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.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
