Imagine you're driving merrily along I-5 when -- crash! -- you get hit by a drunk driver.
You're seriously injured. The other driver admits fault and goes to prison.
Left with staggering medical bills, you sue the business that had served that driver when she was already drunk.
But wait!
She came from a party at the tribal casino. And the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently declared that casinos (and other commercial activities) of tribes are protected from legal action, thanks to sovereign immunity -- unless the tribe has offered a clear waiver or Congress has authorized the suit.
That would be just as true for the proposed Cowlitz-Mohegan-Paskenta casino in Clark County as it is for the Nevada casino absolved of the lawsuit by the 9th Circuit.
See for yourself:
"Court protects Indian casino from lawsuit," Las Vegas Sun (Nov. 14, 2008)
Ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Nov. 14, 2008)
One thing's certain: The proposed Cowlitz casino is a bad bet for Clark County.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Mielke claims Clark County Commission seat
Cowlitz casino opponent Tom Mielke has claimed a seat on the Clark County Board of Commissioners, despite the casino developer’s efforts to keep him out of office.
“In his victory statement, Mielke lambasted Cowlitz Tribe member and would-be casino developer David Barnett of Seattle, who independently spent $76,500 to attack Mielke by mail and telephone in the last four days of the race,” reported The Columbian Nov. 26.“‘The people of Clark County have rejected casino special interests,’ Mielke said.”
The race had been up in the air for a couple of weeks, but late-arriving mail-in ballots tipped the results to Mielke. His election appears to change the board to an anti-casino majority as he joins longtime casino opponent Marc Boldt on the board. Steve Stuart is the third commissioner.
For more on Barnett's efforts, see our earlier blog.
“In his victory statement, Mielke lambasted Cowlitz Tribe member and would-be casino developer David Barnett of Seattle, who independently spent $76,500 to attack Mielke by mail and telephone in the last four days of the race,” reported The Columbian Nov. 26.“‘The people of Clark County have rejected casino special interests,’ Mielke said.”
The race had been up in the air for a couple of weeks, but late-arriving mail-in ballots tipped the results to Mielke. His election appears to change the board to an anti-casino majority as he joins longtime casino opponent Marc Boldt on the board. Steve Stuart is the third commissioner.
For more on Barnett's efforts, see our earlier blog.
Friday, November 28, 2008
‘Casino MOU is Folly,’ declares Columbian
A Nov. 25 editorial in The Columbian dubs the Clark County Board of Commissioners’ current efforts to negotiate a new agreement with the Cowlitz Tribe “folly” and illustrates it with a great metaphor:
When the county passed its resolution opposing the casino in April, it was declining a marriage proposal. To now negotiate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is like discussing a prenuptial agreement -- for a marriage that will never be.
What the editorial and the article precipitating it fail to explain, however, is that a key decision-maker with the Department of the Interior has said that the absence of a valid Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County MOU “could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.” (For more on this, please see "County quietly negotiates with tribe."
The 2004 county-tribe MOU was invalidated in December 2007 for lack of public participation. CARS has long maintained that the best thing for the county to do is nothing. Let the document stay dead. That way there is no mistaking how the county and its citizens feel about this proposed development.
Read the editorial "Casino MOU is Folly."
Read the article "County-tribe casino deal in works."
When the county passed its resolution opposing the casino in April, it was declining a marriage proposal. To now negotiate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is like discussing a prenuptial agreement -- for a marriage that will never be.
What the editorial and the article precipitating it fail to explain, however, is that a key decision-maker with the Department of the Interior has said that the absence of a valid Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County MOU “could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.” (For more on this, please see "County quietly negotiates with tribe."
The 2004 county-tribe MOU was invalidated in December 2007 for lack of public participation. CARS has long maintained that the best thing for the county to do is nothing. Let the document stay dead. That way there is no mistaking how the county and its citizens feel about this proposed development.
Read the editorial "Casino MOU is Folly."
Read the article "County-tribe casino deal in works."
California tribe buys into Cowlitz casino
David Barnett, the Seattle-based developer of the proposed Cowlitz casino, has reportedly sold nearly half his interest in the project to a California Tribe.
According to a story last week in The Columbian, the 240-member Paskenta Band of the Nomlaki Indians, which owns a casino 100 miles north of Sacramento, has joined the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut to partner with Barnett. According to The Columbian, one unconfirmed report says the California tribe purchased 48 percent of Barnett’s interest.
That would mean Salishan-Mohegan, the partnership originally formed between Barnett and the Mohegan Tribe to develop and manage the casino for seven years, now is owned 57 percent by the Mohegan Tribe, 22.4 percent by Barnett and 20.6 percent by the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians.
CARS has long maintained that this project is being pushed through by interests that have little to do with Clark County or even southwest Washington. Now 77.6 percent of the venture is owned by out-of-state investors.
According to a story last week in The Columbian, the 240-member Paskenta Band of the Nomlaki Indians, which owns a casino 100 miles north of Sacramento, has joined the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut to partner with Barnett. According to The Columbian, one unconfirmed report says the California tribe purchased 48 percent of Barnett’s interest.
That would mean Salishan-Mohegan, the partnership originally formed between Barnett and the Mohegan Tribe to develop and manage the casino for seven years, now is owned 57 percent by the Mohegan Tribe, 22.4 percent by Barnett and 20.6 percent by the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians.
CARS has long maintained that this project is being pushed through by interests that have little to do with Clark County or even southwest Washington. Now 77.6 percent of the venture is owned by out-of-state investors.
Cowlitz casino investor sees credit rating decline
The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, a partner in developing and managing the proposed Cowlitz casino, saw its credit rating lowered from Ba2 to B1 by Moody’s Investors Service.
The B1 rating indicates securities that Moody’s says “lack characteristics of a desirable investment.”
Last week the Associated Press reported, “Moody’s said negative gaming trends in Connecticut and ‘significant’ dividends paid to the Mohegan Tribe will hamper the company from lowering the debt-to-earnings ratio in the near-term consistent with a ‘Ba2’ rating.”
Read the full article in Forbes magazine.
The B1 rating indicates securities that Moody’s says “lack characteristics of a desirable investment.”
Last week the Associated Press reported, “Moody’s said negative gaming trends in Connecticut and ‘significant’ dividends paid to the Mohegan Tribe will hamper the company from lowering the debt-to-earnings ratio in the near-term consistent with a ‘Ba2’ rating.”
Read the full article in Forbes magazine.
Vancouver vs. NIGC II
The City of Vancouver is doing its part to fight the proposed Cowlitz casino.
Vancouver had filed a lawsuit in March in response to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) decision that tribal ordinances could replace the Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU had been invalidated in December 2007.
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the city’s lawsuit saying it did not have grounds to challenge the NIGC’s decision.
Earlier this month, the city told the court it was getting back in the ring and contesting the court’s decision.
Why challenge the ordinances?
The tribal ordinances are problematic. In addition to their content being unsatisfactory (as was that of the initial MOU), they are unilateral.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, “the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here.” It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
Read about this latest round in The Columbian.
Vancouver had filed a lawsuit in March in response to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) decision that tribal ordinances could replace the Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU had been invalidated in December 2007.
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the city’s lawsuit saying it did not have grounds to challenge the NIGC’s decision.
Earlier this month, the city told the court it was getting back in the ring and contesting the court’s decision.
Why challenge the ordinances?
The tribal ordinances are problematic. In addition to their content being unsatisfactory (as was that of the initial MOU), they are unilateral.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, “the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here.” It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
Read about this latest round in The Columbian.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Casino developer dumps $$$ into Clark County race ... again
David Barnett is up to his old political tricks.
The Seattle developer behind the proposed Cowlitz casino spent $59,000 on last-minute mailers designed to defeat Tom Mielke in the race for Clark County commissioner, according to the Nov. 1 Columbian.
If you feel a sense of déjà vu, that's because Barnett pulled the same stunt against Mielke in 2005.
Mielke, long known as an opponent of Barnett's proposed Cowlitz casino, is in a tight race with Pam Brokaw (stay tuned for a final vote tally). In 2005, Mielke lost (with 48.3 percent of the vote) to Steve Stuart -- after Barnett gave $100,000 to an out-of-state PAC that turned around and spent $86,000 on last-minute mailers designed to take down Mielke.
The composition of the Board of County Commissioners is being influenced by a man whose apparent sole interest in Clark County is a mega-casino and resort that three local communities and the county itself officially oppose!
Barnett's recent spending "dwarfs any other single expenditure in the race, which had already been the county's most expensive this year," according to The Columbian.
By the way, Clark County's political circuit is not the only recipient of Barnett's bounty. Recall that Barnett has been filling Snohomish County mailboxes with information attacking a county councilman there who opposes his proposal for a 6,000-house development in a rural part of that county. On Oct. 21, The Seattle Times reported that he had told County Councilman Dave Somers and an aide that "he was prepared to spend $2.5 million to unseat Somers if he continued his opposition to Barnett's proposed development."
Federal decision-makers are looking for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in the Cowlitz casino application, and the county seems willing to negotiate a replacement for the now-invalid MOU with the tribe.
