Citizens Against Reservation Shopping

Federal Lawsuit Filed: Press Release

2011-02-02T12:47:00.000-08:00

This is the news release CARS sent out yesterday announcing our suit in Federal District Court designed to stop the siting of a casino in Clark County.

February 1, 2011

For Immediate Release

CARS files anti-casino suit

For nearly six years, Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS) has been a consistent local voice telling the federal government why the proposed Cowlitz mega-casino and resort does not belong in Southwest Washington. We expected that the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) would act on the facts that the Dept. of Interior had on hand as well as those we presented.

However, on Dec. 17, the BIA issued a Record of Decision (ROD) giving a green light to the largest development Clark County has ever seen, despite the fact that most local governing bodies have opposed it.

As a result, CARS has joined Clark County in suing the BIA in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., expecting to stop this development once and for all.

CARS’ objections

CARS has no issue with the Cowlitz Tribe or its members, but we object to several points integral to this project:

1. The Environmental Impact Statement provided under the authority of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and paid for by the developers is a disgrace on multiple issues.

2. The developers claim that the Cowlitz tribe had historical, cultural, or geographical status in southern Cowlitz County or Clark County remains unsupported and contrary to all known facts.

3. The financiers and developers of this project have no connection to our area. They are David Barnett, a Seattle-based developer, the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians of California.

4. The Business Plan required to be filed in a timely matter was not; and when made public after all public input periods were concluded, was found to be an affront to good sense.

5. Through the Freedom of Information Act, it was discovered that the developers had more than 60 exchanges with the organization drafting the Environmental Impact Statement when there should have been none.

What CARS is not against

CARS does not dispute the right of the Cowlitz Tribe to have a reservation and or a casino in their homeland, which very clearly by the Department of Interiors own findings is at its most southerly point somewhat above Longview, Washington. In Toledo (Lewis County), Washington, the Cowlitz Tribe has used Federal funds to build senior housing and roads, hold their yearly gatherings there, and was the site where the Catholic Missionaries went to minister to the Cowlitz Indians in 1839.

The bottom line

Despite innumerable appeals from local citizens and governing bodies, despite data indicating far-reaching negative impacts if this project proceeds, BIA is working to ramrod the Cowlitz project through. As we submit our complaint against BIA in U.S. District Court, our goal is to see that justice is done and the Record of Decision retracted.

DOI's recent Cowlitz casino decision

2010-12-29T16:23:00.000-08:00

Dear Concerned Citizen:

You have likely heard that the Department of the Interior (DOI) has decided to take 152 acres at the Interstate 5 La Center junction into trust for the Cowlitz Tribe's proposed casino project ("Feds clear way for Cowlitz casino," The Columbian, Dec. 24).

Make no mistake: This is still not a done deal.

Other jurisdictions have successfully overturned similar DOI decisions, and the Cowlitz application is ripe for litigation. CARS and other affected parties are reviewing our options, including legal action.

First, the Cowlitz decision runs counter to the U.S. Supreme Court's February 2009 finding in Carcieri v. Salazar. This ruling states that the Secretary of the Interior has no authority to take land in to trust on behalf of tribes acknowledged after 1934. The Cowlitz Tribe was acknowledged in 2002.

Legal challenges are possible in several other areas as well, including the tribe's heavily flawed Environmental Impact Statement, the federal government's National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, and the Tribe's questionable restored lands opinion issued by the National Indian Gaming Commission.

What is perhaps most disappointing in this whole situation is that a federal agency is working to determine the future land use and fate of a local community -- one that has repeatedly and resoundingly pleaded, "No casino here, please."

Please stay tuned and stay hopeful. We will keep you posted on this evolving situation.

Sincerely,

The CARS Team

Declared opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino
Governmental resolutions of opposition:
Clark County
City of Vancouver
City of La Center
City of Woodland
Port of Woodland
Woodland School District

Expressions of opposition:
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North Clark County Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
American Land Rights Association
Identity Clark County
Friends of Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Fish First
Chinook Indian Tribe
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens
Citizens Against Reservation Shopping

Mohegan gaming performance "disappointing"

2010-08-04T11:57:00.000-07:00

DECLINING PERFORMANCE AT MOHEGAN SUN RAISES

FINANCIAL ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE

Despite a story in last week’s Columbian which had Mohegan tribal leaders declaring a Cowlitz casino at La Center still “viable,” the project’s principal financial backer continues to face declining performance from its major gaming properties, the Mohegan Sun in Connecticut and from their casino at Pocono Downs in Pennsylvania.

According to “The Day” in New London, CT, “The Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority reported Thursday that their profits plunged by more than half in the third quarter of its fiscal year compared with the same period last year.” Another performance measure showed a 13.8 percent decrease in the quarter compared with last year.

Mitchell Etess, chief executive of the gaming authority and Mohegan Sun, called the performance, “disappointing,” and in a later interview said, “It really is a lack of consumer confidence and a change in people’s spending habits.”

Mohegan Tribal members receive annual payments from tribal gaming activities which are expected to reach $59 million this year. However, Chief Financial Officer Leo Chupaska said of next year’s member distribution, “I think I can safely say it will be less than the current year.”

The information was disclosed during a quarterly conference call with tribal gaming leaders and interested financial parties. The tribe is currently carrying a debt load of some $ 1.6 billion.

Opposition Resolution To Go?

2010-05-04T12:18:00.000-07:00

Will the Mystery Guests Please Sign In?

Mayor Jim Irish will lead a workshop in La Center Wednesday night to lay groundwork

for getting rid of a resolution the city council approved three years ago, officially placing the city on record in opposition to a Cowlitz casino.

For whatever reason, Irish has become fixated with the resolution opposing the casino, and wants it off of the books. Why? Well, now he's got a city council that just might do it. The reason? He actually told a reporter last month that a group of businessmen had approached him saying they want to begin doing business at the La Center junction with Interstate 5, but not if the anti-casino resolution remains. Now, this is very curious for a couple of reasons: First, the mayor won't name the businessmen. And second, there is nothing apparent about the existing resolution that would discourage new business from coming to the junction. Nothing. Nada.

That might be enough to send amateur sleuths looking for another reason the mayor wants to get rid of the opposition resolution. Could it be that if the reconstituted city council got rid of the annoying resolution approved by the old anti-casino council, it might get the Bureau of Indian Affairs thinking La Center is now open to the idea of a casino?

