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.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