The big question now is: Will Barnett's investments in Clark County politics pay off?
The Seattle developer behind the proposed Cowlitz casino spent $59,000 on last-minute mailers designed to defeat Tom Mielke in the race for Clark County commissioner, according to the Nov. 1 Columbian.
If you feel a sense of déjà vu, that's because Barnett pulled the same stunt against Mielke in 2005.
Mielke, long known as an opponent of Barnett's proposed Cowlitz casino, is in a tight race with Pam Brokaw (stay tuned for a final vote tally). In 2005, Mielke lost (with 48.3 percent of the vote) to Steve Stuart -- after Barnett gave $100,000 to an out-of-state PAC that turned around and spent $86,000 on last-minute mailers designed to take down Mielke.
The composition of the Board of County Commissioners is being influenced by a man whose apparent sole interest in Clark County is a mega-casino and resort that three local communities and the county itself officially oppose!
Barnett's recent spending "dwarfs any other single expenditure in the race, which had already been the county's most expensive this year," according to The Columbian.
By the way, Clark County's political circuit is not the only recipient of Barnett's bounty. Recall that Barnett has been filling Snohomish County mailboxes with information attacking a county councilman there who opposes his proposal for a 6,000-house development in a rural part of that county. On Oct. 21, The Seattle Times reported that he had told County Councilman Dave Somers and an aide that "he was prepared to spend $2.5 million to unseat Somers if he continued his opposition to Barnett's proposed development."
Federal decision-makers are looking for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) in the Cowlitz casino application, and the county seems willing to negotiate a replacement for the now-invalid MOU with the tribe.
The big question now is: Will Barnett's investments in Clark County politics pay off?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Letter to the editor re: Barnett's mailings (see Oct. 21 post)
From: The (Everett, Wash.) Herald
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008
Latest mailers on Somers hit new low
Mr. Dave Barnett and Mr. Ron Dotzauer -- take me off your mailing list! Please stop filling my mailbox with your slanderous, self-serving lies about Dave Somers. Yes, we all know that you are mad. You want to get back at Dave for being a tree-hugging liberal who is standing against your slash-and-burn, quality-of-rural-life-be-damned development practices, I suppose. You invested in some property in hopes of lining your pockets with cash at the cost of countryside traffic snarls.
Dave said "no" to that idea. Now your flier says that Somers is "against new jobs." That has to be the most ridiculous bit of trash advertising I've ever received in my mail. Seriously guys, how ignorant do you think the citizens of this county are? OK, don't answer that because I'm guessing there isn't much thinking involved with this ploy.
Dear Mr. Somers: Mr. Barnett and company asked me to write you a letter. They even gave me your e-mail address. Most kind of them. I live in a nice, semi-rural part of Snohomish County. I would be enormously grateful if you could ban for all eternity, dense cluster developments in rural areas where roads were built to accomodate one home every 40 acres or so.
Let's keep high-density development contained to the urban areas. Oh, and if you can pass a law that keeps lying, solicitous, money-grubbing garbage disguised as political ads out of my mailbox, that would be grand.
John Smith
Snohomish
Published: Tuesday, Oct. 21, 2008
Latest mailers on Somers hit new low
Mr. Dave Barnett and Mr. Ron Dotzauer -- take me off your mailing list! Please stop filling my mailbox with your slanderous, self-serving lies about Dave Somers. Yes, we all know that you are mad. You want to get back at Dave for being a tree-hugging liberal who is standing against your slash-and-burn, quality-of-rural-life-be-damned development practices, I suppose. You invested in some property in hopes of lining your pockets with cash at the cost of countryside traffic snarls.
Dave said "no" to that idea. Now your flier says that Somers is "against new jobs." That has to be the most ridiculous bit of trash advertising I've ever received in my mail. Seriously guys, how ignorant do you think the citizens of this county are? OK, don't answer that because I'm guessing there isn't much thinking involved with this ploy.
Dear Mr. Somers: Mr. Barnett and company asked me to write you a letter. They even gave me your e-mail address. Most kind of them. I live in a nice, semi-rural part of Snohomish County. I would be enormously grateful if you could ban for all eternity, dense cluster developments in rural areas where roads were built to accomodate one home every 40 acres or so.
Let's keep high-density development contained to the urban areas. Oh, and if you can pass a law that keeps lying, solicitous, money-grubbing garbage disguised as political ads out of my mailbox, that would be grand.
John Smith
Snohomish
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Cowlitz casino developer throws $$$ against Snohomish councilman
Cowlitz casino developer David Barnett is using his not-so-subtle political strategy in Snohomish County, Wash. —and it is reminiscent of his past activity in Clark County.
According to today’s Seattle Times, Barnett told Snohomish County Councilman Dave Somers and an aide that “he was prepared to spend $2.5 million to unseat Somers if he continued his opposition to Barnett’s proposed development.”
Barnett wants to build up to 6,000 houses in a rural area there and, according to the Times, has been sending out mailings accusing Somers of “being against affordable homes and jobs, and for sprawl and global warming.”
The Times article reports on some of Barnett’s Clark County escapades, including the $100,000 that he, his then-wife and company donated to a political action committee in 2005. The PAC spent more than $86,000 on seven mailings against casino opponent Tom Mielke, who was running for Clark County commissioner. The mailings landed in mailboxes in the 15 days before the election, and Mielke lost the race to current Commissioner Steve Stuart with 48 percent of the vote.
In 2006, Barnett’s threats against the chairwoman of the anti-casino group Stand Up for Clark County Citizens landed him a restraining order.
(Local stories are available in the archives of The Columbian (Feb. 22 and Feb. 25, 2006) and the Longview Daily News (Feb. 16 and 28, 2006).)
The Times reports that Somers and his aide reported Barnett’s recent comment to the Snohomish County prosecutor, who is investigating whether Barnett was intimidating a public servant—a Class B felony.
According to today’s Seattle Times, Barnett told Snohomish County Councilman Dave Somers and an aide that “he was prepared to spend $2.5 million to unseat Somers if he continued his opposition to Barnett’s proposed development.”
Barnett wants to build up to 6,000 houses in a rural area there and, according to the Times, has been sending out mailings accusing Somers of “being against affordable homes and jobs, and for sprawl and global warming.”
The Times article reports on some of Barnett’s Clark County escapades, including the $100,000 that he, his then-wife and company donated to a political action committee in 2005. The PAC spent more than $86,000 on seven mailings against casino opponent Tom Mielke, who was running for Clark County commissioner. The mailings landed in mailboxes in the 15 days before the election, and Mielke lost the race to current Commissioner Steve Stuart with 48 percent of the vote.
In 2006, Barnett’s threats against the chairwoman of the anti-casino group Stand Up for Clark County Citizens landed him a restraining order.
(Local stories are available in the archives of The Columbian (Feb. 22 and Feb. 25, 2006) and the Longview Daily News (Feb. 16 and 28, 2006).)
The Times reports that Somers and his aide reported Barnett’s recent comment to the Snohomish County prosecutor, who is investigating whether Barnett was intimidating a public servant—a Class B felony.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
County quietly negotiates with tribe
Fact: Clark County has declared its opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino.
Fact: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and the tribe would send a signal to federal decision makers that the county favors the casino.
Surprising fact: The county is quietly negotiating a new MOU with the tribe.
These negotiations are taking place at a time when the casino developers have never been further from attaining their goal. Why is the county negotiating? CARS Chairman Ed Lynch asked the Clark County commissioners that question this morning -- and they offered no answers.
Read on for more information, and please let your commissioners know that their constituents' wishes should supersede those of a Seattle developer -- David Barnett, a.k.a. Salishan -- and a Connecticut Indian tribe. The county should stop negotiating now.
Call the Commissioners' Office at (360) 397-2232, or e-mail:
Betty Sue Morris: Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve Stuart: Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
Marc Boldt: Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
__________
If things seem a little too quiet on the Cowlitz casino front, you're right -- and it's no accident. Here's the scoop:
Clark County and the casino developers are very quietly, almost secretly, negotiating a brand-new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to replace the 2004 MOU, which was invalidated last year due to insufficient public participation.[1]
These negotiations are occurring despite the fact that earlier this year the county declared its opposition to the casino.[2]
They also are taking place while the county continues to fight to save its old MOU in the state court of appeals[3] and while a replacement MOU is in force at the National Indian Gaming Commission.[4] (The latter, a unilateral tribal ordinance, might not hold up in court.)
Salishan-Mohegan needs an MOU
Clearly, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate would like a brand-new MOU. Over the past dozen months the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has sent the strongest possible signals to all concerned that without a signed MOU between the tribe and the local government involved, it would be extremely difficult under federal law for the agency to take land into trust for gambling.
In fact, George Skibine, head of Indian gaming operations at the BIA, has said it "could potentially be a deal breaker for them."[5] Bottom line: The casino developers need a new MOU.
Does Clark County need an MOU?
For the county's part, the question is more difficult to answer.
The county has stated repeatedly its rationale that it needs an MOU to protect its coffers if the casino comes into being and is not required to pay property and other taxes.
