The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has lost a vital part of its application for a casino in Clark County, and it could be a deal breaker.
Thurston County Superior Court today affirmed a June decision invalidating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cowlitz Tribe and Clark County. The initial decision had been issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The growth board had determined that the county had not allowed for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU in March 2004.
The county then appealed the June decision arguing that the Growth Board, an appointed body, should not be able to override a decision made by the County Commission, an elected body. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor denied Clark County's appeal.
When considering gaming-related land acquisitions, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) “requires agreements between tribes and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues … ,” according to a 2005 memorandum to all regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) directors.
A top DOI official recently characterized the loss of this MOU as a potential deal-breaker.
Resuscitation attempts
Since the growth board issued its opinion in June, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate has been trying frantically to keep the contents of the MOU alive.
First it attempted to insert them into its gambling ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005. It withdrew this proposal, however, after hearing negative feedback from DOI decision-makers.
More recently the syndicate took the contents of the MOU and made them into unilateral tribal ordinances, whose enforceability and irrevocability are debatable. We are told that these ordinances are not viewed by DOI as being comparable to an MOU.
Next steps
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate will have to decide what tack to pursue. One option would be to convince Clark County to continue its legal spending spree and appeal today’s ruling in another court. If the county commissioners agree to such a maneuver, they will have made clear their allegiance to the syndicate.
Another option would be to step back and survey the situation. So far three nearby cities, a school district and a port district have passed resolutions opposing the proposed casino, in addition to a dozen area chambers of commerce and community groups who have declared their opposition or have favored a business park at the La Center site.
If the Cowlitz gambling syndicate truly cares about getting this project under way and providing for the tribe, it will consider a different site -- one closer to its current population and in its aboriginal territory.
Read about the beginnings of the MOU.
Read about the county's backroom casino dealing.
Read about the June invalidation of the MOU.
Read about the county commissioners' decision to appeal the MOU's invalidation.
Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Well done, Woodland!
Woodland has gone three for three! Last night the Port of Woodland unanimously joined the School District and the City in adopting resolutions opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino-resort.
In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:
City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)
In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:
City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)
Friday, November 16, 2007
Exaggerations, misrepresentations plague Cowlitz casino submissions
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has skewed the federal environmental review process for its proposed casino by underestimating potential revenues and overestimating the tribe’s needs—ostensibly to help ensure the selection of the site at Interstate 5’s La Center interchange.
According to a study released Thursday by ECONorthwest,[1] the misinformation stems in part from the syndicate’s failure to adjust revenue projections for changes made to the Washington state-tribal gambling compacts last spring.
The Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS), released last spring after the new compact was approved, states that the proposed casino would produce $415 million in annual revenue. However, Thursday’s ECONorthwest report, taking the new state-tribal compact into account, finds that a similar facility would have annual gaming revenues of $611 million.
Additionally, the compact changes would add significantly to the profitability of a casino at Vader, in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland.[2] The PFEIS argues that a northern site would not bring in enough revenue to fulfill the tribe’s needs.
The state-tribal compact, formalized in March 2007 after lengthy negotiations with the Spokane Tribe and extended to Washington’s other tribes, relaxes several rules—increasing the hours of casino operation, the size of some wagers and the number of video slot machines allowed, and eliminating the requirement for casinos to phase the machines in gradually. (The old compact would have limited the Cowlitz casino to 475 machines its first year, but the new compact would allow it to open with 2,500 machines.)[3] The Cowlitz Tribe has yet to finalize its compact with the state but can expect at least 3,000 video slot machines and possibly up to 4,000.[4]
The new compact also adds substantially to the amount of money that would be made by Salishan-Mohegan, the casino development and management company formed by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and Cowlitz Tribe member David Barnett.
Revenue understated, need overstated
While the syndicate has been understating how much revenue a Cowlitz casino would make, it has been vastly overstating how much the Cowlitz Tribe needs.
The PFEIS sets the tribe’s unmet needs at $113.6 million a year, a number that ECONorthwest writes in an April report “appears inflated especially in light of the overall affluence of Cowlitz Tribal members.” (The 2000 Census ranks the 1999 median income the highest of all tribes based in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and No. 18 among 495 tribes reporting.)[5]
The cost of the tribe’s unmet needs relies heavily on health care and social services expenses, and according to an April 17 review by ECONorthwest, the PFEIS inflates the cost to provide these services to the Cowlitz Tribe at least fourfold, compared with other groups’ measures. ECONorthwest determined the average overstatement of this unmet need to be $62.7 million.[6]
[1] ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm headquartered in Eugene, Ore., with offices in Portland, Seattle and Boulder, Colo. Its client list includes Indian tribes, casinos, government agencies, educational institutions, municipalities, private enterprises and more. These reports were funded by and submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the card rooms located at La Center, Wash., as commentary on the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) and submissions related to the Cowlitz fee-to-trust applications.
[2] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis of the Management Agreement with the Cowlitz Casino,” 15 November 2007.
[3] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 9.
[4] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 7.
[5] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement,” 17 April 2007, 2.
[6] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[7] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[8] Data from the American Indian Health Commission for Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[9] Data based on the spending on health care and social assistance in Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[10] Money from Oregon tribal gaming used to cover health and social services for tribal members, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[11] Funding sources include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and Indian Health Services, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[12] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 5.
[13] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 10.
[14] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[15] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[16] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[17] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 12.
According to a study released Thursday by ECONorthwest,[1] the misinformation stems in part from the syndicate’s failure to adjust revenue projections for changes made to the Washington state-tribal gambling compacts last spring.
The Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS), released last spring after the new compact was approved, states that the proposed casino would produce $415 million in annual revenue. However, Thursday’s ECONorthwest report, taking the new state-tribal compact into account, finds that a similar facility would have annual gaming revenues of $611 million.
Additionally, the compact changes would add significantly to the profitability of a casino at Vader, in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland.[2] The PFEIS argues that a northern site would not bring in enough revenue to fulfill the tribe’s needs.
The state-tribal compact, formalized in March 2007 after lengthy negotiations with the Spokane Tribe and extended to Washington’s other tribes, relaxes several rules—increasing the hours of casino operation, the size of some wagers and the number of video slot machines allowed, and eliminating the requirement for casinos to phase the machines in gradually. (The old compact would have limited the Cowlitz casino to 475 machines its first year, but the new compact would allow it to open with 2,500 machines.)[3] The Cowlitz Tribe has yet to finalize its compact with the state but can expect at least 3,000 video slot machines and possibly up to 4,000.[4]
The new compact also adds substantially to the amount of money that would be made by Salishan-Mohegan, the casino development and management company formed by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and Cowlitz Tribe member David Barnett.
Revenue understated, need overstated
While the syndicate has been understating how much revenue a Cowlitz casino would make, it has been vastly overstating how much the Cowlitz Tribe needs.