But how many times has our mayor declared that he doesn't want an Indian casino, so that doesn't sound right. ...even if he does regularly support pro-casino positions and developer initiatives. So what are we to believe?

If we just want to "talk" to the Cowlitz Tribe, maybe to negotiate something, is it good strategy to give them what they want even before we begin talking? Jim?

The question before the council is this -- do we really want a mega-casino out by our Interstate? If not, let's keep the opposition resolution. After all, we'll never know the names of those phantom business people, anyway.

DRUGS INVOLVED IN BARNETT CRASH

2010-04-16T12:42:00.000-07:00

DRUGS INVOLVED IN BARNETT SEATTLE PICKUP MISHAP

In case you missed it, the Columbian newspaper reported earlier this week that drugs were involved in the November auto crash in Seattle that seriously injured would-be Cowlitz casino developer, David Barnett, 49. According to the King County Sheriff’s report, at 6 a.m. November 16, Barnett was riding the back of his pickup truck, which was being driven by his live-in girlfriend, when the vehicle left the roadway and crashed into a rock wall. Barnett was apparently thrown from the vehicle and sustained serious head injuries when he hit the pavement, and was taken to Harborview Medical Center for treatment.

Barnett’s girlfriend, 36-year old Sarah S. Rutyne explained to sheriff’s deputies that she and Barnett had been using crack cocaine and methamphetamine along with Hydrocodone, Oxycodone and Percocet prior to the accident. Toxicology reports from blood tests were positive for both parties. According to the report, Barnett had been attempting to break in the truck’s rear window just prior to the accident.

Rutyne told officials that she and Barnett had met in “rehab” where both were recovering alcoholics and in treatment. No charges have yet been filed in the case.

Barnett is the son of former Cowlitz Tribal Chairman John Barnett, now deceased. Between 2000 and 2001, David Barnett took options on land at the La Center interchange with Interstate 5. In March 2002, the tribe applied to have 150 acres taken into trust by the federal government. No decision on that application has been reached.

OREGON GAMBLING TREATMENT TAKES HUGE BUDGET HIT

2010-04-01T12:57:00.000-07:00

State programs in Oregon designed to help problem gamblers will be sharply curtailed beginning this month due to falling lottery revenues. According to the Oregonian, treatment and prevention services will no longer be provided to some 265 persons through programs funded by lottery profits. Those profits have fallen off by some 20 percent from their high in 2008, due largely to a smoking ban in bars and taverns and the generally lagging economy.

The Oregon State Legislature has set aside one percent of lottery profits for problem gambler treatment, without regard to the form of gaming. The state program will now operate on a budget of $ 9.4 million when some $ll.3 million had been anticipated for the period 2009 – 2011. More than 1,900 Oregonians received treatment from these programs last year through lottery proceeds.

In the State of Washington, a full five percent of adult residents have had gambling problems. Through the Cowlitz Tribe’s now defunct agreement with Clark County, the Tribe was offering $50,000 a year to assist with casino gambling problems.

Year End Thank You

2009-12-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

On behalf of all of us at "Citizens Against" Reservation Shopping"(CARS), a huge thank you for your ongoing interest and support of our efforts to stop the casino proposed by the Cowlitz Tribe for the I-5/ La Center junction. This battle is far from over. At the same time, casino developers are no closer to winning approval for a La Center casino than they were six years ago when they first applied. We are in this to win, and with your support, we mean to do just that.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

CARS News Brief

2009-12-04T11:55:00.000-08:00

Nearly eight years have passed since the Cowlitz Tribe first applied to put land at the La Center-Interstate 5 interchange into trust—and the federal government still has not made a decision. Here’s a quick year-end update.

Cowlitz trust application in limbo
A February 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Carcieri v. Salazar) continues to cloud the future of the proposed Cowlitz casino. The ruling bars the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for any tribe not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was signed into law.

Since the Cowlitz Tribe was not acknowledged by the federal government until 2002, it appears it may not have land taken into trust until an administrative or legislative fix is found.

Both houses of Congress have introduced Carcieri-related legislation, but it does not appear to be going anywhere fast. Administratively, the Department of the Interior has not responded to a request for a list of tribes affected by the Carcieri decision, and dozens of tribes remain in limbo with unanswered trust land applications.

Off-reservation policy under review
The Obama Administration has announced that it is reviewing policies for off-reservation gaming applications. The Cowlitz application is considered off-reservation.

Bush Administration policies restricted tribes from developing off-reservation casinos that were not within a reasonable commuting distance of the reservation. Also, as the distance between a tribe’s reservation and its proposed trust land acquisition increased, so did the weight federal decision-makers gave to concerns of state and local governments.

The Cowlitz Tribe has no reservation, so it is difficult to say how a possible loosening of Bush Administration policies would affect the Cowlitz application. However, several federal determinations—and an earlier Cowlitz claim—have stated that the Tribe’s geographical, historical and cultural nexus is along the Cowlitz River, well to the north of the proposed casino site.

Tribal housing opens in Toledo
The Cowlitz Tribe hosted a ribbon-cutting ceremony earlier this week at its newly renovated senior housing project in Toledo, Wash., next to the historic Cowlitz Mission and cemetery. Toledo is about 60 miles north of Vancouver in the heart of the Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. CARS has long argued that this is where any tribal casino should be located as well.

The $5 million project turned the nuns’ quarters and classroom annex of the old St. Mary’s school into apartments for low-income seniors. According to an article in The (Longview) Daily News, only 10 or 12 Tribe members have signed up to move into the facility’s 32 units.

An April TDN article credited the Cowlitz Tribe with “starting a building boom in southern Lewis County” and said the Tribe was planning to build 30 single-family homes in Toledo as well.

The projects are funded with federal housing grants and economic stimulus money.

Casino developer injured
Seattle-based Cowlitz casino developer David Barnett, son of the late Cowlitz Tribe Chairman John Barnett, was seriously injured in a single-vehicle accident near his Shoreline home last month.

Barnett was apparently thrown from the bed of a pickup truck driven by his girlfriend. The King County Sheriff’s Office was investigating the incident as a possible case of vehicular assault.

Problem Gambling: Making Criminals of Trusted Employees

2009-10-29T11:26:00.000-07:00

The Cowlitz Tribe filed its initial applications for trust land in 2002 and for a mega-casino and resort in 2004. Thanks in large part to a consistent outpouring of community sentiment against the proposal, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) has yet to make a final decision.