But if, in addition to the numerous other problems this application has (lack of community and county support; a weak, deficient Environmental Impact Study; pending lawsuits; and incompatible zoning on the proposed site), the county were to refuse to sign onto an MOU, it is nearly certain that the proposed casino application would be thrown out -- and the problems the county claims to be trying to mitigate would disappear.
The issue is this: Does the comfort of having a signed MOU and a promise of payments in lieu of taxes, although it will not be needed for many years -- if ever, justify the county sending a strong signal to the federal government that it's now ready to accept a casino and welcome large-scale gambling in Clark County? We think it's too high a price to pay.
The EIS and the MOU
Even more mysterious is why the county would negotiate a far-reaching MOU before the casino developers have agreed to address the county's concerns over the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) The county's comments on the EIS were perhaps the most scathing of all the cooperating agencies. Many of their concerns had been given no serious consideration in the final document and the county was dissatisfied with the EIS's treatment of the proposed casino's impact on I-5, the I-5 bridge, local roads, schools, social service agencies, housing and more.[6][7]
County citizens say 'No way'
When the county conducted three hearings in April seeking public input on the MOU, the commissioners were met by an outpouring of opposition to both the proposed casino and a new MOU.[8] More than 100 county citizens spoke out, 73 percent of whom told the commissioners that they didn't want a casino or a new MOU. The commissioners are ignoring the comments they solicited.
Have they forgotten that ignoring the public is what got the county in trouble before? Remember, that is why the 2004 MOU was invalidated last year.
Why these quiet negotiations?
The county says that ultimately there will be at least one more public hearing on a new MOU -- but this is really after the fact, on a document negotiated in secret.
Other major decisions are negotiated in the public eye. When alternative plans were being considered for a new Columbia River Crossing, with the county participating, were the sessions conducted in secret? Of course not. Are the impacts and implications of those two projects so vastly different that one should be discussed in secret and the other in the open?
Why any negotiations?
The commissioners, with the exception of Marc Boldt who has long opposed a casino, seem hell-bent on smoothing the way for a mega-casino and resort in Clark County. That much becomes clear when we apply the old test, "Watch what they do, not what they say."
With a weak and deficient EIS awaiting Department of Interior final review, lawsuits pending and the proposed casino site improperly zoned for the services it would need, Salishan-Mohegan has perhaps never been further from having its casino application approved. Why then, are commissioners Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris so committed to keeping this failed proposal alive?
_________
[1] CARS, "Court rules casino MOU invalid," (13 December 2007),, (5 October 2008).
[2] Andersen, Michael, "County opposes casino, ponders deal," The Columbian, 9 April 2008.
[3] Mize, Jeffrey, "County keeps options open on casino," The Columbian, 12 January 2008.
[4] Mize, Jeffrey, "Federal court tosses Vancouver's casino suit," The Columbian, 25 September 2008.
[5] Andersen, Michael, "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" The Columbian, 6 May 2008.
[6] CARS, "Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study," (25 July 2008),, (2 October 2008).
[7] Clark County, "Clark County Comments: Cowlitz Casino-Resort Final EIS," (16 July 2008),(2 October 2008).
[8] Mize, Jeffrey, "County finishes casino hearings," The Columbian, 16 April 2008.
Fact: A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the county and the tribe would send a signal to federal decision makers that the county favors the casino.
Surprising fact: The county is quietly negotiating a new MOU with the tribe.
These negotiations are taking place at a time when the casino developers have never been further from attaining their goal. Why is the county negotiating? CARS Chairman Ed Lynch asked the Clark County commissioners that question this morning -- and they offered no answers.
Read on for more information, and please let your commissioners know that their constituents' wishes should supersede those of a Seattle developer -- David Barnett, a.k.a. Salishan -- and a Connecticut Indian tribe. The county should stop negotiating now.
Call the Commissioners' Office at (360) 397-2232, or e-mail:
Betty Sue Morris: Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve Stuart: Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
Marc Boldt: Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
__________
If things seem a little too quiet on the Cowlitz casino front, you're right -- and it's no accident. Here's the scoop:
Clark County and the casino developers are very quietly, almost secretly, negotiating a brand-new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to replace the 2004 MOU, which was invalidated last year due to insufficient public participation.[1]
These negotiations are occurring despite the fact that earlier this year the county declared its opposition to the casino.[2]
They also are taking place while the county continues to fight to save its old MOU in the state court of appeals[3] and while a replacement MOU is in force at the National Indian Gaming Commission.[4] (The latter, a unilateral tribal ordinance, might not hold up in court.)
Salishan-Mohegan needs an MOU
Clearly, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate would like a brand-new MOU. Over the past dozen months the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has sent the strongest possible signals to all concerned that without a signed MOU between the tribe and the local government involved, it would be extremely difficult under federal law for the agency to take land into trust for gambling.
In fact, George Skibine, head of Indian gaming operations at the BIA, has said it "could potentially be a deal breaker for them."[5] Bottom line: The casino developers need a new MOU.
Does Clark County need an MOU?
For the county's part, the question is more difficult to answer.
The county has stated repeatedly its rationale that it needs an MOU to protect its coffers if the casino comes into being and is not required to pay property and other taxes.
But if, in addition to the numerous other problems this application has (lack of community and county support; a weak, deficient Environmental Impact Study; pending lawsuits; and incompatible zoning on the proposed site), the county were to refuse to sign onto an MOU, it is nearly certain that the proposed casino application would be thrown out -- and the problems the county claims to be trying to mitigate would disappear.
The issue is this: Does the comfort of having a signed MOU and a promise of payments in lieu of taxes, although it will not be needed for many years -- if ever, justify the county sending a strong signal to the federal government that it's now ready to accept a casino and welcome large-scale gambling in Clark County? We think it's too high a price to pay.
The EIS and the MOU
Even more mysterious is why the county would negotiate a far-reaching MOU before the casino developers have agreed to address the county's concerns over the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS.) The county's comments on the EIS were perhaps the most scathing of all the cooperating agencies. Many of their concerns had been given no serious consideration in the final document and the county was dissatisfied with the EIS's treatment of the proposed casino's impact on I-5, the I-5 bridge, local roads, schools, social service agencies, housing and more.[6][7]
County citizens say 'No way'
When the county conducted three hearings in April seeking public input on the MOU, the commissioners were met by an outpouring of opposition to both the proposed casino and a new MOU.[8] More than 100 county citizens spoke out, 73 percent of whom told the commissioners that they didn't want a casino or a new MOU. The commissioners are ignoring the comments they solicited.
Have they forgotten that ignoring the public is what got the county in trouble before? Remember, that is why the 2004 MOU was invalidated last year.
Why these quiet negotiations?
The county says that ultimately there will be at least one more public hearing on a new MOU -- but this is really after the fact, on a document negotiated in secret.
Other major decisions are negotiated in the public eye. When alternative plans were being considered for a new Columbia River Crossing, with the county participating, were the sessions conducted in secret? Of course not. Are the impacts and implications of those two projects so vastly different that one should be discussed in secret and the other in the open?
Why any negotiations?
The commissioners, with the exception of Marc Boldt who has long opposed a casino, seem hell-bent on smoothing the way for a mega-casino and resort in Clark County. That much becomes clear when we apply the old test, "Watch what they do, not what they say."
With a weak and deficient EIS awaiting Department of Interior final review, lawsuits pending and the proposed casino site improperly zoned for the services it would need, Salishan-Mohegan has perhaps never been further from having its casino application approved. Why then, are commissioners Steve Stuart and Betty Sue Morris so committed to keeping this failed proposal alive?
_________
[1] CARS, "Court rules casino MOU invalid," (13 December 2007),
[2] Andersen, Michael, "County opposes casino, ponders deal," The Columbian, 9 April 2008.
[3] Mize, Jeffrey, "County keeps options open on casino," The Columbian, 12 January 2008.
[4] Mize, Jeffrey, "Federal court tosses Vancouver's casino suit," The Columbian, 25 September 2008.
[5] Andersen, Michael, "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" The Columbian, 6 May 2008.
[6] CARS, "Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study," (25 July 2008),
[7] Clark County, "Clark County Comments: Cowlitz Casino-Resort Final EIS," (16 July 2008),
[8] Mize, Jeffrey, "County finishes casino hearings," The Columbian, 16 April 2008.
Statement to the Clark County commissioners
What follows is the statement that CARS Chairman Ed Lynch delivered this morning to the Clark County Board of Commissioners:
My name is Ed Lynch, and I’m here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS), a citizens group I formed more than three years ago to oppose a Clark County casino location. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
I understand that the county is currently negotiating with members of the Cowlitz casino development team to arrive at yet another memorandum of understanding involving land near the La Center/I-5 junction -- land that the tribe hopes to have taken into trust for a reservation and casino.
Since the commission and CARS have both stated our opposition to locating a casino in North Clark County, I’d like to understand your strategy here. By negotiating an MOU at this time, the commission seems to be going out of its way to facilitate building a casino at La Center.
Last April, when you conducted three hearings on this issue, you heard more than 100 people testify. More than 70 percent of those Clark County citizens told you they didn’t want a casino, and they didn’t want you to negotiate a new MOU. Clark County citizens don’t want a new MOU. A Seattle developer and a Connecticut Indian Tribe do. To whom are you responding?