The PFEIS sets the tribe’s unmet needs at $113.6 million a year, a number that ECONorthwest writes in an April report “appears inflated especially in light of the overall affluence of Cowlitz Tribal members.” (The 2000 Census ranks the 1999 median income the highest of all tribes based in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and No. 18 among 495 tribes reporting.)[5]
The cost of the tribe’s unmet needs relies heavily on health care and social services expenses, and according to an April 17 review by ECONorthwest, the PFEIS inflates the cost to provide these services to the Cowlitz Tribe at least fourfold, compared with other groups’ measures. ECONorthwest determined the average overstatement of this unmet need to be $62.7 million.[6]
This debunks the PFEIS’s argument that income from a casino-resort at the Vader site would not fulfill the tribe’s unmet needs. According to the PFEIS, a casino in the Vader area would have an annual return of approximately $77 million. When ECONorthwest subtracted the average overstatement of unmet needs in health care from the total claimed unmet needs, it found that a casino at Vader would exceed the tribe’s unmet needs by more than $26 million.[12]
Moreover, the $77 million return cited in the PFEIS was calculated according to terms of the old gaming compact. According to ECONorthwest, with the new compact allowing Washington casinos to operate 24 hours a day and use machines similar to those at Spirit Mountain Casino in Grand Ronde, Ore., Vader’s location 20 minutes closer to Portland than Spirit Mountain would give it a competitive advantage over the Portland market.[13]
Benefit of Vader casino underestimated
The PFEIS fails to consider how a casino located farther to the north, in the tribe’s historic land base and near the majority of its current members, would benefit the tribe. ECONorthwest writes,
Vader would be a better location from which to offer tribal members good jobs and for providing government services to tribal members in greatest need—the elderly, frail, disabled, poor, and young—that have the least mobility and would benefit from the center of tribal government being nearer to their existing homes—most of which are well over an hour north of La Center.[14]
According to figures from a 2006 letter from the Cowlitz Tribe’s enrollment officer, more than twice as many Cowlitz Tribe members live within two counties of Vader as within two counties of La Center.[16]
Area impacts overlooked
ECONorthwest also takes on the PFEIS’s analysis of socioeconomic impacts and points specifically to the document’s assumption that only five new households would move to La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland, the three cities in the PFEIS primary study area—not a realistic assumption given that with 3,151 employees, the casino would be the largest employer in the county.
This led to what ECONorthwest terms “the most peculiar finding of the PFEIS”: that only two students would be added to each of the three school districts in the primary study area, La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland.[17] This conclusion does not square with trends ECONorthwest has observed at other casinos, including the Grand Ronde’s and the privately owned La Center card rooms, nor does it follow common sense.
The bottom line
ECONorthwest’s reviews find the PFEIS to be a deeply flawed document that misrepresents the actual situation to decision-makers and the public, and obscures the opportunities available at a northern site. Paired with significantly understated profits, the overstated unmet needs have been used to preclude consideration of an alternate casino site near Vader, in the tribe’s true aboriginal homeland.
Citizens Against Reservation Shopping wants the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to insist the tribe’s consultants produce a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would provides accurate data and analyses, and consider the possibility of a casino site in the tribe’s true homeland.
Moreover, the $77 million return cited in the PFEIS was calculated according to terms of the old gaming compact. According to ECONorthwest, with the new compact allowing Washington casinos to operate 24 hours a day and use machines similar to those at Spirit Mountain Casino in Grand Ronde, Ore., Vader’s location 20 minutes closer to Portland than Spirit Mountain would give it a competitive advantage over the Portland market.[13]
Benefit of Vader casino underestimated
The PFEIS fails to consider how a casino located farther to the north, in the tribe’s historic land base and near the majority of its current members, would benefit the tribe. ECONorthwest writes,
Vader would be a better location from which to offer tribal members good jobs and for providing government services to tribal members in greatest need—the elderly, frail, disabled, poor, and young—that have the least mobility and would benefit from the center of tribal government being nearer to their existing homes—most of which are well over an hour north of La Center.[14]
According to figures from a 2006 letter from the Cowlitz Tribe’s enrollment officer, more than twice as many Cowlitz Tribe members live within two counties of Vader as within two counties of La Center.[16]
Area impacts overlooked
ECONorthwest also takes on the PFEIS’s analysis of socioeconomic impacts and points specifically to the document’s assumption that only five new households would move to La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland, the three cities in the PFEIS primary study area—not a realistic assumption given that with 3,151 employees, the casino would be the largest employer in the county.
This led to what ECONorthwest terms “the most peculiar finding of the PFEIS”: that only two students would be added to each of the three school districts in the primary study area, La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland.[17] This conclusion does not square with trends ECONorthwest has observed at other casinos, including the Grand Ronde’s and the privately owned La Center card rooms, nor does it follow common sense.
The bottom line
ECONorthwest’s reviews find the PFEIS to be a deeply flawed document that misrepresents the actual situation to decision-makers and the public, and obscures the opportunities available at a northern site. Paired with significantly understated profits, the overstated unmet needs have been used to preclude consideration of an alternate casino site near Vader, in the tribe’s true aboriginal homeland.
Citizens Against Reservation Shopping wants the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to insist the tribe’s consultants produce a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would provides accurate data and analyses, and consider the possibility of a casino site in the tribe’s true homeland.
[1] ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm headquartered in Eugene, Ore., with offices in Portland, Seattle and Boulder, Colo. Its client list includes Indian tribes, casinos, government agencies, educational institutions, municipalities, private enterprises and more. These reports were funded by and submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the card rooms located at La Center, Wash., as commentary on the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) and submissions related to the Cowlitz fee-to-trust applications.
[2] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis of the Management Agreement with the Cowlitz Casino,” 15 November 2007.
[3] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 9.
[4] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 7.
[5] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement,” 17 April 2007, 2.
[6] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[7] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[8] Data from the American Indian Health Commission for Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[9] Data based on the spending on health care and social assistance in Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[10] Money from Oregon tribal gaming used to cover health and social services for tribal members, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[11] Funding sources include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and Indian Health Services, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[12] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 5.
[13] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 10.
[14] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[15] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[16] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[17] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 12.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Woodland City Council, School Board Oppose Casino
Opponents of the proposed Cowlitz casino at La Center got a “two-fer” last night in Woodland where both the city council and school board passed resolutions of opposition. That brings to three the number of municipal neighbors registering formal opposition with the federal government to the resort-casino complex.
Earlier this year both the cities of Vancouver and La Center approved similar resolutions asking the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe’s trust application for land in Clark County as long as plans include a casino.
The Woodland City Council approved the opposition measure by a vote of 3 to 2, while the school board’s vote was unanimous. While neither resolution is a part of the formal Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process and are regarded as position statements only, the highly politicized nature of the process could make the opposition statements increasingly important as time goes by.
In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:
City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)
Earlier this year both the cities of Vancouver and La Center approved similar resolutions asking the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe’s trust application for land in Clark County as long as plans include a casino.
