Foxwoods joined David Nunes in February of this year in an attempt to develop a casino in Milford.

The development group currently consists of Foxwoods, Crossroads and multiple other equity partners.

An initial application to develop a casino in Milford was submitted to the Mass Gaming Commission in January. The approval is a multi-step process.  Phase one is a suitability assessment by the Mass Gaming commission. Phase two is a negotiation between the developer and the town of Milford. Phase two also consists of a very detailed application that gets submitted to the gaming commission.

Before Foxwoods the original development group was David Nunes and William Warner?

On June 21, 2010 Nunes met with and received the exclusive rights to develop the Milford property adjacent to 495. Crossroads Massachusetts LLC is the development entity set up for developing the casino.

The Milford Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 at its June 21 meeting to sign a memorandum of understanding with casino developers Crossroads Massachusetts, LLC supporting the resort casino proposed to be built of Route I-495. Chairman William Buckley voted against signing the agreement, saying he did not like its “exclusivity” provision[1]

In addition, at one time, David Nunes wanted to place a ballot question on the November 2012 ballot.

Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office said yesterday it wouldn’t certify an initiative petition that would have asked voters to approve three casinos, including one in Milford.

Colorado-based developer David Nunes, who hopes to build a resort-style casino in Milford, filed the petition over the summer. It would have permitted casino gambling at three locations: in eastern Massachusetts on land owned by an Indian tribe; in Milford on land between Interstate 495 and Holliston, known as the Crossroads Casino Resorts project; and in a town in western Massachusetts.

Coakley’s office decided not to certify the petition because it targets specific geographical areas in the state.

“That doesn’t surprise me,” Selectman Brian Murray said of Coakley’s decision. “It just didn’t seem to me to be the type of question that’s appropriate (for a ballot initiative). It just doesn’t lend itself to a yes or no.”

Murray said a ballot initiative works best when it asks a broad policy question rather than seeks to pass a specific piece of legislation.[2]