I just called Boston Billiards. The person who answered said the poker room opens November 3. They will start cash games right away and tourneys will start up in December or January once they settle in.

When the lady voted on the 3rd site she said "this is hard because it's the closest one to my heart"

Wait what? The abandoned industrial building is close to her heart?

Keep in mind that proposal was submitted by a town selectman. The worst site BY FAR, yet politics gave it a chance.

............and now all those employees/dealers still have no jobs, the charities have lost their funding, and the players that supported the entire operation are all left in the cold.

One of the most selfish acts I have ever seen and been a part of; hopefully we can correct the ship on appeal.

Where is Boston Billiards, Presumably not in Boston.

Nashua NH right alongside rte 3 between exits 4 and 5 I believe.

Thanks Lattimer. FWIW, I've been playing at Hampton Falls since the Rock closed. Impressions: well run room, action pretty good, nice spacing between tables (unlike Twin River). I haven't ventured downstairs to the tournament room. So no trip report there.

I'm just mad that I can't get a game without driving over 45 minutes! Salem was so perfect.

I went to Hampton Falls for the first time yesterday.

It's definitely much cleaner than Rockingham. The place was packed. I got literally the last space in the lot.

The dealers seemed a lot better than the ones at Rockingham. They pretty much just kept quiet and had good control of the game. I found that too many dealers at Rockingham were far more interested in telling stories, jokes, etc., than keeping on top of the game.

I don't know if the play is like this, or if I just got at a tougher 1-2 NL table than usual, but the players were very solid. I can't think of a single hand yesterday that was completely botched.

Hi All,
I am from Chasers.
The ZBA in Salem, NH recently denied myself and 2 others for a site variance.

Seems like a little heat is coming my way on this thread so I figured I would jump in and see if I can put out any of the flames.

Regarding the nonsense of a "fix", ugh, so gross. Some of you might know me. I had played at The Rock every Monday for more than a decade. Ask any of the former regulars of The Rock, I would never jeopardize progress in general and poker room progress in particular for a selfish edge. I cannot understand where this junk came from.
I/You also don’t know the ZBA members. I do think they hurt us all; from the players to the unemployed-but-ready-to-go-dealers, as well as the charities and the many people counting on the charities. I also believe they should have granted some or all of us a variance, but a fix is kind of crazy talk, no?

My hope is to get past the initial discomfort of this and maybe a couple other topics, then jump in on more fun topics every now-and-again.

I would suggest hiring a lawyer with experience in ZBA appeals. As an aside, I am wondering if you need to show that the denial by ZBA is arbitrary or capricious. The old saw about a person representing himself has a fool for a client has some validity. In any event, good luck.

ugggh. did you watch the hearing, and process from the start

this is all about personal opinions and behind the scenes actions by the board members. guessing on information they did not have or ask for, hearing cut short due to late night start of hearings.

If poker players watched the last hearing, I would imagine the most upsetting thing would be the way 4/5 board members talked about "poker rooms and casinos" It was disturbing. In their opinion, its lots of trouble, lots of police needed, and not a business that would be welcomed in any neighborhood. Unsavory, as if all three applicants were proposing a methadone clinic, drug rehab clinic, and homeless shelter between the church and temple.

What kind of people do they think play poker or go to casinos? I've been playing all over the country for YEARS, and I've seen the police involved one time

So I finally figured out why I find Hampton Falls kind of subtlety unpleasant. I couldn't figure it out for a while. Good chairs, tables, decent dealers etc... It's the !#$@# florescent lights! Nothing makes a space seems unpleasant like florescent lights.

Hampton Falls is surely cleaner than The Rock and has better (edible) food, yet I agree there's something about the place I don't quite like. I wonder if it's really the lighting.

I agree that it's probably a non-issue in NH, but Foxwoods, A/C and Vegas are loaded with degenerate/homeless "poker players". Surely you must be aware of this, what with your combing the country for years.

The committee overall didn't do enough in my eyes to really back up any of the points they were saying. It really came down to the following that the facilities would create traffic issues and change the dynamic of the existing areas. They kept also citing that the places would need to be staffed by police, yet Salem PD doesn't have the numbers to staff them.

It was interesting to watch and I know I didn't see the rest of the presentions outside of htis night, but it seems like the decision was in before. Each member at times made some basic, repetitive statements as to why this type of business wasn't fit but did little to back up any of those concerns with a shred of evidence or anything really pointing that they looked into the issue at all.

good observation;

torture.... watch the hearings that were presented on 9/6... link is in this thread and on my website.... still trying to figure out what the 3 week delay was to speak with town council.... sure not much legal stuff spoken the other night...

Unfortunately, the poker community here and the larger gambling community is stigmatized among many people. Like many other social issues. misconceptions and baseless assumptions allowed the board to do what they felt needed and impinge upon our rights as free Americans, consenting adults, and members of the community the board is supposed to serve.

Maybe all 3 places, should present a traffic study on appeal along with plan for private security (why does it have to be a current understaffed town Police dept?)...

Seemed the board in general had this moral high compass against all 3 in charitable gaming. They couldnt pick one yet at the end seemed to agree that something will be somewhere eventually.