The Woodland City Council approved the opposition measure by a vote of 3 to 2, while the school board’s vote was unanimous. While neither resolution is a part of the formal Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process and are regarded as position statements only, the highly politicized nature of the process could make the opposition statements increasingly important as time goes by.
In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:
City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Columbian urges commissioners to clarify positions
From The Columbian, Sunday, October 21, 2007:
In Our View: Avoidance 101
County commissioners, take a stand. If you listen closely -- very closely -- you can almost hear the whimpering, the indecision, the double-speak from Clark County commissioners as they sidestep any real stance on the controversial proposed Cowlitz Tribe casino just outside La Center.
Frankly, the oatmeal some of you might be enjoying as you read this has more boldness than this trio ...
>>Read the entire editorial.
>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Third time is not the charm
Cowlitz casino strategy under fire
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation
>>Read about the invalid MOU.
>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.
>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.
In Our View: Avoidance 101
County commissioners, take a stand. If you listen closely -- very closely -- you can almost hear the whimpering, the indecision, the double-speak from Clark County commissioners as they sidestep any real stance on the controversial proposed Cowlitz Tribe casino just outside La Center.
Frankly, the oatmeal some of you might be enjoying as you read this has more boldness than this trio ...
>>Read the entire editorial.
>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Third time is not the charm
Cowlitz casino strategy under fire
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation
>>Read about the invalid MOU.
>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.
>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Not so fast, Columbian!
An article in Thursday’s Columbian was headlined, “County leaders accept Cowlitz promises.” That’s a bit of an overstatement.
The story, about the Cowlitz gambling syndicate’s latest attempt to salvage its agreement with Clark County (see "Third time is not the charm," below), goes on to quote Commissioner Marc Boldt: “This is maybe a little better than nothing … I don’t know.”
It also quotes Commissioner Steve Stuart: “This whole issue is far from over. … I’m hopeful that they will address (the county’s 15-page list of) concerns so that we don’t have to take other action.”
Those are not ringing endorsements.
Only Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, who has been steadfast in her support of the casino project from the start, appeared comfortable with the situation: “I don’t know us to have turned down money from anybody who offered it as compensation for an impact.”
The question is not whether to accept compensation. The question is whether the proposed compensation is enough to cover the anticipated impacts.
The story, about the Cowlitz gambling syndicate’s latest attempt to salvage its agreement with Clark County (see "Third time is not the charm," below), goes on to quote Commissioner Marc Boldt: “This is maybe a little better than nothing … I don’t know.”
It also quotes Commissioner Steve Stuart: “This whole issue is far from over. … I’m hopeful that they will address (the county’s 15-page list of) concerns so that we don’t have to take other action.”
Those are not ringing endorsements.
Only Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, who has been steadfast in her support of the casino project from the start, appeared comfortable with the situation: “I don’t know us to have turned down money from anybody who offered it as compensation for an impact.”
The question is not whether to accept compensation. The question is whether the proposed compensation is enough to cover the anticipated impacts.
Third time is not the charm
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has once again changed its tactics in an effort to demonstrate its cooperation with Clark County and facilitate the completion of its Environmental Impact Statement. This latest attempt consists of two tribal ordinances embodying agreements from the invalidated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County. They were sent Wednesday directly to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Indian Gaming Commission.
(If you’re keeping score, the first attempt was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Clark County in 2004, and appealed by a Clark County landowner and the La Center card rooms. It was invalidated in June 2007 by a state Growth Management Hearings Board, which found the public had not been allowed input as required by state law. The second attempt was the syndicate’s attempt to fold the MOU into the tribe’s federal gaming ordinance. That would have put enforcement of local provisions under federal control. Federal decision-makers said it was a bad idea, and the syndicate withdrew its request Oct. 5. It claims the contents of the third iteration would be enforceable in state court.)
The lead architect of this third attempt told The Columbian earlier this week, “The benefit of it being unilateral is the boys at Perkins Coie can’t mess with it.” (The Perkins Coie law firm represents the landowner and card rooms that appealed the initial MOU.)
Two things seem clear: First, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate is not interested in having outside input into this agreement, which has far-reaching ramifications for the entire area. Second, the syndicate desperately needs this MOU. Thursday The Columbian reported, “(Commissioner Steve) Stuart said the Cowlitz seem to think the commissioners would have some influence over the casino’s approval.”
You got it, Steve. Now use your influence to do some good.
>> Read about the beginnings of the MOU
>> Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU (in red text)
(If you’re keeping score, the first attempt was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Clark County in 2004, and appealed by a Clark County landowner and the La Center card rooms. It was invalidated in June 2007 by a state Growth Management Hearings Board, which found the public had not been allowed input as required by state law. The second attempt was the syndicate’s attempt to fold the MOU into the tribe’s federal gaming ordinance. That would have put enforcement of local provisions under federal control. Federal decision-makers said it was a bad idea, and the syndicate withdrew its request Oct. 5. It claims the contents of the third iteration would be enforceable in state court.)
The lead architect of this third attempt told The Columbian earlier this week, “The benefit of it being unilateral is the boys at Perkins Coie can’t mess with it.” (The Perkins Coie law firm represents the landowner and card rooms that appealed the initial MOU.)
Two things seem clear: First, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate is not interested in having outside input into this agreement, which has far-reaching ramifications for the entire area. Second, the syndicate desperately needs this MOU. Thursday The Columbian reported, “(Commissioner Steve) Stuart said the Cowlitz seem to think the commissioners would have some influence over the casino’s approval.”
You got it, Steve. Now use your influence to do some good.
>> Read about the beginnings of the MOU
>> Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU (in red text)
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Syndicate misrepresents Clark jobs situation
A newsletter sent today by the Cowlitz gambling syndicate seriously misleads readers by making much of some recent news saying that Clark County has the highest unemployment rate among counties lining the Interstate 5 corridor. It uses that snippet of information to assert that “many residents of Clark and surrounding counties would benefit” from the jobs the proposed Cowlitz casino-resort would bring.
The syndicate is taking advantage of an aberration. Yes, the August unemployment rates put Clark County at 6.4 percent, Cowlitz County at 6.1 percent and Lewis County at 6.3 percent. (See the data from the state Employment Security Department.) But between January 2005 and August 2007, Clark County had the lowest unemployment rate of the three counties for 28 out of the total 32 months.
In fact, Clark County was featured in February in The Seattle Times for showing the state’s hottest job growth over a couple of years with a 16 percent employment increase through the end of 2006.
Clark is not a county that needs a casino for job growth—particularly when it comes with food-stamp wages. (The average county wage is $37,200. The average casino wage would be, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, $28,000—with the lowest wages being in the teens.) Moreover, the other counties would provide more affordable housing to potential workers: In the second quarter of 2007, Clark County’s median home price was $277,900, while Cowlitz County’s was $182,900 and Lewis County’s was $195,000.