News on the Cowlitz proposal has been sparse recently, but stories illustrating casino-related problems abound. What follows is one that stands out.

Indian casino expert and author Jeff Benedict calls them the "eight uglies":

Suicide, divorce, foreclosure, bankruptcy, white collar crime, robbery, embezzlement, theft.

According to Benedict, these go hand-in-hand with the presence of out-sized casinos both on and off American Indian reservations.

In Oregon this month, the news media reported two separate cases of employee theft attributed to problem gambling. On October 16, Oregonian reporter Lisa Lednicer reported that 56-year-old Sandra Jena Klingman of Canby pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four years in prison for stealing more than $519,000 from Paul Schatz Furniture in Tigard, over a two-year period.

The Canby woman had worked for Schatz for 12 years and had no prior criminal record. The newspaper quotes owner Paul Schatz as remarking, "It's a betrayal of trust, that's the hardest thing. That someone we treated like family could look us in the eye every day. But that hasn't undermined our trust in our employees."

On the same day, Norma Orndoff of Klamath Falls was reported by the Herald and News Record to have pleaded guilty to three counts of aggravated theft and three counts of identity theft. She was sentenced to three months in jail and 5 years probation for stealing from her employer, a local roofing and siding company.

Both women were ordered to make restitution and undergo gambling treatment.

Studies indicate that problem gambling doubles within 50 miles of a large casino.

La Center says ‘no’ to MOU

2009-06-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

A tip of the CARS hat to those of you who attended last night’s La Center City Council meeting and who wrote in to express disapproval of the city negotiating a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

After sitting through four hours of city staff presentations and citizen comment, three anti-casino members on the council beat back a carefully orchestrated effort by Mayor Jim Irish to get the city to begin working with the tribe on casino mitigation issues. Council members Bob Smith, Linda Tracy and Troy Van Dinter rejected two motions designed to get La Center formally involved in a sewage treatment program designed to serve a massive casino-resort at the 1-5/La Center junction. It was the fourth time the council has refused to negotiate with the tribe.

A contingent of La Center neighbors began the public testimony by extolling the virtues of negotiations with the tribe, but to no avail. Other Clark County citizens from both inside and outside the city then weighed in to oppose such negotiations before two separate measures were defeated 3-2.

The Cowlitz casino developers badly need an MOU to complete their application to the U.S. Department of the Interior for a casino and reservation in Clark County.

Read about it in The Columbian: La Center council again rejects casino talks

Time change for Wednesday meeting

2009-06-09T16:09:00.000-07:00

Please note: The meeting in La Center will be at 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 10 (See previous post for details.)

If you cannot join us, please contact the La Center City Council members:

Mayor Jim Irish (jirish@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Bill Birdwell (bbirdwell@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Mike Nolan (mnolan@ci.lacenter.wa.us)Councilmember Bob Smith (bsmith@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Linda Tracy (ltracy@ci.lacenter.wa.us)
Councilmember Troy Van Dinter (tvandinter@ci.lacenter.wa.us)

Or call (360) 263-5123.

Directions to the La Center Community Center, 1000 E. 4th St.: From Interstate 5, take Exit 16. Turn east onto NW La Center Road and head into town. Turn right onto West 4th Street. The Community Center is located near the ball fields, downhill from the high school.

Your presence is urgently needed Wednesday in La Center!

2009-06-08T12:50:00.000-07:00

The lull in the casino war is over!

With time running out on a proposal the Cowlitz Tribe made to the City of La Center nearly a year ago, Mayor Jim Irish has called yet another public meeting to try and keep the tribe's offer alive. Irish is apparently hoping that if he can get enough people out, he will convince the three council members who have consistently stood against the casino to change their votes.

Please help us support council members Bob Smith, Linda Tracy and Troy Van Dinter with your presence at 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Community Center in La Center (1000 E. 4th St.).

Here are a couple of things to know:

Fact No. 1: Irish wants the city to negotiate an agreement with the tribe. The tribe currently has no agreement with any local government and badly needs one. (The memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Clark County has been invalidated.)

The U.S. Department of the Interior wrote in a January 2008 memo that any tribal casino trust application should include copies of "intergovernmental agreements" and that "Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application."

An agreement with La Center would constitute such an intergovernmental agreement.

If you oppose a casino as we do, help us help the council to maintain its current stance against negotiating with the tribe.

Fact No. 2: The Cowlitz Tribe (read: the casino developers) would love to lure the City of La Center into a deal in which the tribe would help finance a sewage treatment facility. The city would own, operate and have liability for it, and the casino-resort complex would be its largest and most important customer. Sound like a recipe for a successful relationship? A different, healthier alternative -- a regional sewage treatment facility -- is already in the planning stages.

We will leave you with a persistent question to ponder: Why does Mayor Irish consistently say he opposes the casino while he just as consistently supports the Cowlitz casino developers' cause?

Please join other casino opponents Wednesday at 6 p.m. at the La Center Community Center, 1000 E. 4th St., La Center.

Recent events related to the Cowlitz casino

2009-05-26T16:04:00.000-07:00

The effort to keep a Las Vegas-style casino out of Clark County has turned into a lengthy vigil, lengthened further by the long transition period between the previous federal administration and the current. However, last week brought some movement:

New leadership at BIA. The Department of the Interior now has in place an Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the top decision-maker on casino applications and overseer of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). The U.S. Senate confirmed former Idaho Attorney General and Brigham Young University law professor Larry EchoHawk, a member of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma. His policy views regarding Indian gaming are not well known.
Hearings on trust land for tribes. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs conducted a hearing on the U.S. Supreme Court's February Carcieri opinion, which has thrown into question the entire process for taking land into trust for Indian tribes. Carcieri states that the government has no authority to acquire trust land for tribes not under federal jurisdiction in 1934. The Cowlitz Tribe, not acknowledged by the government until 2000, is clearly affected. The House Natural Resources Committee has also held a hearing on Carcieri, with additional sessions expected in an effort to provide a "fix."
Proposed casino site "urban" again. A Clark County Superior Court ruling returned the proposed casino site, in addition to thousands of other acres, to an urban designation. In 2008, the state's Growth Management Hearings Board had removed that acreage from urban status, as defined in the county's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, and returned it to agricultural status. That made the proposed casino site ineligible to receive from the county the urban-level services a casino-resort would need. It still might be, if the ruling is appealed.