None of the other cooperating agencies was as scathing as Clark county in commenting on the tribe’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The tribe has never even commented on some of the concerns you raised. Before you negotiate a new MOU with them, don’t you believe the tribe owes you that courtesy?
As you know, it’s the tribe that must have an MOU to have any hope for a successful application. The county certainly has no near-term need for such an agreement. The amazingly inferior quality of the FEIS alone means that even were it to be approved, the FEIS would be tied up in court for a long time to come.
You know, too, that until the zoning is changed back from its current “agriculture” designation, the county won’t be able to deliver the level of urban services to the La Center parcel that a casino would require. Why not wait until your appeal on that matter is concluded so you know that the agreement would be legal?
The county has spent many thousands of dollars on legal challenges to protect the 2004 MOU which is now before the court of appeals. Why not wait for the outcome of that process before negotiating a new one?
You appear to still be seeking the near-term security of an MOU to try to ensure that the county receives money from the casino operation in lieu of taxes, all the while declaring you don’t want a casino. How do you do that without sending a strong signal to the federal government that Clark County would really welcome a resort-casino?
The answer is: You don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways. This is not the time to negotiate an MOU. Meanwhile, a casino that does not belong in Clark County has never been farther from being approved.
Let it lie.
My name is Ed Lynch, and I’m here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS), a citizens group I formed more than three years ago to oppose a Clark County casino location. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
I understand that the county is currently negotiating with members of the Cowlitz casino development team to arrive at yet another memorandum of understanding involving land near the La Center/I-5 junction -- land that the tribe hopes to have taken into trust for a reservation and casino.
Since the commission and CARS have both stated our opposition to locating a casino in North Clark County, I’d like to understand your strategy here. By negotiating an MOU at this time, the commission seems to be going out of its way to facilitate building a casino at La Center.
Last April, when you conducted three hearings on this issue, you heard more than 100 people testify. More than 70 percent of those Clark County citizens told you they didn’t want a casino, and they didn’t want you to negotiate a new MOU. Clark County citizens don’t want a new MOU. A Seattle developer and a Connecticut Indian Tribe do. To whom are you responding?
None of the other cooperating agencies was as scathing as Clark county in commenting on the tribe’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The tribe has never even commented on some of the concerns you raised. Before you negotiate a new MOU with them, don’t you believe the tribe owes you that courtesy?
As you know, it’s the tribe that must have an MOU to have any hope for a successful application. The county certainly has no near-term need for such an agreement. The amazingly inferior quality of the FEIS alone means that even were it to be approved, the FEIS would be tied up in court for a long time to come.
You know, too, that until the zoning is changed back from its current “agriculture” designation, the county won’t be able to deliver the level of urban services to the La Center parcel that a casino would require. Why not wait until your appeal on that matter is concluded so you know that the agreement would be legal?
The county has spent many thousands of dollars on legal challenges to protect the 2004 MOU which is now before the court of appeals. Why not wait for the outcome of that process before negotiating a new one?
You appear to still be seeking the near-term security of an MOU to try to ensure that the county receives money from the casino operation in lieu of taxes, all the while declaring you don’t want a casino. How do you do that without sending a strong signal to the federal government that Clark County would really welcome a resort-casino?
The answer is: You don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways. This is not the time to negotiate an MOU. Meanwhile, a casino that does not belong in Clark County has never been farther from being approved.
Let it lie.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The uncertain future of the Cowlitz casino
The one sure thing about the proposed Cowlitz casino is this: Its fate is uncertain.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is still under review, but that's not the only thing this project is waiting on. The Cowlitz developers have several big obstacles to overcome:
Lawsuit No. 1 -- The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): This case began in 2004, when a property owner near the proposed casino site and the owners of the La Center cardrooms appealed the adoption of Clark County's MOU with the Cowlitz Tribe. They said that in the MOU, the county agreed to extend services to a site not intended for intense commercial development -- and the county violated state law by doing it without first amending its land use plan.
The county has appealed the most recent finding, which invalidated the MOU. Legal briefs are being filed in a state appeals court, but no date has been set for a hearing. Look for a resolution in spring of 2009 at the earliest.
This MOU is essential to the casino proposal, and the Cowlitz casino developers are the ones who need it most. A high-level federal decision-maker has said that the absence of an MOU could be a deal breaker for this project.
Lawsuit No. 2 -- The substitute MOU: The City of Vancouver sued the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in March 2008 over the tribe's attempt to replace its invalid MOU with a unilateral tribal ordinance. The NIGC accepted it -- with the caveat that enforceability had not been addressed. The two sides have submitted their briefs, and we might expect a hearing in late September or early October 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Tacoma.
The zoning debacle: In May 2008, two weeks before the release of the Final EIS, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board removed 1,620 acres, including the 152-acre proposed casino site, from Clark County's urban growth plan and returned it to agricultural zoning.
What's the big deal? The Final EIS relied heavily on the urban development zone, in part because the county's Comprehensive Plan prohibits it from providing services to rural land at urban levels. Many parties -- many from the development community, in addition to Clark County and La Center -- have appealed this decision. Stay tuned ...
The Indian lands issue: The NIGC wrote a controversial opinion approving the Cowlitz Tribe's application for restored lands in 2005 and saying the land at the La Center junction is eligible for gaming. But that decision has come under fire by many local elected leaders and stakeholders, and the Department of the Interior (DOI) -- the final decision-maker -- has yet to decide whether to accept the NIGC opinion.
Add these variables to a poorly concocted EIS that ignored local concerns, made unrealistic assertions and failed to address the very real problems this proposed development would cause, and it's clear that this project is in trouble.
If you hear your neighbors, friends or elected representatives say this is a "done deal," set them straight. There is a long way left to go in this fight.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is still under review, but that's not the only thing this project is waiting on. The Cowlitz developers have several big obstacles to overcome:
Lawsuit No. 1 -- The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU): This case began in 2004, when a property owner near the proposed casino site and the owners of the La Center cardrooms appealed the adoption of Clark County's MOU with the Cowlitz Tribe. They said that in the MOU, the county agreed to extend services to a site not intended for intense commercial development -- and the county violated state law by doing it without first amending its land use plan.
The county has appealed the most recent finding, which invalidated the MOU. Legal briefs are being filed in a state appeals court, but no date has been set for a hearing. Look for a resolution in spring of 2009 at the earliest.
This MOU is essential to the casino proposal, and the Cowlitz casino developers are the ones who need it most. A high-level federal decision-maker has said that the absence of an MOU could be a deal breaker for this project.
Lawsuit No. 2 -- The substitute MOU: The City of Vancouver sued the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in March 2008 over the tribe's attempt to replace its invalid MOU with a unilateral tribal ordinance. The NIGC accepted it -- with the caveat that enforceability had not been addressed. The two sides have submitted their briefs, and we might expect a hearing in late September or early October 2008 at the U.S. District Court in Tacoma.
The zoning debacle: In May 2008, two weeks before the release of the Final EIS, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board removed 1,620 acres, including the 152-acre proposed casino site, from Clark County's urban growth plan and returned it to agricultural zoning.
What's the big deal? The Final EIS relied heavily on the urban development zone, in part because the county's Comprehensive Plan prohibits it from providing services to rural land at urban levels. Many parties -- many from the development community, in addition to Clark County and La Center -- have appealed this decision. Stay tuned ...
The Indian lands issue: The NIGC wrote a controversial opinion approving the Cowlitz Tribe's application for restored lands in 2005 and saying the land at the La Center junction is eligible for gaming. But that decision has come under fire by many local elected leaders and stakeholders, and the Department of the Interior (DOI) -- the final decision-maker -- has yet to decide whether to accept the NIGC opinion.
Add these variables to a poorly concocted EIS that ignored local concerns, made unrealistic assertions and failed to address the very real problems this proposed development would cause, and it's clear that this project is in trouble.
If you hear your neighbors, friends or elected representatives say this is a "done deal," set them straight. There is a long way left to go in this fight.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thank you -- and what's next
Dear CARS members and friends:
I want to thank all of you who recently took the time to send in your comments and concerns regarding the proposed Cowlitz casino to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The public comment period for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ended Aug. 11, and we understand that at least 1,000 people wrote in. Top federal decision-makers have told us that local sentiment is given great weight in these decisions, so please know that your input has been very important.
The next step in the EIS process is usually that the Department of the Interior (DOI) (of which BIA is part) issues a Record of Decision (ROD). It might be a little more complicated in this case. Here's why:
The Cowlitz Final EIS has come under heavy fire from many stakeholders. Clark County calls it "unreliable" and "inadequate." La Center writes that the city "remains quite frustrated" that the EIS has "disregarded entirely or inadequately addressed" many of the city's comments. Vancouver calls the EIS "fundamentally flawed." Many stakeholders, including local elected officials and state legislators, have asked BIA to withdraw the EIS and produce a supplemental EIS, which would go through a Draft EIS and Final EIS process. We hope BIA listens.