The syndicate is taking advantage of an aberration. Yes, the August unemployment rates put Clark County at 6.4 percent, Cowlitz County at 6.1 percent and Lewis County at 6.3 percent. (See the data from the state Employment Security Department.) But between January 2005 and August 2007, Clark County had the lowest unemployment rate of the three counties for 28 out of the total 32 months.
In fact, Clark County was featured in February in The Seattle Times for showing the state’s hottest job growth over a couple of years with a 16 percent employment increase through the end of 2006.
Clark is not a county that needs a casino for job growth—particularly when it comes with food-stamp wages. (The average county wage is $37,200. The average casino wage would be, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, $28,000—with the lowest wages being in the teens.) Moreover, the other counties would provide more affordable housing to potential workers: In the second quarter of 2007, Clark County’s median home price was $277,900, while Cowlitz County’s was $182,900 and Lewis County’s was $195,000.
Casino opposition is deep and wide
Whoever is doing the writing for the Cowlitz gambling syndicate has narrowly framed the casino opponents as “some wealthy business interests, card rooms, and an Oregon tribe … .”
That description on a Web page exhorting people to take action in support of the casino overlooks the thousands of area residents from all backgrounds that CARS represents. They have expressed dozens of different reasons why they do not want a massive casino-resort in Clark County. Their concerns include:
That description on a Web page exhorting people to take action in support of the casino overlooks the thousands of area residents from all backgrounds that CARS represents. They have expressed dozens of different reasons why they do not want a massive casino-resort in Clark County. Their concerns include:
- How it would affect Interstate traffic, especially over the I-5 Bridge.
- Gambling addiction—their own and others’.
- The impact this massive development would have on local waterways and the fish in them.
- How casino workers earning food-stamp wages would support their families.
- Where 3,000 casino-resort workers—many of them new to the area—would live.
- How the presence of another restaurant and retail mall, hotel, convention center, and event arena would affect local businesses.
- Whether the presence of this casino-resort would deter future development.
- The demand it would put on social service agencies.
- The impact it would have on local schools.
CARS encourages you to send a note to officials, at the local, state and federal levels, so they continue to feel your concerns about this proposed development.
Gambling syndicate changes strategy
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate—Seattle developer David Barnett and the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, together with their legal and public relations team—has dropped its effort to stuff the contents of the Cowlitz Tribe’s now-invalid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County into a federal gaming ordinance.
The announcement last Friday came just three days before the National Indian Gaming Commission was scheduled to release a decision on the proposal.
Top officials with the U.S. Department of the Interior had asked the tribe to find a better solution, because that plan would have taken enforcement of local provisions out of local hands and placed it under federal control.
According to a front-page story in the Oct. 7 Columbian, the tribe plans to “submit ‘a refined and strengthened’ plan but offered no specifics as to what form that plan would take” or when it would appear.
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contained the county’s pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the proposed casino site; the MOU was an integral part of the casino-resort’s Environmental Impact Statement, which is under review; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an important indicator of local support.
Reporter Jeff Mize’s story, which is based entirely on the statement released Friday and the contents of earlier stories, included a dig at the casino’s opposition, saying, “Wealthy business interests, the Grand Ronde Tribe of Oregon and the La Center cardrooms are spending millions of dollars to create bureaucratic and litigation roadblocks for the Cowlitz Tribe and the people of Clark County.”
Had Mize sought reaction from another source, such as an opposition group, he might have added that groups such as CARS are striving to block this project but not to cause harm to the Cowlitz Tribe or to Clark County. The goal of CARS is to protect the quality of life in this area. (See "Why you should care" on our Web site.)
The biggest roadblock the Cowlitz Tribe is experiencing is the gambling syndicate’s insistence on pursuing a reservation and casino at the La Center junction—close to the lucrative Portland market—rather than in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland in Lewis County.
>> Read about the alternate site idea.
The announcement last Friday came just three days before the National Indian Gaming Commission was scheduled to release a decision on the proposal.
Top officials with the U.S. Department of the Interior had asked the tribe to find a better solution, because that plan would have taken enforcement of local provisions out of local hands and placed it under federal control.
According to a front-page story in the Oct. 7 Columbian, the tribe plans to “submit ‘a refined and strengthened’ plan but offered no specifics as to what form that plan would take” or when it would appear.
The Cowlitz gambling syndicate needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contained the county’s pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the proposed casino site; the MOU was an integral part of the casino-resort’s Environmental Impact Statement, which is under review; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an important indicator of local support.
Reporter Jeff Mize’s story, which is based entirely on the statement released Friday and the contents of earlier stories, included a dig at the casino’s opposition, saying, “Wealthy business interests, the Grand Ronde Tribe of Oregon and the La Center cardrooms are spending millions of dollars to create bureaucratic and litigation roadblocks for the Cowlitz Tribe and the people of Clark County.”
Had Mize sought reaction from another source, such as an opposition group, he might have added that groups such as CARS are striving to block this project but not to cause harm to the Cowlitz Tribe or to Clark County. The goal of CARS is to protect the quality of life in this area. (See "Why you should care" on our Web site.)
The biggest roadblock the Cowlitz Tribe is experiencing is the gambling syndicate’s insistence on pursuing a reservation and casino at the La Center junction—close to the lucrative Portland market—rather than in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland in Lewis County.
>> Read about the alternate site idea.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Cowlitz casino strategy under fire
The Columbian last week used some of the harshest language yet regarding the Cowlitz Tribe's 2004 agreement with Clark County: "Tribe's discredited deal with Clark County ought to be taken out and set on fire," declared its editorial board Sept. 21.
This strong reaction comes as the Cowlitz Tribe's representatives once again attempt to make an "end run" around local governments. No sooner had a state growth board's June decision found the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be invalid than the tribe's lawyers began mounting an effort to wrap its contents into a federal gaming ordinance.
But one of the top federal decision-makers on the Cowlitz casino issue expressed concern in a Columbian article published last week. He said that putting the contents of the MOU in the federal ordinance would take enforcement of local provisions out of the county's hands and place them under federal control. The U.S. Department of the Interior has asked the tribe to find a different solution.
The tribe needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contains the county's pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the land where the tribe's developer wants to build a casino; the MOU is an integral part of the casino-resort's Environmental Impact Statement, which mentions the MOU more than 150 times; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an indication of local support for casino projects.
Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt's recent letter to the National Indian Gaming Commission is right on: "The county's interests are better served by having no MOU in place than they would be by an uncertain and potentially ineffective federal effort."
>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation
Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs
>>Read about the invalid MOU.
>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.
>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.
This strong reaction comes as the Cowlitz Tribe's representatives once again attempt to make an "end run" around local governments. No sooner had a state growth board's June decision found the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be invalid than the tribe's lawyers began mounting an effort to wrap its contents into a federal gaming ordinance.
But one of the top federal decision-makers on the Cowlitz casino issue expressed concern in a Columbian article published last week. He said that putting the contents of the MOU in the federal ordinance would take enforcement of local provisions out of the county's hands and place them under federal control. The U.S. Department of the Interior has asked the tribe to find a different solution.