County-tribe MOU rescinded. Also, in early April, the Cowlitz Tribe entered into an agreement with Clark County rescinding the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding services, payments and other provisions enabling a casino in Clark County. The MOU had been invalidated in 2007 by the state Growth Management Hearings Board, which had ruled the document placed the county out of compliance with the Growth Management Act, a situation the county could no longer tolerate.

In a desperate attempt to maintain the most important elements of the agreement in force (we understand that MOUs are vital to casino applications), the tribe wrote a unilateral ordinance containing many of the same provisions as the MOU, and it was accepted by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in 2008. The NIGC, however, noted that the ordinance's enforceability had not been examined.

Believing the county is in need of some "insurance" should the federal government suddenly approve a Cowlitz casino, county commissioners wrote in April that they will rely on the ordinance should land be taken into trust.

We will continue to keep you informed.

Supreme Court ruling throws Cowlitz project into question

2009-02-24T15:51:00.000-08:00

The Cowlitz Tribe might be ineligible to get the trust land it needs to develop its proposed mega-casino and resort, due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling released today.

The ruling, Carcieri v. Salazar, limits the federal government’s authority to hold land in trust for tribes that received federal recognition after 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act was passed. The Cowlitz Tribe received recognition in 2002.

It appears Congressional action might be required to sort out the legal quagmire this creates for any number of tribes, including the Cowlitz Tribe.

Read “Supreme Court ruling raises questions about Cowlitz casino” in The Columbian.

Let's clear up county's MOU confusion

2009-02-19T15:25:00.000-08:00

Clark County remains mired in confusion over the impact a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe would have on the tribe’s casino application.

The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)—the agency that will make the final decision—has, however, sent out clear signals that can be summed up, “If you don’t want a casino, don’t produce an MOU.”

First, a key DOI decision maker, George Skibine, told CARS after the tribe’s MOU was invalidated in December 2007, that the lack of a valid MOU with Clark County could be “a deal-breaker” for the Cowlitz casino application. (Skibine remains in his role at DOI as a career employee, not a political appointee.)

Then, in January 2008, DOI sent out a guidance letter addressing the importance of intergovernmental agreements, such as MOUs. The letter states, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”

When CARS Chairman Ed Lynch addressed the commissioners Tuesday, he urged them not to work with the tribe on a new MOU. He said it could send DOI the message that the county is open to the casino. In 2008 the county went on record opposing the casino.

Commissioner Boldt questioned Lynch’s connecting a new MOU with casino approval. He asked Lynch about the outcomes of two casino applications in other states, one that had no MOU but was approved and one that had an MOU but was turned down.

Comparing those two applications with the Cowlitz project is utterly unhelpful. Those applications were completely different, and other circumstances outweighed the impact of their MOU status. For details, read CARS’ response to the commissioners, below.

Please tell your commissioners to say “no deal” to a new MOU with the Cowlitz Tribe.

Clark County Board of Commissioners: (360) 397-2232
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Tom.Mielke@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
boardcom@clark.wa.gov

Letter regarding the MOU's significance

2009-02-19T12:43:00.000-08:00

CARS Chairman Ed Lynch sent this letter to the Clark County commissioners after addressing them Feb. 17.

Dear Commissioners:

At your meeting this morning, Commissioner Boldt asked how CARS can maintain that a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is integral to the Cowlitz application when the outcomes of two other unrelated applications seem to indicate otherwise.

He referenced the Mechoopda Tribe of Butte County, Calif. (a case with which Commissioner Stuart is familiar due to relatives living there), which had its casino and trust land request approved in 2008 despite its lack of MOU, and the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin (with its partner the Mohegan Tribe), which had its request denied despite an MOU with Kenosha County and the city of Kenosha, Wis.

Clearly, an MOU by itself is no guarantee of anything. No one has ever claimed that the U.S. Department of the Interior’s (DOI) process of making trust land and casino decisions is an exact science.

However, as you know, Mr. George Skibine of the U.S. Department of the Interior told CARS in December 2007 that the Cowlitz Tribe’s lack of a valid MOU with Clark County could be “a deal-breaker” for this casino application.

Missing the point

Using the outcome of these other applications as rationale for negotiating a new MOU for Clark County entirely misses Mr. Skibine’s point. In his conversation with CARS, Mr. Skibine did not say that an MOU was required for every project. CARS asked him specifically about the Cowlitz proposal for Clark County—a proposal that involves a questionable restored lands opinion, a poorly constructed Environmental Impact Statement and pending lawsuits. What Mr. Skibine said of the absence of an MOU was, “that could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.”

In January 2008, the DOI sent out a guidance letter addressing the importance of intergovernmental agreements. The letter states, “Failure to achieve such agreements should weigh heavily against the approval of the application.”[1]

Perhaps in the Mechoopda Tribe’s case the absence of other deficiencies enabled DOI to overlook its lack of MOU. For example, Butte County had stated its opposition to the Mechoopda project due to its location but also said the county was “committed to working with the Mechoopda Tribe on finding an acceptable location for a project.” [2] Also, there were no organized opposition groups there.

In the Menominee Tribe’s situation, however, the presence of an MOU was not enough to overcome other factors. DOI determined that the 170 miles between the tribe’s reservation and its off-reservation proposed casino site was not a commutable distance and would not assist in fostering a strong tribal community. Additionally, it found the tribe had not shown there was insufficient land on its reservation to “develop economic enterprises in order to address its unmet needs.”[3]

There had been concerns as well about the a partner in the project, Dennis Troha, who was charged by the federal government for willfully making false statements to FBI agents and illegally funneling more than $100,000 in political campaign contributions through others in an attempt to obtain government approvals for the proposed casino. (He pleaded guilty to lesser charges after cooperating with authorities.) The federal investigation into corruption related to the project has led so far to the convictions of four individuals, including one elected official. The investigation is ongoing.

Comparing apples and watermelons

As for the Mechoopda situation, comparing it with the Cowlitz casino application is like comparing apples and watermelons. Here are some of the differences:

Mechoopda Tribe
Casino size: 43,000 square feet casino building[4]
NEPA track: Environmental Assessment
Tribe membership: 425[6]
Members near casino site: 71 percent in Butte County[8]

Cowlitz Tribe
Casino size: 1,183,635 square feet casino-resort plus 20,000-square-foot office building, 12,000-square-foot cultural center[5]
NEPA track: EIS (used for projects with anticipated significant impacts)
Tribe membership: 3,500[7]
Members near casino site: 3 percent in Clark County [9]

In our situation, Clark County and the cities of Vancouver, La Center and Woodland have all signed resolutions of opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino. Several citizen groups specifically oppose the casino, and many other groups have declared their opposition.[10]

Given the vast differences among these three casino proposals, the tribes and the local climates, it is not useful to use comparisons between the proposed Cowlitz project and the Mechoopda and Menominee projects to inform Clark County’s MOU strategy.