Clearly all 3 seemed viable with 2 of the 3 seemingly better location fits against traffic.

Other rooms are benefitting at the sake of the charities and these prime locations are so far seemingly wasted.

Hope to see it straighted put eventually.



Sent from my SM-N930P using Tapatalk

So if you don't want it called fix, how would you explain the old guy? Either he is a secret admirer of yours or was strongly influenced.

Also, before I come across as too biased towards Cheers I should say my interest is simply as player. Borgata North sounds good to me. I'm also hoping Boston Billiards meets the expectations they are circulating as that room is 2 miles from my house.

As far as Salem, there were a few points the board struggled with. I certainly didn't take notes, but here are the big issues they had:

1. Variance needed to approve gaming cite. Laws don't prohibit it, but they don't allow it either. Rockingham was in an overlay district that allowed it. To get this variance you must show there is a "unique" situation to deserve variance. The chair of the board saw nothing unique, and thus consistently voted against all 3. If in fact Cheers and Coke are in the district as Puck claims, then perhaps this is the door opener for appeal.

2. The police wrote a letter (paraphrasing) that any room would require police presence and perhaps a detail. They said they don't have enough police to cover this. Ok. Rockingham just closed. How is this a new police burden? Also in the meeting they mentioned the Rockingham site being developed by "Mr. Faro" will probably need more police activity, but the city will just get that done. (The board seemed to give stance whatever Faro applies for its a done deal.) But again, how is there a new stress on police with Rockingham merely being replaced.

3. Traffic. The coke plant took the hardest hit here. It is the closest to major intersections, and the site shares entrance and exits with other businesses. A mention of traffic as a concern for Cheers was mentioned, but quickly shot down by a board member that lives in the area. (This board member was an engineer type that approached all 3 sites with logic. He voted for Cheers.) Finally site 3 didn't have any traffic concerns as its in an under used industrial zone. There was some concern about trucks and customer traffic, but not a huge issue. The old guy (once shot down on traffic) kept saying Cheers didn't have enough parking. The chair tried to keep telling him they don't cover parking.

4. Does each site reduce the value of surrounding property? This can easily be addressed by all 3. The default decision was the burden of proof is on the applicant, and in the opinion of the board none of the 3 provided sufficient proof. Funny the old guy mentioned site 1 and 2 didn't prove it, and didn't care that site 3 didn't. The Coke plant has a potential hurdle on this topic as it shares the building with other tenants. Cheers (according to meeting) has a pizza shop and used car lot as neighbors. Some concerns were raised if the used car lot would now need increased security at night. I personally think Cheers could probably get letters of support from a pizza place and used car dealer in favor of several hundred people carrying cash near their business. The 3rd site was really hard to quantify this. On one hand it is an abandoned type area and new business is coming to it. On the other hand it could change the area and prevent the attraction of future industrial businesses. They also only use a portion of the current building.

5. Was something like is it good or bad for Salem. I go back to Rockingham, jobs, and benefit to charities....but what do I know.

It is too bad the board wasn't prepared from the legal side before the first meeting as many of these issues would have been great to address in a question and answer format. If I was one of the applicants in the audience for the second meeting I would have been extremely frustrated and perhaps blown a gasket trying to stay quiet.

Good luck to all. Growth of poker in NH is a good thing. I want to see it successful.

(how do I get the above to be in a gray box like you do, lol?)

I don’t know him(the old guy) but I will guess he really doesn’t want the additional traffic on rte 28 that the other locations will generate. If I were on the board I wouldn’t want the next Poker Room on Rte 28. That is why I easily passed on both the other locations.
That being said I sure wish we all had been approved the variance. Again, I passed on the other locations because I would be very surprised if they make it through the planning board process.

I think all board members had his or her role and the goal was all of us to be denied 4-1. Fix to me means someone was on the take or had worked things out someway with an applicant—I didn’t see that at all. I do feel they were 100% certain of the outcome when they sat down and I wish they didn’t keep us there for so long.

The gentleman on the other end voted yes on the other 2 sites but no on mine, which seemed strange to me. He was pretty passionate about one of the other locations right?

A lot of good points.

Regarding the police letter the board simply got it wrong. It did not say that. We have excellent, hard working police and I feel certain they would love an indoor detail to look forward to don't you think?

Also, I feel certain the other two sites are not in any overlay district.

It could be that your legit naive, and really the wrong forum to debate this, but everyone knew (your boy was telling lots of people) and was talking about it [EVERYWHERE] Only person in the dark was the chair, and he was down right angry when he caught on..... and that was the end of that plot and it was very obvious.

I gave you my card. if your indeed interested in charities and employees, and poker, really should break bread.

This doesn't have to be he said she said. The meeting is still viewable:

http://**********.com/SalemNH/events...deos/137212004

I don't see how any viewer without a dog in the race could say the old guy wasn't biased.

The other guy that Chaser says was "passionate" said the Coke plant site would be an appropriate use, and also gave reasons why Cheers would. I think his passion came when the old guy started pretending all the reasons sites 1 and 2 were denied don't apply to site 3.

But again, for those that care....watch it.

Link didn't post right. Google Salem NH Live stream. It is the the link that says "Salem TV on live..."

meeting was on 9/28/16