On Aug. 10, the Longview Daily News paraphrased BIA Regional Director Stanley Speaks saying the process is ongoing and that "anything was possible." He indicated that the EIS "is not even close to being finalized before December."
So we wait -- first to see whether the BIA produces a supplemental EIS. We also wait for the federal government to do the right thing: tell the Cowlitz casino developers that their flawed proposal has no place in Clark County's future.
We'll keep you posted.
Sincerely,
Ed Lynch
For more information, check out The Columbian:
"Vancouver, La Center officials rap Cowlitz casino study" (Aug. 17)
"Latest casino studies make bad idea look worse" (Aug. 19)
I want to thank all of you who recently took the time to send in your comments and concerns regarding the proposed Cowlitz casino to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The public comment period for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ended Aug. 11, and we understand that at least 1,000 people wrote in. Top federal decision-makers have told us that local sentiment is given great weight in these decisions, so please know that your input has been very important.
The next step in the EIS process is usually that the Department of the Interior (DOI) (of which BIA is part) issues a Record of Decision (ROD). It might be a little more complicated in this case. Here's why:
The Cowlitz Final EIS has come under heavy fire from many stakeholders. Clark County calls it "unreliable" and "inadequate." La Center writes that the city "remains quite frustrated" that the EIS has "disregarded entirely or inadequately addressed" many of the city's comments. Vancouver calls the EIS "fundamentally flawed." Many stakeholders, including local elected officials and state legislators, have asked BIA to withdraw the EIS and produce a supplemental EIS, which would go through a Draft EIS and Final EIS process. We hope BIA listens.
On Aug. 10, the Longview Daily News paraphrased BIA Regional Director Stanley Speaks saying the process is ongoing and that "anything was possible." He indicated that the EIS "is not even close to being finalized before December."
So we wait -- first to see whether the BIA produces a supplemental EIS. We also wait for the federal government to do the right thing: tell the Cowlitz casino developers that their flawed proposal has no place in Clark County's future.
We'll keep you posted.
Sincerely,
Ed Lynch
For more information, check out The Columbian:
"Vancouver, La Center officials rap Cowlitz casino study" (Aug. 17)
"Latest casino studies make bad idea look worse" (Aug. 19)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study
The Clark County commissioners make no bones about it: The proposed Cowlitz casino-resort would not be a welcome addition.
In comments sent this week to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the county says the casino-resort alternatives described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) “do not serve the tribe’s interests, nor do they serve the interests of the community.”
CARS has focused largely on community impacts, and Clark County hits on many high points regarding transportation, housing, social services and schools.
Community impacts
The county’s comments repeatedly note that the Final EIS fails to address most of its previous comments. Its criticisms include the following:
- “The Final EIS underestimates the potential need for social services and housing for workers who will make wages near poverty level.”
- “The EIS masks the practical necessity for the majority of casino-resort workers to move to Clark County.”
- “[T]here is no discussion of how the jurisdictions will deal with the need for almost 3,000 units of affordable housing for new employees and their households.”
- “These impacts will ripple to other providers of education and social services. Multiple school districts may be influenced by an influx of children of casino-resort employees.”
- “[T]he Final EIS fails to adequately portray or mitigate the traffic impacts on the site.”
- “The Final EIS does an inadequate job of assessing impacts of the replacement of the I-5 bridge, which will coincide with the development and opening of the casino-resort.”
An appendix titled “Transportation Arterial Plan comments” states that traffic to the proposed development would exceed the capacity of the interstate between La Center and Ridgefield “likely triggering failure.”
The county’s comments extend to the potential loss of local leadership. In a section regarding La Center, the county writes, “A large casino resort near La Center, operated by a Connecticut corporation [Mohegan] and owned by a tribe that has a minimal local resident population [Cowlitz], cannot mitigate the impact of the loss of local business and leadership through mitigation dollars.”
Please write
The deadline for submitting comments is Aug. 11. If you have not yet sent yours, please do so now. Comments should include the caption “FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project” and be addressed to:
Mr. Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
We encourage you to send copies to:
Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary (James_Cason@ios.doi.gov), and Mr. George Skibine, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (George_Skibine@ios.doi.gov). Both can be reached via U.S. mail at:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Read Clark County's comments.
Read "County continues to criticize Cowlitz
casino study" in The Columbian.
Read The Columbian
editorial "Complaints about casino statement put
focus on Connecticut tribe's role."
Monday, July 21, 2008
FEIS comment period extended to Aug. 11
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has extended the comment period for the proposed Cowlitz casino Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) until Aug. 11, 2008.
The initial comment period was to have ended June 30, 2008, but the agency announced a 30-day extension after receiving a request to do so from Hon. Brian Baird (D-Wash.). This week BIA published the Aug. 11 closing date in the Federal Register, providing several additional days for stakeholders to make their thoughts known about the Final EIS.
CARS and many other stakeholders have registered disappointment in the Final EIS (it fails almost across the board to address very real problems) and have asked the BIA to withdraw the document in favor of a supplemental EIS -- the formal replacement for an EIS the agency finds does not measure up to its criteria. In that regard we would ask again that you do one of two things:
1) Now that the extra time is available, submit a comment on the Final EIS, available at http://www.cowlitzeis.com.
2) Join us in requesting that the Department of the Interior (DOI) withdraw the Final EIS, start over and produce a Supplemental Draft EIS.
This is likely the last time within the environmental process that we will have an opportunity to tell DOI what we think about the EIS, the process and the casino. Please take advantage of it with us.
Comments should include the caption "FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project" and be addressed to:
Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
We encourage you to send copies to:
Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary (James_Cason@ios.doi.gov), and Mr. George Skibine, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (George_Skibine@ios.doi.gov). Both can be reached via U.S. mail at:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
The initial comment period was to have ended June 30, 2008, but the agency announced a 30-day extension after receiving a request to do so from Hon. Brian Baird (D-Wash.). This week BIA published the Aug. 11 closing date in the Federal Register, providing several additional days for stakeholders to make their thoughts known about the Final EIS.
CARS and many other stakeholders have registered disappointment in the Final EIS (it fails almost across the board to address very real problems) and have asked the BIA to withdraw the document in favor of a supplemental EIS -- the formal replacement for an EIS the agency finds does not measure up to its criteria. In that regard we would ask again that you do one of two things:
1) Now that the extra time is available, submit a comment on the Final EIS, available at http://www.cowlitzeis.com.
2) Join us in requesting that the Department of the Interior (DOI) withdraw the Final EIS, start over and produce a Supplemental Draft EIS.
This is likely the last time within the environmental process that we will have an opportunity to tell DOI what we think about the EIS, the process and the casino. Please take advantage of it with us.
Comments should include the caption "FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project" and be addressed to:
Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
We encourage you to send copies to:
Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary (James_Cason@ios.doi.gov), and Mr. George Skibine, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (George_Skibine@ios.doi.gov). Both can be reached via U.S. mail at:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Now is the time to voice your casino concerns!
As you probably know, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Cowlitz casino was released May 30. This is just one more step in the process, and it does not mean the casino project has been approved. A 30-day public comment period is required under federal law, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has extended it to 60 days -- to the end of July.
This is extremely important. We simply cannot afford to let this EIS stand in its present form, and this might be our final chance to appeal to the BIA in a formal way. PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS:
1. Submit a comment on the Final EIS, available at http://www.cowlitzeis.com.
2. Request that the Department of the Interior (DOI) withdraw the Final EIS, go back to the drawing board and produce a Supplemental Draft EIS.
Why a Supplemental EIS? The most striking thing about the tribe's Final EIS is how unresponsive it is to the comments and concerns voiced over the past few years by concerned citizens and governmental agencies.
Two problems with this document are the lack of alternative sites being considered (CARS believes the tribe should consider land in its federally adjudicated aboriginal homeland along the Cowlitz River) and the lack of acknowledgement of the impacts this project would have on the interstates and the Columbia River bridges.
Because those and other concerns have not been addressed, CARS is asking DOI to withdraw the Final EIS and address these and other issues in a Supplemental Draft EIS. Please see our blog "Why we want DOI to withdraw the Final EIS" to read more specifics.
If you submitted a comment on the Draft EIS in 2006, consider looking at the relevant sections in the Final EIS (e.g. air quality, transportation, socioeconomics), and see whether they address your concerns. If not, resubmit your comments, note that you are dissatisfied with the Final EIS and ask DOI to withdraw it and produce a Supplemental EIS.
If you have not submitted a comment, check out the Final EIS (begin with the "Executive Summary and Table" or section 4 "Environmental Consequences"), and write a comment requesting that DOI withdraw the document.
Why is this important? The BIA needs to know that citizens remain frustrated and angry that our comments -- both individual and collective -- have had no impact on the Cowlitz developers, and that our serious concerns have not been addressed.
Comments should include the caption "FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project" and be addressed to:
Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
We encourage you to send copies to Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary (James_Cason@ios.doi.gov), and Mr. George Skibine, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (George_Skibine@ios.doi.gov). Both can be reached via U.S. mail at:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
This is extremely important. We simply cannot afford to let this EIS stand in its present form, and this might be our final chance to appeal to the BIA in a formal way. PLEASE TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO DO AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING THINGS:
1. Submit a comment on the Final EIS, available at http://www.cowlitzeis.com.
2. Request that the Department of the Interior (DOI) withdraw the Final EIS, go back to the drawing board and produce a Supplemental Draft EIS.