The tribe needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contains the county's pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the land where the tribe's developer wants to build a casino; the MOU is an integral part of the casino-resort's Environmental Impact Statement, which mentions the MOU more than 150 times; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an indication of local support for casino projects.
Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt's recent letter to the National Indian Gaming Commission is right on: "The county's interests are better served by having no MOU in place than they would be by an uncertain and potentially ineffective federal effort."
>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation
Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs
>>Read about the invalid MOU.
>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.
>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Woodland considering resolution
Woodland City Council has been discussing whether the city should join the ranks of Vancouver and La Center, which have passed strongly worded resolutions against the proposed casino.
Woodland was designated a cooperating agency due to its proximity to the proposed casino site but has not been active in the Environmental Impact Statement process. At recent meetings, the Woodland City Council has discussed the possible impacts a casino at the La Center junction would have on its housing stock, which is some of the most affordable in the area, and schools. Woodland citizens have expressed concerns about how the casino would affect the local business community.
We will let you know when a draft resolution goes on the City Council agenda.
Woodland was designated a cooperating agency due to its proximity to the proposed casino site but has not been active in the Environmental Impact Statement process. At recent meetings, the Woodland City Council has discussed the possible impacts a casino at the La Center junction would have on its housing stock, which is some of the most affordable in the area, and schools. Woodland citizens have expressed concerns about how the casino would affect the local business community.
We will let you know when a draft resolution goes on the City Council agenda.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Court denies tribe’s request
The Cowlitz Tribe was rebuffed Aug. 17 in Thurston County Superior Court when it attempted to insert itself into Clark County’s appeal of a ruling on the county’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe.
The tribe wanted to join the case so it could move to have it dismissed, which would reinstate the MOU, a document that is a key part of its Environmental Impact Statement.
The MOU, under consideration by various courts and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for the past three years, was invalidated June 19 by the growth board. It determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU with the tribe in March 2004.
The county appealed that ruling and argues that it is less interested in maintaining the MOU than in determining that the growth board, an appointed body, does not have authority to override an agreement made by the County Commission, an elected body.
Thurston Superior Court will hear Clark County’s appeal of the Hearings Board decision, likely in late September or early October.
The tribe wanted to join the case so it could move to have it dismissed, which would reinstate the MOU, a document that is a key part of its Environmental Impact Statement.
The MOU, under consideration by various courts and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for the past three years, was invalidated June 19 by the growth board. It determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU with the tribe in March 2004.
The county appealed that ruling and argues that it is less interested in maintaining the MOU than in determining that the growth board, an appointed body, does not have authority to override an agreement made by the County Commission, an elected body.
Thurston Superior Court will hear Clark County’s appeal of the Hearings Board decision, likely in late September or early October.
Tribe tries to “fix” MOU situation
Now that its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County is invalid, the Cowlitz Tribe is trying to keep its contents alive by inserting them into its gaming ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005.
The tribe has been framing this plan as a way to ensure that problems arising from its proposed casino development would be mitigated. But it is clear that this is a last-ditch attempt to maintain an agreement so the county could provide the property with services, if it is taken into trust by DOI.
A response to the proposal by the county will be key.
What is particularly alarming is that putting the contents of the MOU into the NIGC ordinance would take the enforcement of local concerns -- law enforcement, county court, fire protection, health regulations, traffic mitigation, sewer and water issues, building codes, revenue-sharing, among others -- out of local hands and place it with a federal commission, which is not set up to oversee local matters. We have urged the NIGC to deny the Cowlitz Tribe’s request to amend its gaming ordinance.
(You might recall that the NIGC was the agency that approved the tribe’s restored lands application -- potentially qualifying the land at the La Center junction for gambling -- at the same time. That decision, which broke with all precedence, came under heavy fire and is under review by the Department of the Interior (DOI).)
The tribe has been framing this plan as a way to ensure that problems arising from its proposed casino development would be mitigated. But it is clear that this is a last-ditch attempt to maintain an agreement so the county could provide the property with services, if it is taken into trust by DOI.
A response to the proposal by the county will be key.
What is particularly alarming is that putting the contents of the MOU into the NIGC ordinance would take the enforcement of local concerns -- law enforcement, county court, fire protection, health regulations, traffic mitigation, sewer and water issues, building codes, revenue-sharing, among others -- out of local hands and place it with a federal commission, which is not set up to oversee local matters. We have urged the NIGC to deny the Cowlitz Tribe’s request to amend its gaming ordinance.
(You might recall that the NIGC was the agency that approved the tribe’s restored lands application -- potentially qualifying the land at the La Center junction for gambling -- at the same time. That decision, which broke with all precedence, came under heavy fire and is under review by the Department of the Interior (DOI).)
Tribe blasts La Center in DOI memo
The Cowlitz Tribe blasted La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort in a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).
The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from -- finally -- having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
The La Center city attorney sent a letter Aug. 23 to DOI stating the city’s strong disagreement “with the tribe’s characterization of the policy positions the City Council has taken” and its legal arguments.
“The City’s primary source of general tax revenue is the four non-tribal cardrooms that have operated for many years in La Center,” wrote City Attorney Daniel Kearns. “The City Council has made the policy choice to try to protect the non-tribal cardrooms within its boundaries, as the Council views that as the best way to protect that City revenue source.”
In May, the La Center City Council unanimously approved a resolution stating its strong opposition to the casino project, and in June, the city council voted 4-1 to turn down the tribe’s offer to extend the city’s sewer lines west to the site of the proposed casino and to pay half the cost of upgrading the city’s sewage treatment plant.
Also included in the tribe’s memorandum is a section describing its “local outreach” efforts, listing local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the tribe’s memo.
>>Read the list of local leaders.
>>Read La Center’s letter.
The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from -- finally -- having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
The La Center city attorney sent a letter Aug. 23 to DOI stating the city’s strong disagreement “with the tribe’s characterization of the policy positions the City Council has taken” and its legal arguments.
“The City’s primary source of general tax revenue is the four non-tribal cardrooms that have operated for many years in La Center,” wrote City Attorney Daniel Kearns. “The City Council has made the policy choice to try to protect the non-tribal cardrooms within its boundaries, as the Council views that as the best way to protect that City revenue source.”
In May, the La Center City Council unanimously approved a resolution stating its strong opposition to the casino project, and in June, the city council voted 4-1 to turn down the tribe’s offer to extend the city’s sewer lines west to the site of the proposed casino and to pay half the cost of upgrading the city’s sewage treatment plant.
Also included in the tribe’s memorandum is a section describing its “local outreach” efforts, listing local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the tribe’s memo.
>>Read the list of local leaders.
>>Read La Center’s letter.
