasville which is well attended by Springfield residents (some of whom travel there by church-

sponsored bus trips). And where was it when these same folks were actively petitioning our legislature

for a law legalizing casinos that finally passed last year under the stewardship of a pro-casino House

Speaker, whose anti-casino predecessor landed out of office and in jail for what some will always believe

was that he ran afoul of the powerful casino interests? 

Where was the Council of Churches when the final vote was taken on legislation that guaranteed

Massachusetts will have at least three casinos, one of which was clearly being planned for Western

Massachusetts? Where was it when the Holyoke casino proposal was under active consideration, and the

Brimfield proposal? Where was it when the private casino developer was buying up acres of vacant land

on Page Boulevard and boldly publicizing its intent to bring the Western Massachusetts casino to

Springfield? What specifically did the Council of Churches find in Mayor Sarno’s public commitment to

fight for a casino for the city he leads? What did he say that woke up the Council of Churches from what

can only generously be labeled its Rip Van Winkle-like “moral slumber on the issue of casinos?” 

Generously put, for most of us, the Council’s protests rung hollow! There is no nice way to say it!

“The dye has been cast.” “The horse left the barn long ago!” The race for casinos has been run and won!

“Game over!” Including the celebration! So, what is the point? As every person extant in town knows, the

only immediate relevant issue is where a casino will be located in Western Massachusetts. And the most

immediate relevant question for each community in Western Massachusetts, including Springfield, is

which casino location will benefit it the most? So, if the Council of Churches wishes to become a relevant

and credible player in the casino debate that is the question it must address because that is the primary

question it has left itself to address. 

And, it is the one question that Springfield’s top elected official cannot responsibly avoid. Is it 

better for Springfield for a casino to locate in Springfield or is it better for Springfield for a casino to be 

located outside of Springfield? The mayor seems to think a Springfield location is best as do some major 

investors who are already financially committed. What does the Council of Churches think and why? We 

would all be interested in some clarity on that issue.   

The Council’s protest cannot fairly be labeled an “Ann Gear moment” as was suggested by its

spokesperson. I knew Ann Gear. She was a personal friend and a warrior who fought tirelessly to prevent

casinos in Massachusetts and in the Springfield area in particular. And she paid dearly for her

convictions. What stands out is that Ann Gear went all-in from the beginning of the fight and won what

she saw as her moral battle. There are people among the status quo who never forgave Ann for her bold

and successful efforts and who, thereafter, froze her out of their circles of power. But whether you agreed

with her or not, you had to agree that her motives were clear and pure, her battle plans timely and

transparent, and her moral authority uncompromised. 

I cannot say the same about Ann Gear’s successors. It is arguable, as Ann believed and as, I’m

sure, current Council of Churches’ members also do, that God may disapprove of casinos. But it is

hilarious to suggest that He might want His moral battle waged over such clearly political and relatively

unholy trivia as location—that He would prefer Page Boulevard in Springfield or Interstate 91 in Palmer,

or the woods of Brimfield or a golf course in Holyoke or anywhere else. To think that God would embrace

such distinctions in a moral context is utter nonsense. These are the petty issues to be decided among

men and women in the political and economic arenas, although God might be as puzzled as we mortals

by the Council’s cloudy reasoning. As my grandmother use to say about cloudy arguments, “Somethin’

ain’t right.” 

The lobbying by Western Massachusetts interests for casino  support, which has been taking place

long before passage of the casino bill, has been as thorough as it has been subterranean. Commitments

have been made and given. Put in old fashion political terms, folks and groups have made deals. For

whatever price we will never know because that’s not how the system works. But what we do know is that

many deals were made before Mayor Sarno’s announcement. And some people and groups are caught

“out there.” We would hope that the Council of Churches is not among them. 

Most of us are pleased that old fashioned American competition is shining some light on what had

heretofore been too close to a monopoly. We don’t yet know what site is the best site for a casino in

Western Massachusetts. But it is reassuring to know that the mayor of Springfield will compete as

vigorously for Springfield as the elected officials in Palmer will compete for Palmer, just as we hope

those elected officials in other towns that emerge as potential sites will do.   

And may the best team win! That’s the age old value of honest competition, which, whether you are

pro- or anti-casino, is the best we can all hope for.

Go, Mayor!  ■