Why a Supplemental EIS? The most striking thing about the tribe's Final EIS is how unresponsive it is to the comments and concerns voiced over the past few years by concerned citizens and governmental agencies.
Two problems with this document are the lack of alternative sites being considered (CARS believes the tribe should consider land in its federally adjudicated aboriginal homeland along the Cowlitz River) and the lack of acknowledgement of the impacts this project would have on the interstates and the Columbia River bridges.
Because those and other concerns have not been addressed, CARS is asking DOI to withdraw the Final EIS and address these and other issues in a Supplemental Draft EIS. Please see our blog "Why we want DOI to withdraw the Final EIS" to read more specifics.
If you submitted a comment on the Draft EIS in 2006, consider looking at the relevant sections in the Final EIS (e.g. air quality, transportation, socioeconomics), and see whether they address your concerns. If not, resubmit your comments, note that you are dissatisfied with the Final EIS and ask DOI to withdraw it and produce a Supplemental EIS.
If you have not submitted a comment, check out the Final EIS (begin with the "Executive Summary and Table" or section 4 "Environmental Consequences"), and write a comment requesting that DOI withdraw the document.
Why is this important? The BIA needs to know that citizens remain frustrated and angry that our comments -- both individual and collective -- have had no impact on the Cowlitz developers, and that our serious concerns have not been addressed.
Comments should include the caption "FEIS Comments, Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project" and be addressed to:
Stanley Speaks, Northwest Regional Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
911 NE 11th Ave.
Portland, OR 97232
We encourage you to send copies to Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary (James_Cason@ios.doi.gov), and Mr. George Skibine, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (George_Skibine@ios.doi.gov). Both can be reached via U.S. mail at:
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Why we want DOI to withdraw the Final EIS
1. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) still does not contain a reasonable alternative site. The listed alternative of the Ridgefield junction with Interstate 5 -- 2 miles south of the proposed La Center site -- is saddled with even more problems than the La Center site. It is not a serious alternative. Moreover, neither site is anywhere near the tribe's federally adjudicated aboriginal lands. Lewis County is the point nearest the most Cowlitz Tribe members, and there is plenty of land available.
2. In its effort to imply a strong tribal connection to Clark County, the EIS continues to use erroneous information that has already been debunked multiple times by the Department of the Interior (DOI).
3. The EIS is based on the tribe's highly exaggerated Unmet Needs Statement and Business Plan, which suddenly appeared last year -- long after the public comment period on the Draft EIS was closed. These documents were used to justify placing the proposed casino near the lucrative Vancouver-Portland market and to rule out legitimate alternatives. (See "Regional BIA, developers cook books trying to save La Center site.") The public never had an opportunity to comment on these documents before the Final EIS came out at the end of May, six years after the Cowlitz Tribe first applied to have land at the La Center junction taken into trust.
4. The EIS depends on Clark County's now-overturned plan to change the land at the proposed casino site from agricultural to urban. In May, a state Growth Board re-declared the land agricultural, a designation that will make it impossible for the developers to get services, such as utilities, police and roads. (See "Casino Final EIS suffers major blow.")
5. The traffic analysis absurdly underestimates how great an impact the casino would have on area roadways -- particularly Interstate 5 and Interstate 205, and their bridges over the Columbia. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Study says 92 percent of traffic would come from the south-most of that would be over the Columbia River bridges.
2. In its effort to imply a strong tribal connection to Clark County, the EIS continues to use erroneous information that has already been debunked multiple times by the Department of the Interior (DOI).
3. The EIS is based on the tribe's highly exaggerated Unmet Needs Statement and Business Plan, which suddenly appeared last year -- long after the public comment period on the Draft EIS was closed. These documents were used to justify placing the proposed casino near the lucrative Vancouver-Portland market and to rule out legitimate alternatives. (See "Regional BIA, developers cook books trying to save La Center site.") The public never had an opportunity to comment on these documents before the Final EIS came out at the end of May, six years after the Cowlitz Tribe first applied to have land at the La Center junction taken into trust.
4. The EIS depends on Clark County's now-overturned plan to change the land at the proposed casino site from agricultural to urban. In May, a state Growth Board re-declared the land agricultural, a designation that will make it impossible for the developers to get services, such as utilities, police and roads. (See "Casino Final EIS suffers major blow.")
5. The traffic analysis absurdly underestimates how great an impact the casino would have on area roadways -- particularly Interstate 5 and Interstate 205, and their bridges over the Columbia. The Supplemental Traffic Impact Study says 92 percent of traffic would come from the south-most of that would be over the Columbia River bridges.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Casino Final EIS suffers major blow
The Cowlitz casino syndicate's Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) appears to have suffered a major setback thanks to a decision reached May 14 by a Washington State Growth Management Hearings Board.
The Growth Board removed the proposed casino site, 152 acres west of I-5, near La Center, from Clark County's urban growth plan and returned its zoning status to "agricultural." The Final EIS for the casino relies heavily on the urban development zone that the county had attempted to establish.
Under agricultural zoning, the county is not able to provide the utilities, services such as police and fire, and infrastructure including roads, at the level the proposed casino-resort would require. The county's Comprehensive Plan prohibits extending such services to rural areas at urban levels.
According to a letter written to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by attorneys for the La Center card rooms, the Growth Board's decision made the FEIS out-of-date even before it was released for public comment May 30th.
The card room attorneys called on BIA to withdraw the FEIS "for extensive revision and republication."
The Growth Board removed the proposed casino site, 152 acres west of I-5, near La Center, from Clark County's urban growth plan and returned its zoning status to "agricultural." The Final EIS for the casino relies heavily on the urban development zone that the county had attempted to establish.
Under agricultural zoning, the county is not able to provide the utilities, services such as police and fire, and infrastructure including roads, at the level the proposed casino-resort would require. The county's Comprehensive Plan prohibits extending such services to rural areas at urban levels.
According to a letter written to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by attorneys for the La Center card rooms, the Growth Board's decision made the FEIS out-of-date even before it was released for public comment May 30th.
The card room attorneys called on BIA to withdraw the FEIS "for extensive revision and republication."
Thursday, May 29, 2008
BIA to release Cowlitz casino EIS
The Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Cowlitz casino will be published tomorrow in the Federal Register, according to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
Publication of the document will be followed by a 30-day comment period ending July 1, 2008. A decision on the project could come as soon as July 1, although that is not expected. The preferred alternative described in the Final EIS is the outcome sought by the tribe: to acquire 152 acres owned by Salishan-Mohegan at the Interstate 5 La Center interchange, declare it a reservation and establish a Las Vegas-style gambling center.
The release of the Final EIS is only a procedural step and the project remains far from approval.
The EIS is part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, but that is not the only process involved in a tribal casino application. For example, a parcel would need to be declared "Indian lands" before the project could commence, and BIA has yet to accept the "restored lands" recommendation issued by the National Indian Gaming Commission in November 2005.
Unless the Final EIS has undergone a tremendous amount of new research and revision, the document will remain a liability for the Cowlitz casino proposal. The preliminary Final EIS, released in March 2007 to the county, local cities and other cooperating agencies, was excoriated by local agencies. Officials familiar with these kinds of environmental reviews were unanimous in their criticism of the Cowlitz EIS. Their comments, submitted in April 2007, include:
Publication of the document will be followed by a 30-day comment period ending July 1, 2008. A decision on the project could come as soon as July 1, although that is not expected. The preferred alternative described in the Final EIS is the outcome sought by the tribe: to acquire 152 acres owned by Salishan-Mohegan at the Interstate 5 La Center interchange, declare it a reservation and establish a Las Vegas-style gambling center.
The release of the Final EIS is only a procedural step and the project remains far from approval.
The EIS is part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, but that is not the only process involved in a tribal casino application. For example, a parcel would need to be declared "Indian lands" before the project could commence, and BIA has yet to accept the "restored lands" recommendation issued by the National Indian Gaming Commission in November 2005.
Unless the Final EIS has undergone a tremendous amount of new research and revision, the document will remain a liability for the Cowlitz casino proposal. The preliminary Final EIS, released in March 2007 to the county, local cities and other cooperating agencies, was excoriated by local agencies. Officials familiar with these kinds of environmental reviews were unanimous in their criticism of the Cowlitz EIS. Their comments, submitted in April 2007, include:
- The City of Vancouver's criticism that the Final EIS "remains fatally flawed from the start because of its failure to consider alternative sites to the north for Cowlitz gaming which are closer to the center of the tribal population."
- The City of La Center's indignation that the document said the proposed casino would have a "less than significant" impact on the city's socioeconomics -- despite the fact that it would cause a 66 percent loss in revenue to the city.
- Clark County's observation that transportation models used to draw conclusions in the preliminary Final EIS were not provided and that models used in the Draft EIS were "found to have significant errors in model inputs, and model methodology."