I appreciate the complexity of the decisions you have ahead.

Sincerely,

Ed Lynch

[1] Carl Artman, DOI Assistant Secretary. Letter to Regional Directors, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 3 January 2008. http://www.indianz.com/docs/bia/artman010308.pdf.
[2] “Butte County Pursues Litigation.” 25 March 2008. http://www.becnettripod.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/25march08.pdf. 19 February 2009.
[3] Skibine, George, DOI Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary. Letter to Lisa Waukau, Chairwoman of the Menominee Indian Tribe. 7 January 2009. http://www.indianz.com/docs/bia/skibine010709.pdf. 17 February 2009.
[4] Tuchinsky, Evan, “Mechoopda unveil casino designs,” Chico News & Review, 18 May 2006. http://www.newsreview.com/chico/Content?oid=57110. 19 February 2009.
[5] Analytical Environmental Services, Final Environmental Impact Statement Cowlitz Indian Tribe Trust Acquisition and Casino Project. May 2008. 2-10.
[6] Tuchinsky.
[7] Russell, R. Letter to Mr. Stanley Speaks, Area Director of the BIA. 1 August 2006. In Whelan, Robert, "An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement." 17 April 2007.
[8] Tuchinsky.
[9] Russell.
[10] See http://www.nothereplease.org/doing/againstCasino.pdf.

CARS chairman urges county: No new MOU

2009-02-17T14:58:00.000-08:00

CARS chairman Ed Lynch thanked the Clark County commissioners this morning for their recent decision to abandon the county’s ill-fated 2004 memorandum of understanding with the Cowlitz Tribe. He also urged the commissioners not to negotiate a new agreement. His comments follow:

I’m Ed Lynch, here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping. On behalf of our organization, I want to thank you for your decision to return to compliance by abandoning Clark County’s court appeal and with it the 2004 Memorandum of Understanding with the Cowlitz Tribe.

I’m here today, too, to ask that you leave that trouble-plagued document behind and not negotiate another. It’s hard to understand that you would, since this Board opposes a casino. As you know, BIA’s senior gaming official, George Skibine, told CARS directly last year that having no MOU attached to the Cowlitz application would likely be a “deal breaker” for the casino.

And why not? With the County, La Center, City of Vancouver, Woodland, along with others on record as opposing the Casino, there is no way that the federal government would proceed. Add to that, the tribe’s complete failure after three years to show any Cowlitz geographical, historical or cultural presence of significance below Kelso and the developers will be looking for a new home where they belong in Lewis County or northern Cowlitz County.

You can make the casino go away. If you are leaders, LEAD. If you should sign an agreement it will serve as a signal to the BIA of the county’s willingness to work with the developers to site a casino. Don’t do it unless you truly desire a casino in Clark County.

Although many area agencies were harshly critical of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement, no local government was more direct in its condemnation of the Cowlitz FEIS than Clark County. Yet the Cowlitz Tribe’s response to the county’s concerns was to ignore them and pretend they didn’t exist. After the thousands of staff hours the county expended on the EIS, surely you wouldn’t negotiate another MOU without first getting tribal developers to seriously address the environmental and socio-economic issues the county’s experts raised time and again without recognition. Take as one example, the I-5 traffic problem. How can you negotiate on a new MOU without an independent, thorough, statistical analysis of traffic across the bridge; and the impact of a casino on that traffic, by a well regarded traffic consultant?

In April of last year, this board conducted three hearings around the county to elicit ideas for another MOU. More than 100 citizens turned out to speak—more than 70 percent of those speaking delivered two distinct messages to the county: They didn’t want an MOU, and they didn’t want a casino.

Gentlemen, I hope to God that we, the opposition to the scam, will prevail, and I believe we will. But, I also pray that you will actively join us and do your part to secure, maintain and advance our collective communities’ superior standard of living.

Ding-dong! The MOU is dead!

2009-02-05T15:52:00.000-08:00

Clark County’s commissioners have finally let go of the county’s 2004 memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

The MOU was invalidated in 2007, but the county had appealed that ruling. On Wednesday the board voted unanimously to drop its appeal, which commissioners said they had pursued because they disagreed with the state’s involvement in the matter.

The county-tribe MOU was an abysmal document developed before the tribe’s developers had defined the nature of their project. The county was spooked into signing it prematurely, and the result is a document that would never come close to mitigating the problems a mega-casino would bring to Southwest Washington.

The good news is this: A high-level federal decision-maker told CARS that the absence of an MOU could be a deal breaker for the Cowlitz project, and the Department of the Interior has affirmed in a guidance memorandum that it looks for valid intergovernmental agreements in casino applications. (Dropping the appeal also frees the county to apply for low-interest state loans for public works, but that’s another story.)

The bad news is this: For many months the county has been in quiet negotiations with the tribe for a new MOU.

CARS is very concerned that a new MOU could send the message that public support for the proposed casino is growing. We discourage the county from further negotiations.

However, if the county, which passed a resolution against the casino in 2008, insists on pursuing a new MOU, CARS has a few stipulations to suggest:

Any adjoining land the tribe or casino developers might purchase in addition to the 152 acres they currently seek for reservation and casino development must be subject to the terms of the new MOU.
The tribe should guarantee that any payments it promises in lieu of property taxes (because if taken into trust, the land would be removed from the tax rolls) would be in lieu of taxes on the developed land.
The tribe’s contribution to problem gambling assistance should be increased significantly from the $50,000 (enough maybe to fund one extra counselor) it offered in the 2004 MOU.

While we’re on the topic of problem gambling, here are a few additional terms (with thanks to the Muskogee Phoenix) for the commissioners to consider:

The casino should be required to post the odds of winning on each machine.
A notice should flash on the screen of the machines periodically telling players how long they have been playing and how much money they have lost.
The casino should not be allowed to have an ATM machine or to cash checks.
The casino should be required to send monthly statements detailing wins and losses to its players.