Tribe tries to attach itself to area
The Cowlitz Tribe continues its quest to appear as if it has had a significant presence in Clark County “since time immemorial.” Most recently it has employed a Clark County Fair booth (“Cowlitz Indian Tribe. Clark County. Our Past. Our Future.”) and a piece written by Cowlitz Tribe Chairman John Barnett in the Aug. 22 Reflector (“Cowlitz Tribe’s history shows residency in Clark County”).
CARS disputes the tribe’s inaccurate historic claims to Clark County because it is using them in an attempt to fulfill Department of the Interior (DOI) criteria. To take land into trust for gambling, newly recognized tribes must first qualify for an exception to a federal prohibition. The Cowlitz Tribe has applied for two exceptions: an initial reservation and restored lands.
In 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, George Skibine (then an acting deputy assistant secretary at DOI) testified that to qualify for an initial reservation or restored lands, DOI requires a tribe to have historical and geographical ties to the land.
The historic record -- including findings published by DOI -- shows that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland was well to the north, primarily along the Cowlitz River. In July, the chairman of the Chinook Indian Nation added his tribe’s concerns to the discussion in a letter to The Reflector that said, “Recorded and oral history is very clear in that the indigenous peoples of the La Center, Ridgefield and Vancouver areas were Chinookan. The principle indigenous lands of the Cowlitz People were not in the present-day area of Clark County.”
For all its efforts, the Cowlitz Tribe only began attaching itself to Clark County a few years ago. Its July 20 memorandum (the one attacking La Center’s opposition) states on page 2, “Soon after the Tribe filed its fee-to-trust application in 2002 it began to reach out to the City of La Center.” (By this time, Cowlitz developer David Barnett had already purchased land and options at the La Center junction; and in 2002 the tribe asked the state to begin negotiating a gaming compact.) Had the Cowlitz Tribe truly been in Clark County to any degree, it already would have had strong ties to local communities.
Moreover, it surely would have had some presence in local media. A CARS analysis of 1994-2001 news coverage in The Columbian shows few stories related to the Cowlitz Tribe before 1999. That year, its eight stories were primarily about the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition—and its reaction to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe’s interest in placing a casino in Clark County.
CARS disputes the tribe’s inaccurate historic claims to Clark County because it is using them in an attempt to fulfill Department of the Interior (DOI) criteria. To take land into trust for gambling, newly recognized tribes must first qualify for an exception to a federal prohibition. The Cowlitz Tribe has applied for two exceptions: an initial reservation and restored lands.
In 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, George Skibine (then an acting deputy assistant secretary at DOI) testified that to qualify for an initial reservation or restored lands, DOI requires a tribe to have historical and geographical ties to the land.
The historic record -- including findings published by DOI -- shows that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland was well to the north, primarily along the Cowlitz River. In July, the chairman of the Chinook Indian Nation added his tribe’s concerns to the discussion in a letter to The Reflector that said, “Recorded and oral history is very clear in that the indigenous peoples of the La Center, Ridgefield and Vancouver areas were Chinookan. The principle indigenous lands of the Cowlitz People were not in the present-day area of Clark County.”
For all its efforts, the Cowlitz Tribe only began attaching itself to Clark County a few years ago. Its July 20 memorandum (the one attacking La Center’s opposition) states on page 2, “Soon after the Tribe filed its fee-to-trust application in 2002 it began to reach out to the City of La Center.” (By this time, Cowlitz developer David Barnett had already purchased land and options at the La Center junction; and in 2002 the tribe asked the state to begin negotiating a gaming compact.) Had the Cowlitz Tribe truly been in Clark County to any degree, it already would have had strong ties to local communities.
Moreover, it surely would have had some presence in local media. A CARS analysis of 1994-2001 news coverage in The Columbian shows few stories related to the Cowlitz Tribe before 1999. That year, its eight stories were primarily about the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition—and its reaction to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe’s interest in placing a casino in Clark County.
DOI unresponsive to Baird request
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has not yet responded to Rep. Brian Baird’s May request that the agency release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.
The casino project’s Business Plan and attached “Unmet Needs Report,” a required element of the fee-to-trust application (which the tribe filed incompletely in 2006), appears to have been held back until the preliminary Final EIS was released to cooperating agencies last spring, so it could be used -- without public scrutiny -- to provide a rationale for not considering a site in the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The preliminary Final EIS argues that a northern site would not make enough money to satisfy the tribe’s needs.
The Plan and Report contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. Among what the tribe calls its “unmet needs” -- which add up to $113.6 million a year -- are a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually), two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually) and a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).
The casino project’s Business Plan and attached “Unmet Needs Report,” a required element of the fee-to-trust application (which the tribe filed incompletely in 2006), appears to have been held back until the preliminary Final EIS was released to cooperating agencies last spring, so it could be used -- without public scrutiny -- to provide a rationale for not considering a site in the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The preliminary Final EIS argues that a northern site would not make enough money to satisfy the tribe’s needs.
The Plan and Report contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. Among what the tribe calls its “unmet needs” -- which add up to $113.6 million a year -- are a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually), two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually) and a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).
Reservation requests on hold?
An article in the Boston Globe raises questions about whether the Cowlitz Tribe could even get land taken into trust until the next President is in office.
In a story about what could become Massachusetts’ first casino, the Boston Globe reported, “No action is expected by the Interior Department during the next 18 months, because President Bush’s administration has said it will not approve applications by federally recognized tribes to create reservation land.”
The reporter later said that he had received the information from the Massachusetts tribe working on the casino proposal.
In a story about what could become Massachusetts’ first casino, the Boston Globe reported, “No action is expected by the Interior Department during the next 18 months, because President Bush’s administration has said it will not approve applications by federally recognized tribes to create reservation land.”
The reporter later said that he had received the information from the Massachusetts tribe working on the casino proposal.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tribe complains about La Center to DOI
In a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the Cowlitz Tribe blasts La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort. The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from—finally—having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
According to a July 27 article in The Columbian,
The memorandum includes a section describing the tribe’s “local outreach” efforts and lists local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the memo.
According to a July 27 article in The Columbian,
The article includes a reaction from La Center city attorney Dan Kearns: “This is the definitive slamming of the door, on negotiations for mitigation and negotiations for sewer service.”City Councilman Troy Van Dinter disputed (Cowlitz Tribe attorney Heather) Sibbison’s depiction of a city council in cahoots with the four nontribal cardrooms.
“That’s just completely wrong,” he said. “We’re just trying to keep the city intact and protect the citizens we have, as well as the tax base we have.”
The memorandum includes a section describing the tribe’s “local outreach” efforts and lists local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the memo.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs
The Clark County Commissioners threw away a golden opportunity this week to deep-six once and for all their much maligned Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.
Absolved by a regional growth board of any obligation -- real or imagined -- to honor the MOU, our leaders opted instead to appeal the ruling. (See "County to appeal casino deal ruling" in The Columbian.)
Handed down by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the ruling declared that the MOU was negotiated and approved without the state- and county-required public participation, and gave the county six months to fix that.