CARS Chairman, Ed Lynch is taking a wait-and-see attitude. "Unless there has been a total overhaul of this work since we last saw it," he said, "the EIS remains in serious trouble."
***
Read the BIA notice, including information on where to get the Final EIS and how to comment on it.
***
Read Vancouver's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 23, 2007).
Read La Center's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 23, 2007).
Read Clark County's comments on the preliminary Final EIS (April 19, 2007).
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
County consults feds on MOU
When CARS spoke in December with George Skibine in the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs, he told us that the Cowlitz Tribe's lack of a valid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County concerned his department. He added that the lack of an MOU "could potentially be a deal breaker" for the tribe's casino application.
That is one of the reasons CARS has encouraged the county commissioners to: a) not resurrect the 2004 MOU, which was twice declared invalid; and b) not negotiate a new one.
We're pleased to hear the commissioners have decided to write Skibine and ask him about the importance of an MOU with the county and whether its absence could kill this deal. It is quite likely they will not receive a cut and dried response, but at least they are pursuing the answer to an important question.
Read the Columbian article "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" and editorial "In our view: Maybe, probably."
That is one of the reasons CARS has encouraged the county commissioners to: a) not resurrect the 2004 MOU, which was twice declared invalid; and b) not negotiate a new one.
We're pleased to hear the commissioners have decided to write Skibine and ask him about the importance of an MOU with the county and whether its absence could kill this deal. It is quite likely they will not receive a cut and dried response, but at least they are pursuing the answer to an important question.
Read the Columbian article "Commissioners: Can we kill casino?" and editorial "In our view: Maybe, probably."
Monday, May 5, 2008
WA tribe torn apart -- banished chairman cites 'casino greed'
As the Cowlitz Tribe attempts to locate a casino in Clark County, another Washington tribe is being torn apart by what its recently banished chairman calls "casino greed."
A recent Seattle Times article portrays the Snoqualmie Tribe as having broken down into "battling factions." It says, "At stake are control of the tribal government and what promises to be one of the most lucrative casinos in the state, scheduled to open in November."
The now-banished vice chairwoman of the Snoqualmie Tribe is quoted as saying, "We have reduced the Native American tribes to social clubs where they can just eliminate members at will. If they can't show they have due process, I don't think they should be allowed to have these casinos."
Some governments in Clark County have been asked to negotiate agreements with the Cowlitz Tribe. The stability of tribal governments -- and their agreements -- should be given careful consideration.
Read the story, "Snoqualmies banish eight, disenroll 60."
A recent Seattle Times article portrays the Snoqualmie Tribe as having broken down into "battling factions." It says, "At stake are control of the tribal government and what promises to be one of the most lucrative casinos in the state, scheduled to open in November."
The now-banished vice chairwoman of the Snoqualmie Tribe is quoted as saying, "We have reduced the Native American tribes to social clubs where they can just eliminate members at will. If they can't show they have due process, I don't think they should be allowed to have these casinos."
Some governments in Clark County have been asked to negotiate agreements with the Cowlitz Tribe. The stability of tribal governments -- and their agreements -- should be given careful consideration.
Read the story, "Snoqualmies banish eight, disenroll 60."
Friday, April 4, 2008
Next week: Help put a stop to the Cowlitz casino!
Tell your Clark County commissioners to stop trying to renegotiate the county's old Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.
The county has scheduled three public hearings on the MOU -- April 7, 10 and 15 -- but the only input they should hear is: "Let the MOU die."
The MOU was signed in March 2004 -- before the county knew the tribe was planning the largest casino on the West Coast. The MOU's provisions are weak at best, and it was invalidated twice last year due to the lack of public process. There currently is no MOU in force.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has strongly indicated that no land will be taken into trust without an MOU between the Cowlitz Tribe and the county. And our commissioners have said they do not want this mega-casino and resort here.
Plus, the Cowlitz Tribe has informed Clark County that it has no intention of renegotiating an MOU beyond what it calls "refinements."
So why are the commissioners wasting their constituents' time and money with hearings seeking ways to "improve" the 2004 document? Let it die a natural death.
Renegotiating the MOU contradicts their assertions that they don't want a casino in Clark County. If they mean what they say about not wanting this casino, they should be looking for ways to stop the project rather than facilitating its approval.
Please join us for one of these public hearings and let your voice be heard!
Monday, 6 p.m.
La Center High School Commons
725 Highland Road, La Center
Thursday, 6 p.m.
Maple Grove Middle School
12500 NE 199th St., Battle Ground
April 15, 10 a.m.
Public Service Center
1300 Franklin St., 6th floor, Vancouver
The county has scheduled three public hearings on the MOU -- April 7, 10 and 15 -- but the only input they should hear is: "Let the MOU die."
The MOU was signed in March 2004 -- before the county knew the tribe was planning the largest casino on the West Coast. The MOU's provisions are weak at best, and it was invalidated twice last year due to the lack of public process. There currently is no MOU in force.
The U.S. Department of the Interior has strongly indicated that no land will be taken into trust without an MOU between the Cowlitz Tribe and the county. And our commissioners have said they do not want this mega-casino and resort here.
Plus, the Cowlitz Tribe has informed Clark County that it has no intention of renegotiating an MOU beyond what it calls "refinements."
So why are the commissioners wasting their constituents' time and money with hearings seeking ways to "improve" the 2004 document? Let it die a natural death.
Renegotiating the MOU contradicts their assertions that they don't want a casino in Clark County. If they mean what they say about not wanting this casino, they should be looking for ways to stop the project rather than facilitating its approval.
Please join us for one of these public hearings and let your voice be heard!
Monday, 6 p.m.
La Center High School Commons
725 Highland Road, La Center
Thursday, 6 p.m.
Maple Grove Middle School
12500 NE 199th St., Battle Ground
April 15, 10 a.m.
Public Service Center
1300 Franklin St., 6th floor, Vancouver
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Cowlitz casino partner hits tough times
When Clark County commissioners signed the now-invalid 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe, they did not know a casino was in the works, although one suspected it.
They did not know the tribe would apply to make 152 acres of Clark County into a reservation and restored lands—taking away local control of land use and removing it from the tax rolls.
And they certainly did not anticipate that a wealthy East Coast tribe—owner of the second-largest casino in the country—would parachute in and throw its massive financial and legal muscle behind the Cowlitz Tribe’s goals, which mushroomed into a proposal to build the largest casino on the West Coast.
What the Cowlitz Tribe failed to anticipate is that its not-at-all-silent partner, the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, would fall on tough times: Earnings at its behemoth Connecticut casino were down 23.2 percent last quarter from the same quarter a year earlier,[1] Moody’s is threatening to downgrade its bonds, and some of their business partners have served them poorly.
With the chief financer of the Cowlitz casino under siege, the old MOU defunct, the EIS incomplete, and local governments—and public opinion—lining up against the project, there is no reason for the county to rush into a new MOU that would signal its tacit approval of a Clark County casino.
An article in the March 24 issue of Forbes, titled “With Friends Like These,” examines several of the Mohegan Tribe’s recent travails, caused largely by poor choices in business partners. (We would argue that the reporters overlooked at least one.) The subtitle is, “The Mohegan tribe wants to expand its casinos nationally. Maybe it shoulda stayed home.”
We agree.
They did not know the tribe would apply to make 152 acres of Clark County into a reservation and restored lands—taking away local control of land use and removing it from the tax rolls.
And they certainly did not anticipate that a wealthy East Coast tribe—owner of the second-largest casino in the country—would parachute in and throw its massive financial and legal muscle behind the Cowlitz Tribe’s goals, which mushroomed into a proposal to build the largest casino on the West Coast.
What the Cowlitz Tribe failed to anticipate is that its not-at-all-silent partner, the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, would fall on tough times: Earnings at its behemoth Connecticut casino were down 23.2 percent last quarter from the same quarter a year earlier,[1] Moody’s is threatening to downgrade its bonds, and some of their business partners have served them poorly.
With the chief financer of the Cowlitz casino under siege, the old MOU defunct, the EIS incomplete, and local governments—and public opinion—lining up against the project, there is no reason for the county to rush into a new MOU that would signal its tacit approval of a Clark County casino.
An article in the March 24 issue of Forbes, titled “With Friends Like These,” examines several of the Mohegan Tribe’s recent travails, caused largely by poor choices in business partners. (We would argue that the reporters overlooked at least one.) The subtitle is, “The Mohegan tribe wants to expand its casinos nationally. Maybe it shoulda stayed home.”
We agree.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lynch urges county casino resolution
CARS Chairman Ed Lynch today asked the Clark County Commission to approve a resolution opposing an Indian casino in Clark County. Lynch asked the three commissioners, Betty Sue Morris, Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart, to join officials from five other elected bodies in Clark County who have already voted to oppose the casino proposed by the Cowlitz Indian Tribe at the La Center I-5 junction.
For the first time, Morris and Stuart this year stated their opposition the casino in Clark County -- Morris in her recent "state of the county" address and Stuart in a Jan. 29 Columbian opinion piece. Boldt has registered his opposition to a casino many times before.
In an accompanying letter, Lynch asked for a resolution to be signed so county constituents "can be certain you agree that a casino as proposed by the Cowlitz Tribe has no place here."