Make no mistake. This MOU is essential to the casino proposal, and the Cowlitz casino developers are the ones who need it the most.

Contact your commissioners. Congratulate them for killing the MOU—and encourage them to keep it dead.

Clark County Board of Commissioners: (360) 397-2232
Marc.Boldt@clark.wa.gov
Tom.Mielke@clark.wa.gov
Steve.Stuart@clark.wa.gov
boardcom@clark.wa.gov

Read today's Columbian story, "County drops defense of 2004 casino deal."

Cowlitz casino partner faces tough times

2009-01-27T15:58:00.001-08:00

The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut -- an investor in the Cowlitz Tribe’s casino proposal for nearly five years -- is reeling under a series of financial challenges.

For the past few quarters, its mother ship, the Mohegan Sun casino in Uncasville, Conn., has experienced significant declines in gambling revenue. In September the Mohegan Tribe put its $734 million casino expansion on hold. In November its credit rating took a hit when Moody’s Investors Service lowered it from Ba2 to B1, a rating indicating securities that “lack characteristics of a desirable investment.”

Then, in early January, the U.S. Department of the Interior rejected a casino proposal from the Mohegan Tribe’s Wisconsin-based partner, the Menominee Tribe. The Menominee and Mohegan tribes had been working together for at least six years in an effort to develop a $1 billion casino at Kenosha, Wis.

The next week, The Day newspaper out of Connecticut reported that Mohegan tribal and casino officials had “presented a sweeping plan to rein in costs in the face of declining casino revenues and dire economic forecasts.” It includes salary cuts for all 9,800 casino employees, suspended 401(k) matches, a reduction in number of employees, reduced casino profit distributions to tribe members and discontinued construction of an $80 million community center.

Despite its troubles at home, the Mohegan Tribe is continuing its uphill battle with the proposed Cowlitz casino and supporting the Menominee Tribe’s plans to fight the federal government for approval of its proposed casino.

Tribal casinos immune to lawsuits

2008-12-17T16:26:00.000-08:00

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.

Mielke claims Clark County Commission seat

2008-11-29T15:16:00.000-08:00

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.

‘Casino MOU is Folly,’ declares Columbian

2008-11-28T16:39:00.000-08:00

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."

California tribe buys into Cowlitz casino

2008-11-28T16:31:00.001-08:00

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.

Cowlitz casino investor sees credit rating decline

2008-11-28T16:21:00.000-08:00

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.

Vancouver vs. NIGC II

2008-11-28T15:57:00.000-08:00

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.

Casino developer dumps $$$ into Clark County race ... again

2008-11-07T11:00:00.000-08:00

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?

Letter to the editor re: Barnett's mailings (see Oct. 21 post)

2008-10-28T17:23:00.000-07:00

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

Cowlitz casino developer throws $$$ against Snohomish councilman

2008-10-21T21:09:00.001-07:00

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.

County quietly negotiates with tribe

2008-10-14T15:28:00.000-07:00

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.

Statement to the Clark County commissioners

2008-10-14T15:17:00.000-07:00

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.

The uncertain future of the Cowlitz casino

2008-09-16T15:42:00.000-07:00

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.

Thank you -- and what's next

2008-08-22T14:16:00.000-07:00

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)

Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study

2008-07-25T10:42:00.000-07:00

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."

FEIS comment period extended to Aug. 11

2008-07-21T15:14:00.001-07:00

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

Now is the time to voice your casino concerns!

2008-07-03T14:33:00.000-07:00

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

Why we want DOI to withdraw the Final EIS

2008-07-02T11:27:00.001-07:00

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.

Casino Final EIS suffers major blow

2008-06-13T15:47:00.000-07:00

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."

BIA to release Cowlitz casino EIS

2008-05-29T19:08:00.000-07:00

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:

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).

County consults feds on MOU

2008-05-07T15:28:00.001-07:00

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."

WA tribe torn apart -- banished chairman cites 'casino greed'

2008-05-05T14:38:00.000-07:00

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."

Next week: Help put a stop to the Cowlitz casino!

2008-04-04T21:06:00.000-07:00

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

Cowlitz casino partner hits tough times

2008-03-20T11:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Lynch urges county casino resolution

2008-03-18T07:10:00.000-07:00

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

Deals, deals and more deals

2008-01-31T10:52:00.000-08:00

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.

An open letter to Representative Brian Baird (D-Wash.)

2008-01-18T16:08:00.000-08:00

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”

Tribal ordinances are a faulty solution

2008-01-09T16:41:00.000-08:00

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.

Court rules casino MOU invalid … again

2007-12-13T14:35:00.000-08:00

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has lost a vital part of its application for a casino in Clark County, and it could be a deal breaker.

Thurston County Superior Court today affirmed a June decision invalidating the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Cowlitz Tribe and Clark County. The initial decision had been issued by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board. The growth board had determined that the county had not allowed for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU in March 2004.

The county then appealed the June decision arguing that the Growth Board, an appointed body, should not be able to override a decision made by the County Commission, an elected body. Thurston County Superior Court Judge Gary Tabor denied Clark County's appeal.

When considering gaming-related land acquisitions, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) “requires agreements between tribes and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues … ,” according to a 2005 memorandum to all regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) directors.

A top DOI official recently characterized the loss of this MOU as a potential deal-breaker.

Resuscitation attempts

Since the growth board issued its opinion in June, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate has been trying frantically to keep the contents of the MOU alive.

First it attempted to insert them into its gambling ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005. It withdrew this proposal, however, after hearing negative feedback from DOI decision-makers.

More recently the syndicate took the contents of the MOU and made them into unilateral tribal ordinances, whose enforceability and irrevocability are debatable. We are told that these ordinances are not viewed by DOI as being comparable to an MOU.

Next steps

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate will have to decide what tack to pursue. One option would be to convince Clark County to continue its legal spending spree and appeal today’s ruling in another court. If the county commissioners agree to such a maneuver, they will have made clear their allegiance to the syndicate.

Another option would be to step back and survey the situation. So far three nearby cities, a school district and a port district have passed resolutions opposing the proposed casino, in addition to a dozen area chambers of commerce and community groups who have declared their opposition or have favored a business park at the La Center site.

If the Cowlitz gambling syndicate truly cares about getting this project under way and providing for the tribe, it will consider a different site -- one closer to its current population and in its aboriginal territory.

Read about the beginnings of the MOU.