Commissioner Steve Stuart identified in The Columbian three possible courses for the county: pursue a new agreement involving the public, let the document die or appeal the ruling.
The first two options are certainly preferable. If the document were left for dead, it would send a message to federal decision-makers that the county is not a casino proponent. If county leaders and the public worked together to produce a new document with the tribe, we might get something that would actually protect the county.
Consider the following:
1. The county was spooked into signing this MOU in 2004, before the casino developers had publicly defined the nature and scope of their project. (See "Secrets of the MOU" on our Web site)
2. Because the county signed the MOU prematurely, not knowing what the tribe had in mind, it failed to negotiate an agreement that would adequately protect the county given the size of the proposed development and its location. Among the MOU's shortcomings:
Absolved by a regional growth board of any obligation -- real or imagined -- to honor the MOU, our leaders opted instead to appeal the ruling. (See "County to appeal casino deal ruling" in The Columbian.)
Handed down by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the ruling declared that the MOU was negotiated and approved without the state- and county-required public participation, and gave the county six months to fix that.
Commissioner Steve Stuart identified in The Columbian three possible courses for the county: pursue a new agreement involving the public, let the document die or appeal the ruling.
The first two options are certainly preferable. If the document were left for dead, it would send a message to federal decision-makers that the county is not a casino proponent. If county leaders and the public worked together to produce a new document with the tribe, we might get something that would actually protect the county.
Consider the following:
1. The county was spooked into signing this MOU in 2004, before the casino developers had publicly defined the nature and scope of their project. (See "Secrets of the MOU" on our Web site)
2. Because the county signed the MOU prematurely, not knowing what the tribe had in mind, it failed to negotiate an agreement that would adequately protect the county given the size of the proposed development and its location. Among the MOU's shortcomings:
- Property tax. The tribe agrees to pay "for revenue lost resulting from the removal of the Clark County Site from the tax rolls." That appears to be approximately $10,000 a year, according to an analysis by the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest.
- Problem gambling mitigation. The tribe agrees to pay $50,000 a year. A similar agreement in Wisconsin promises $150,000 a year. Clark County has a population 2½ times larger than that county.
- Potential expansion. The MOU does not address the possibility that, if the Cowlitz Tribe gets its requested land taken into trust, it could continue to expand its holdings -- taking more and more land off the county's tax rolls.
- Compensation. An agreement structured like the one in Wisconsin would bring in nearly $29 million a year to local governments and charities. Clark County's would bring in only $5 million to $7.5 million, according to ECONorthwest's analysis.
3. Two of the three commissioners who signed the MOU now regret it and joined CARS' Steering Committee. The third, Betty Sue Morris, remains on the board, where by all accounts she is the casino's primary advocate.
4. Without the MOU, the tribe's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is in serious jeopardy. The EIS mentions the MOU nearly 150 times. If the MOU goes away, it means serious consequences for the EIS.
5. When the county signed the MOU, it attached the following disclaimer:
"Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding should be construed as evidencing county support for or endorsement of the Tribe's trust application. The Board has concerns that the trust application, if federally-approved, would permit uses on this rural and resource land which otherwise would not be allowed under the County's comprehensive land use plan, would permit gaming, which is otherwise prohibited in unincorporated Clark County, and could potentially adversely affect existing business."
In our view those are real concerns and they exist today.
Support for the MOU is support for the casino. Why are the commissioners fighting so hard to resurrect this document? And why would they oppose giving the public a voice in an issue that could affect life in our county for many decades to come?
Thursday, June 21, 2007
MOU declared invalid
The proposed Cowlitz casino project was dealt another blow Tuesday when the tribe's agreement with Clark County was declared invalid.
The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe in March 2004.
The Board of County Commissioners signed the MOU before the tribe revealed its plan to apply for an initial reservation and develop a mega-casino and resort near the La Center exit on Interstate 5. The tribe has since used the MOU to bolster its application to put lands into trust and has relied on it as a critical part of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The 2006 Draft EIS mentions the MOU more than 150 times in an attempt to demonstrate that the agreement would prevent or mitigate negative impacts. However, because the county signed before knowing the tribe's plan for the site, it failed to get a deal that would reasonably help offset the negative impacts of what could become the largest casino-resort on the West Coast.
The MOU was appealed in June 2004 by a property owner adjacent to the proposed casino site and owners of the La Center cardrooms. The case traveled through Superior Court to Appeals Court, which declared the MOU a "de facto amendment" to the county's Comprehensive Plan and sent it back to the Hearings Board, which has given the county until Dec. 14 to bring the MOU into compliance.
CARS continues to believe there should be no agreement between the tribe and the county. This Memorandum of Mis-Understanding should be invalidated for all time.
>>Read the story in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe in March 2004.
The Board of County Commissioners signed the MOU before the tribe revealed its plan to apply for an initial reservation and develop a mega-casino and resort near the La Center exit on Interstate 5. The tribe has since used the MOU to bolster its application to put lands into trust and has relied on it as a critical part of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The 2006 Draft EIS mentions the MOU more than 150 times in an attempt to demonstrate that the agreement would prevent or mitigate negative impacts. However, because the county signed before knowing the tribe's plan for the site, it failed to get a deal that would reasonably help offset the negative impacts of what could become the largest casino-resort on the West Coast.
The MOU was appealed in June 2004 by a property owner adjacent to the proposed casino site and owners of the La Center cardrooms. The case traveled through Superior Court to Appeals Court, which declared the MOU a "de facto amendment" to the county's Comprehensive Plan and sent it back to the Hearings Board, which has given the county until Dec. 14 to bring the MOU into compliance.
CARS continues to believe there should be no agreement between the tribe and the county. This Memorandum of Mis-Understanding should be invalidated for all time.
>>Read the story in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
Monday, June 11, 2007
HURRAY FOR LA CENTER!
La Center's City Council sent a strong message May 23 when it unanimously passed a resolution stating the city's opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino.
This is an extremely important development because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials and La Center is the city closest to the proposed development.
Like the resolution passed by the Vancouver City Council earlier this month, La Center's voices frustration at having its concerns ignored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and threatens legal action if its concerns are not addressed.
The La Center resolution mentions, among other issues, that the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the proposed casino's impacts on the city's socioeconomic situation, traffic, schools and law enforcement. It also expresses the city's concern regarding the possibility that the tribe would expand the casino and its land holdings in the future.
The City Council also voted to set aside money to send members Bob Smith and Dale Smith to Washington, D.C., to personally deliver the resolution to the Department of the Interior.
>>Read about the decision.
>>Read the resolution.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
This is an extremely important development because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials and La Center is the city closest to the proposed development.
Like the resolution passed by the Vancouver City Council earlier this month, La Center's voices frustration at having its concerns ignored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and threatens legal action if its concerns are not addressed.