A resolution would place the three on record opposing the casino as they prepare for hearings prior to negotiating a new Memorandum of Understanding with the tribal developers. Hearings dates have been set for: 6 p.m. April 7 at the La Center Commons, 4:15 p.m. April 10 at Maple Grove Elementary School and 10 a.m. April 15 at the Clark County Services Building.
If you would like to share your thoughts with the commissioners, you can reach them at (360) 397-2232, or:
bettysue.morris@clark.wa.gov
marc.boldt@clark.wa.gov
steve.stuart@clark.wa.gov
For the first time, Morris and Stuart this year stated their opposition the casino in Clark County -- Morris in her recent "state of the county" address and Stuart in a Jan. 29 Columbian opinion piece. Boldt has registered his opposition to a casino many times before.
In an accompanying letter, Lynch asked for a resolution to be signed so county constituents "can be certain you agree that a casino as proposed by the Cowlitz Tribe has no place here."
A resolution would place the three on record opposing the casino as they prepare for hearings prior to negotiating a new Memorandum of Understanding with the tribal developers. Hearings dates have been set for: 6 p.m. April 7 at the La Center Commons, 4:15 p.m. April 10 at Maple Grove Elementary School and 10 a.m. April 15 at the Clark County Services Building.
If you would like to share your thoughts with the commissioners, you can reach them at (360) 397-2232, or:
bettysue.morris@clark.wa.gov
marc.boldt@clark.wa.gov
steve.stuart@clark.wa.gov
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Deals, deals and more deals
Clark County is revving up to make a new deal with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate.
County Commission Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris acknowledged Jan. 29 that the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was struck before the syndicate had revealed its plans for a casino at the La Center junction, is “pretty much shot.” (It has twice been declared invalid.)
The syndicate has been working hard to mollify the county. It got the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to approve tribal ordinances containing stipulations similar to the MOU, although the NIGC then wrote that it could not vouch for their enforceability. Last week, Cowlitz Chairman John Barnett sent Morris a letter attempting to assure the county: Rest easy, the ordinances are irrevocable. Many legal minds disagree.
A few weeks earlier, though, Barnett had sent the commissioners a letter with a different tone. He insisted that the MOU is alive and well, and that the county had better not terminate it. He also said the tribe would be unwilling to negotiate a new agreement.
The fact is, the syndicate needs an MOU. Desperately. A Jan. 3 memorandum released by the Department of the Interior regarding some tribal land/casino requests says that federal decision-makers are taking note of “jurisdictional problems.” The memo says applications should include copies of intergovernmental agreements (MOUs), and, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”
Quick recap: The 2004 MOU is not in force. Section 16 of the document says it does not go into effect till the land is taken into trust—a federal action that is still a long way off. Secondly, the MOU is dead. It should stay that way. As CARS has written many times, the terms of the old MOU would not mitigate all of the damage this casino would do.
Our county commissioners are free to do the right thing for their constituents. In our view, that means leave the MOU in its grave. Commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart have already declared their opposition to the casino. Now they need to act on that. Letting go of the MOU would help ensure that the casino-resort never comes to Clark County.
County Commission Chairwoman Betty Sue Morris acknowledged Jan. 29 that the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which was struck before the syndicate had revealed its plans for a casino at the La Center junction, is “pretty much shot.” (It has twice been declared invalid.)
The syndicate has been working hard to mollify the county. It got the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) to approve tribal ordinances containing stipulations similar to the MOU, although the NIGC then wrote that it could not vouch for their enforceability. Last week, Cowlitz Chairman John Barnett sent Morris a letter attempting to assure the county: Rest easy, the ordinances are irrevocable. Many legal minds disagree.
A few weeks earlier, though, Barnett had sent the commissioners a letter with a different tone. He insisted that the MOU is alive and well, and that the county had better not terminate it. He also said the tribe would be unwilling to negotiate a new agreement.
The fact is, the syndicate needs an MOU. Desperately. A Jan. 3 memorandum released by the Department of the Interior regarding some tribal land/casino requests says that federal decision-makers are taking note of “jurisdictional problems.” The memo says applications should include copies of intergovernmental agreements (MOUs), and, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”
Quick recap: The 2004 MOU is not in force. Section 16 of the document says it does not go into effect till the land is taken into trust—a federal action that is still a long way off. Secondly, the MOU is dead. It should stay that way. As CARS has written many times, the terms of the old MOU would not mitigate all of the damage this casino would do.
Our county commissioners are free to do the right thing for their constituents. In our view, that means leave the MOU in its grave. Commissioners Marc Boldt and Steve Stuart have already declared their opposition to the casino. Now they need to act on that. Letting go of the MOU would help ensure that the casino-resort never comes to Clark County.
Friday, January 18, 2008
An open letter to Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.)
Dear Representative Baird:
We were pleased to read your comments in Tuesday’s Columbian acknowledging the problems faced by communities where tribes want to locate their casinos. You are quoted saying, “The deck is so stacked right now, in terms of process, against the local community.”
Later in the story, you describe the federal process: “It’s too complicated; it’s not transparent … I think it’s biased in terms of the agencies making the decisions in a quasi-advocacy role.”
We can attest to all of that and more -- including a lack of predictability and the failure to provide non-tribal citizens timely information about the so-called process.
Back in 2004, when the Board of Clark County Commissioners signed off on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe, they had no inkling that within days the Cowlitz gambling syndicate would apply for initial reservation status. That removed the federal stipulation that before approving new land for gaming, the Secretary of the Interior would have to determine that a casino would not be detrimental to surrounding communities -- and the governor would make the final decision.
Then, in 2005, the syndicate quietly applied for restored lands status -- another way to take away the no-detriment requirement and the governor’s right to decide. Although many concerned citizens submitted information, comments that ran contrary to the tribe's submissions were barely considered in the restored lands opinion written by the National Indian Gaming Commission.
In the case of the MOU, negotiators for the gambling syndicate worked with the county commissioners but did not enable public involvement in the process, as required by law. As it turns out, that has caused them no end of trouble, because the MOU has been invalidated twice due to the lack of public participation.
Other concerns
Representative Baird, your other comments reflect many of our concerns about this proposed project:
- The proposed facility is enormous.
- Gambling is addictive.
- Gambling is not an effective means of building an economy.
- The site proposed for the casino would be better used for industry.
- A casino could have serious negative impacts on north Clark County.
We appreciate and share your concerns, and encourage you to do whatever you can to give greater voice to communities facing casino proposals.
Sincerely,
Citizens Against Reservation Shopping
>> Read the full story: “Indian gambling law stacks deck against communities, Baird says”
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Tribal ordinances are a faulty solution
The National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) has approved the Cowlitz gambling syndicate's most recent and most feeble attempt to replace its intergovernmental agreement (MOU) with Clark County.
And our county commissioners never took a public stand.
You might recall that the 2004 intergovernmental agreement -- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) -- between the tribe and the county was invalidated in June by a state growth board, and that the decision was reconfirmed in December in Thurston County Superior Court. The syndicate then attempted to insert the language of the MOU into its federal gaming ordinance, but federal decision-makers nixed that idea.
The syndicate's latest request was for the NIGC to accept ordinances approved by the tribe. These ordinances, which the NIGC approved Tuesday, are problematic. In addition to being unsatisfactory (as was the initial MOU), they are unilateral, although the gambling syndicate claims they will protect the county.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, "the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here." It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
A true agreement is vital
Having an intergovernmental agreement is vital to the syndicate's request to have land taken into trust for gambling, according to guidelines issued Jan. 3 by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). To date, the gambling syndicate has only its tribal ordinances, which do not constitute an intergovernmental agreement.
Why did our county commissioners not weigh in on this issue, which could affect how Clark County interacts with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate in perpetuity?
Contact information for your Clark County commissioners:
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
(360) 397-2232
Read the Longview Daily News article.
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.
Read about the December MOU appeal hearing.
Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.
And our county commissioners never took a public stand.
You might recall that the 2004 intergovernmental agreement -- Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) -- between the tribe and the county was invalidated in June by a state growth board, and that the decision was reconfirmed in December in Thurston County Superior Court. The syndicate then attempted to insert the language of the MOU into its federal gaming ordinance, but federal decision-makers nixed that idea.
The syndicate's latest request was for the NIGC to accept ordinances approved by the tribe. These ordinances, which the NIGC approved Tuesday, are problematic. In addition to being unsatisfactory (as was the initial MOU), they are unilateral, although the gambling syndicate claims they will protect the county.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, "the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here." It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
A true agreement is vital
Having an intergovernmental agreement is vital to the syndicate's request to have land taken into trust for gambling, according to guidelines issued Jan. 3 by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). To date, the gambling syndicate has only its tribal ordinances, which do not constitute an intergovernmental agreement.
Why did our county commissioners not weigh in on this issue, which could affect how Clark County interacts with the Cowlitz gambling syndicate in perpetuity?
Contact information for your Clark County commissioners:
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Bettysue.Morris@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
(360) 397-2232
Read the Longview Daily News article.
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.
Read about the December MOU appeal hearing.
Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