Read about the county's backroom casino dealing.

Read about the June invalidation of the MOU.

Read about the county commissioners' decision to appeal the MOU's invalidation.

Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU.

Well done, Woodland!

2007-11-21T16:36:00.000-08:00

Woodland has gone three for three! Last night the Port of Woodland unanimously joined the School District and the City in adopting resolutions opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino-resort.

In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:

City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)

Exaggerations, misrepresentations plague Cowlitz casino submissions

2007-11-16T16:19:00.000-08:00

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has skewed the federal environmental review process for its proposed casino by underestimating potential revenues and overestimating the tribe’s needs—ostensibly to help ensure the selection of the site at Interstate 5’s La Center interchange.

According to a study released Thursday by ECONorthwest,[1] the misinformation stems in part from the syndicate’s failure to adjust revenue projections for changes made to the Washington state-tribal gambling compacts last spring.

The Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS), released last spring after the new compact was approved, states that the proposed casino would produce $415 million in annual revenue. However, Thursday’s ECONorthwest report, taking the new state-tribal compact into account, finds that a similar facility would have annual gaming revenues of $611 million.

Additionally, the compact changes would add significantly to the profitability of a casino at Vader, in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland.[2] The PFEIS argues that a northern site would not bring in enough revenue to fulfill the tribe’s needs.

The state-tribal compact, formalized in March 2007 after lengthy negotiations with the Spokane Tribe and extended to Washington’s other tribes, relaxes several rules—increasing the hours of casino operation, the size of some wagers and the number of video slot machines allowed, and eliminating the requirement for casinos to phase the machines in gradually. (The old compact would have limited the Cowlitz casino to 475 machines its first year, but the new compact would allow it to open with 2,500 machines.)[3] The Cowlitz Tribe has yet to finalize its compact with the state but can expect at least 3,000 video slot machines and possibly up to 4,000.[4]

The new compact also adds substantially to the amount of money that would be made by Salishan-Mohegan, the casino development and management company formed by the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut and Cowlitz Tribe member David Barnett.

Revenue understated, need overstated

While the syndicate has been understating how much revenue a Cowlitz casino would make, it has been vastly overstating how much the Cowlitz Tribe needs.

The PFEIS sets the tribe’s unmet needs at $113.6 million a year, a number that ECONorthwest writes in an April report “appears inflated especially in light of the overall affluence of Cowlitz Tribal members.” (The 2000 Census ranks the 1999 median income the highest of all tribes based in Washington, Oregon and Idaho, and No. 18 among 495 tribes reporting.)[5]

The cost of the tribe’s unmet needs relies heavily on health care and social services expenses, and according to an April 17 review by ECONorthwest, the PFEIS inflates the cost to provide these services to the Cowlitz Tribe at least fourfold, compared with other groups’ measures. ECONorthwest determined the average overstatement of this unmet need to be $62.7 million.[6]

This debunks the PFEIS’s argument that income from a casino-resort at the Vader site would not fulfill the tribe’s unmet needs. According to the PFEIS, a casino in the Vader area would have an annual return of approximately $77 million. When ECONorthwest subtracted the average overstatement of unmet needs in health care from the total claimed unmet needs, it found that a casino at Vader would exceed the tribe’s unmet needs by more than $26 million.[12]

Moreover, the $77 million return cited in the PFEIS was calculated according to terms of the old gaming compact. According to ECONorthwest, with the new compact allowing Washington casinos to operate 24 hours a day and use machines similar to those at Spirit Mountain Casino in Grand Ronde, Ore., Vader’s location 20 minutes closer to Portland than Spirit Mountain would give it a competitive advantage over the Portland market.[13]

Benefit of Vader casino underestimated

The PFEIS fails to consider how a casino located farther to the north, in the tribe’s historic land base and near the majority of its current members, would benefit the tribe. ECONorthwest writes,

Vader would be a better location from which to offer tribal members good jobs and for providing government services to tribal members in greatest need—the elderly, frail, disabled, poor, and young—that have the least mobility and would benefit from the center of tribal government being nearer to their existing homes—most of which are well over an hour north of La Center.[14]

According to figures from a 2006 letter from the Cowlitz Tribe’s enrollment officer, more than twice as many Cowlitz Tribe members live within two counties of Vader as within two counties of La Center.[16]

Area impacts overlooked

ECONorthwest also takes on the PFEIS’s analysis of socioeconomic impacts and points specifically to the document’s assumption that only five new households would move to La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland, the three cities in the PFEIS primary study area—not a realistic assumption given that with 3,151 employees, the casino would be the largest employer in the county.

This led to what ECONorthwest terms “the most peculiar finding of the PFEIS”: that only two students would be added to each of the three school districts in the primary study area, La Center, Ridgefield and Woodland.[17] This conclusion does not square with trends ECONorthwest has observed at other casinos, including the Grand Ronde’s and the privately owned La Center card rooms, nor does it follow common sense.

The bottom line

ECONorthwest’s reviews find the PFEIS to be a deeply flawed document that misrepresents the actual situation to decision-makers and the public, and obscures the opportunities available at a northern site. Paired with significantly understated profits, the overstated unmet needs have been used to preclude consideration of an alternate casino site near Vader, in the tribe’s true aboriginal homeland.

Citizens Against Reservation Shopping wants the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs to insist the tribe’s consultants produce a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement that would provides accurate data and analyses, and consider the possibility of a casino site in the tribe’s true homeland.

[1] ECONorthwest is an economics consulting firm headquartered in Eugene, Ore., with offices in Portland, Seattle and Boulder, Colo. Its client list includes Indian tribes, casinos, government agencies, educational institutions, municipalities, private enterprises and more. These reports were funded by and submitted to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by the card rooms located at La Center, Wash., as commentary on the Preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (PFEIS) and submissions related to the Cowlitz fee-to-trust applications.
[2] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis of the Management Agreement with the Cowlitz Casino,” 15 November 2007.
[3] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 9.
[4] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 7.
[5] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review of the Cowlitz Final Environmental Impact Statement,” 17 April 2007, 2.
[6] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[7] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3-5.
[8] Data from the American Indian Health Commission for Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[9] Data based on the spending on health care and social assistance in Washington State, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[10] Money from Oregon tribal gaming used to cover health and social services for tribal members, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 4.
[11] Funding sources include Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance and Indian Health Services, ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 3.
[12] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 5.
[13] ECONorthwest, “An Analysis,” 10.
[14] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[15] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[16] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 6.
[17] ECONorthwest, “An Initial Review,” 12.

