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
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