The La Center resolution mentions, among other issues, that the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the proposed casino's impacts on the city's socioeconomic situation, traffic, schools and law enforcement. It also expresses the city's concern regarding the possibility that the tribe would expand the casino and its land holdings in the future.
The City Council also voted to set aside money to send members Bob Smith and Dale Smith to Washington, D.C., to personally deliver the resolution to the Department of the Interior.
>>Read about the decision.
>>Read the resolution.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
BAIRD REQUESTS COMMENT PERIOD
Responding to concerns raised by Citizens Against Reservation Shopping and others, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) has asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe's preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.
The Business Plan and Unmet Needs Statement, part of the Cowlitz Tribe's application for a mega-casino and resort proposed for Clark County, were to have been part of a revised trust land application filed on behalf of the tribe last summer. Instead they appeared, without notice, as an appendix to the preliminary Final EIS when it was released in March by BIA to cooperating agencies.
In a letter dated May 30, Rep. Baird wrote, "I can understand the concerns of some members of the community and appreciate their desire to thoroughly evaluate all elements of the application before a final decision on the Cowlitz Tribe's application is made."
>>Read Rep. Baird's letter.
>>Read about CARS' concerns regarding the Business Plan.
>>See CARS' May 14 news release.
>>Read the article in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
The Business Plan and Unmet Needs Statement, part of the Cowlitz Tribe's application for a mega-casino and resort proposed for Clark County, were to have been part of a revised trust land application filed on behalf of the tribe last summer. Instead they appeared, without notice, as an appendix to the preliminary Final EIS when it was released in March by BIA to cooperating agencies.
In a letter dated May 30, Rep. Baird wrote, "I can understand the concerns of some members of the community and appreciate their desire to thoroughly evaluate all elements of the application before a final decision on the Cowlitz Tribe's application is made."
>>Read Rep. Baird's letter.
>>Read about CARS' concerns regarding the Business Plan.
>>See CARS' May 14 news release.
>>Read the article in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
LA CENTER TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION AGAINST COWLITZ CASINO
La Center might follow Vancouver's lead by adopting its own resolution opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino.
The City Council discussed the possibility at its Wednesday meeting and plans to consider a resolution May 23.
This resolution would be particularly important, because La Center is the city closest to the site of the proposed casino-resort, which would be the largest on the West Coast.
>>Read the story in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: http://www.NotHerePlease.org/.
The City Council discussed the possibility at its Wednesday meeting and plans to consider a resolution May 23.
This resolution would be particularly important, because La Center is the city closest to the site of the proposed casino-resort, which would be the largest on the West Coast.
>>Read the story in The Columbian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: http://www.NotHerePlease.org/.
WAY TO GO VANCOUVER!
On Monday, Vancouver's City Council announced its united opposition to the Cowlitz Tribe's bid to put a casino in north Clark County.
This is an extremely important development, because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials.
After listening to 90 minutes of public testimony, the mayor and six council members unanimously approved a resolution. It explains their concerns and asks the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe's trust application for land in north Clark County as long as its plans include a casino.
Mayor Pollard said he and the council had received approximately 150 e-mails and phone calls weighing in on the issue.
>>Read the city's resolution.
>>Read the stories in Tuesday's Columbian and The Oregonian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
This is an extremely important development, because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials.
After listening to 90 minutes of public testimony, the mayor and six council members unanimously approved a resolution. It explains their concerns and asks the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe's trust application for land in north Clark County as long as its plans include a casino.
Mayor Pollard said he and the council had received approximately 150 e-mails and phone calls weighing in on the issue.
>>Read the city's resolution.
>>Read the stories in Tuesday's Columbian and The Oregonian.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
CLARK COUNTY CUTS BACKROOM CASINO MOU DEAL
Rather than wait for a hearing on the validity of the troubled Clark County-Cowlitz Tribe Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Clark County commissioners took matters into their own hands and directed a county attorney to work out a deal with attorneys for casino developer David Barnett and the tribe.
This month the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board is considering the 2004 MOU as part of a case brought against the county by resident Al Alexanderson and the La Center cardrooms. They contend that in the MOU the county agrees to extend services to a site not intended for intense commercial development. Also, they say the county broke state law by approving the MOU without first amending its land use plan to reflect this type of development.
“That the county would keep massaging this MOU in secret—working with the casino developer’s attorney—is a breach of the public trust,” said Ed Lynch, chairman of the casino opposition group Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS). “The pattern of secrecy that has surrounded the creation of this document continues.”
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
>>Read about the court opinion in our November newsletter.
This month the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board is considering the 2004 MOU as part of a case brought against the county by resident Al Alexanderson and the La Center cardrooms. They contend that in the MOU the county agrees to extend services to a site not intended for intense commercial development. Also, they say the county broke state law by approving the MOU without first amending its land use plan to reflect this type of development.
“That the county would keep massaging this MOU in secret—working with the casino developer’s attorney—is a breach of the public trust,” said Ed Lynch, chairman of the casino opposition group Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS). “The pattern of secrecy that has surrounded the creation of this document continues.”
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
>>Read about the court opinion in our November newsletter.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
VANCOUVER FIGHTS PROPOSED COWLITZ CASINO
Once a supporter of the Cowlitz casino project, Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard on Monday voiced his “strong opposition” to the project.
The city has submitted comments three times, Pollard said, but the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) still does not address its concerns.
“You can’t just ignore us and expect us to roll over for you,” he said.
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
The city has submitted comments three times, Pollard said, but the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) still does not address its concerns.
“You can’t just ignore us and expect us to roll over for you,” he said.
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
REGIONAL BIA, CASINO DEVELOPERS COOK BOOKS TRYING TO SAVE LA CENTER SITE
Two key reports that the Cowlitz casino developers should have released nearly a year ago were quietly issued last month to cooperating agencies by the regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). They were included in the preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The casino project’s Business Plan and so-called “Unmet Needs Report” contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by regional BIA in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The report says a northern site would not make enough money to fulfill what the tribe calls its “unmet needs”—which add up to $113.6 million a year.
The Cowlitz Tribe’s unmet needs include:
The casino project’s Business Plan and so-called “Unmet Needs Report” contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by regional BIA in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The report says a northern site would not make enough money to fulfill what the tribe calls its “unmet needs”—which add up to $113.6 million a year.
The Cowlitz Tribe’s unmet needs include:
- a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually)
- two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually).
- a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).
In written comments to BIA, Vancouver City Manager Pat McDonnell called the Unmet Needs Report “exaggerated.”
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
SECRETS OF THE MOU
Negotiators for the Cowlitz Tribe withheld important information from Clark County and misrepresented the tribe’s intentions while negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the county.
“They underrepresented what they were going to do—they misrepresented it,” said Judie Stanton, who was a Clark County commissioner at the time. “I now feel they intentionally deceived us.”
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
“They underrepresented what they were going to do—they misrepresented it,” said Judie Stanton, who was a Clark County commissioner at the time. “I now feel they intentionally deceived us.”
>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