Woodland City Council, School Board Oppose Casino

2007-11-06T15:22:00.000-08:00

Opponents of the proposed Cowlitz casino at La Center got a “two-fer” last night in Woodland where both the city council and school board passed resolutions of opposition. That brings to three the number of municipal neighbors registering formal opposition with the federal government to the resort-casino complex.

Earlier this year both the cities of Vancouver and La Center approved similar resolutions asking the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe’s trust application for land in Clark County as long as plans include a casino.

The Woodland City Council approved the opposition measure by a vote of 3 to 2, while the school board’s vote was unanimous. While neither resolution is a part of the formal Bureau of Indian Affairs approval process and are regarded as position statements only, the highly politicized nature of the process could make the opposition statements increasingly important as time goes by.

In addition to Woodland, organizations now having expressed opposition to the proposed casino include:

City of Vancouver
City of La Center
Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce
La Center North County Chamber of Commerce
Battle Ground Chamber of Commerce
Woodland Chamber of Commerce
Identity Clark County
Enterprise/Paradise Point Neighborhood Association
Chinook Indian Tribe
American Land Rights Association
Fish First
Stand Up for Clark County Citizens (disbanded)

Columbian urges commissioners to clarify positions

2007-10-25T14:28:00.000-07:00

From The Columbian, Sunday, October 21, 2007:

In Our View: Avoidance 101

County commissioners, take a stand. If you listen closely -- very closely -- you can almost hear the whimpering, the indecision, the double-speak from Clark County commissioners as they sidestep any real stance on the controversial proposed Cowlitz Tribe casino just outside La Center.

Frankly, the oatmeal some of you might be enjoying as you read this has more boldness than this trio ...

>>Read the entire editorial.

>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Third time is not the charm
Cowlitz casino strategy under fire
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation

>>Read about the invalid MOU.

>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.

>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.

Not so fast, Columbian!

2007-10-19T12:22:00.000-07:00

An article in Thursday’s Columbian was headlined, “County leaders accept Cowlitz promises.” That’s a bit of an overstatement.

The story, about the Cowlitz gambling syndicate’s latest attempt to salvage its agreement with Clark County (see "Third time is not the charm," below), goes on to quote Commissioner Marc Boldt: “This is maybe a little better than nothing … I don’t know.”

It also quotes Commissioner Steve Stuart: “This whole issue is far from over. … I’m hopeful that they will address (the county’s 15-page list of) concerns so that we don’t have to take other action.”

Those are not ringing endorsements.

Only Commissioner Betty Sue Morris, who has been steadfast in her support of the casino project from the start, appeared comfortable with the situation: “I don’t know us to have turned down money from anybody who offered it as compensation for an impact.”

The question is not whether to accept compensation. The question is whether the proposed compensation is enough to cover the anticipated impacts.

Third time is not the charm

2007-10-19T11:58:00.000-07:00

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate has once again changed its tactics in an effort to demonstrate its cooperation with Clark County and facilitate the completion of its Environmental Impact Statement. This latest attempt consists of two tribal ordinances embodying agreements from the invalidated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County. They were sent Wednesday directly to the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Indian Gaming Commission.

(If you’re keeping score, the first attempt was a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed with Clark County in 2004, and appealed by a Clark County landowner and the La Center card rooms. It was invalidated in June 2007 by a state Growth Management Hearings Board, which found the public had not been allowed input as required by state law. The second attempt was the syndicate’s attempt to fold the MOU into the tribe’s federal gaming ordinance. That would have put enforcement of local provisions under federal control. Federal decision-makers said it was a bad idea, and the syndicate withdrew its request Oct. 5. It claims the contents of the third iteration would be enforceable in state court.)

The lead architect of this third attempt told The Columbian earlier this week, “The benefit of it being unilateral is the boys at Perkins Coie can’t mess with it.” (The Perkins Coie law firm represents the landowner and card rooms that appealed the initial MOU.)

Two things seem clear: First, the Cowlitz gambling syndicate is not interested in having outside input into this agreement, which has far-reaching ramifications for the entire area. Second, the syndicate desperately needs this MOU. Thursday The Columbian reported, “(Commissioner Steve) Stuart said the Cowlitz seem to think the commissioners would have some influence over the casino’s approval.”

You got it, Steve. Now use your influence to do some good.

>> Read about the beginnings of the MOU

>> Check out our timeline and see the evolution of the MOU (in red text)

Syndicate misrepresents Clark jobs situation

2007-10-10T17:00:00.000-07:00

A newsletter sent today by the Cowlitz gambling syndicate seriously misleads readers by making much of some recent news saying that Clark County has the highest unemployment rate among counties lining the Interstate 5 corridor. It uses that snippet of information to assert that “many residents of Clark and surrounding counties would benefit” from the jobs the proposed Cowlitz casino-resort would bring.

The syndicate is taking advantage of an aberration. Yes, the August unemployment rates put Clark County at 6.4 percent, Cowlitz County at 6.1 percent and Lewis County at 6.3 percent. (See the data from the state Employment Security Department.) But between January 2005 and August 2007, Clark County had the lowest unemployment rate of the three counties for 28 out of the total 32 months.

In fact, Clark County was featured in February in The Seattle Times for showing the state’s hottest job growth over a couple of years with a 16 percent employment increase through the end of 2006.

Clark is not a county that needs a casino for job growth—particularly when it comes with food-stamp wages. (The average county wage is $37,200. The average casino wage would be, according to the Environmental Impact Statement, $28,000—with the lowest wages being in the teens.) Moreover, the other counties would provide more affordable housing to potential workers: In the second quarter of 2007, Clark County’s median home price was $277,900, while Cowlitz County’s was $182,900 and Lewis County’s was $195,000.

Casino opposition is deep and wide

2007-10-10T16:49:00.001-07:00

Whoever is doing the writing for the Cowlitz gambling syndicate has narrowly framed the casino opponents as “some wealthy business interests, card rooms, and an Oregon tribe … .”

That description on a Web page exhorting people to take action in support of the casino overlooks the thousands of area residents from all backgrounds that CARS represents. They have expressed dozens of different reasons why they do not want a massive casino-resort in Clark County. Their concerns include:

How it would affect Interstate traffic, especially over the I-5 Bridge.
Gambling addiction—their own and others’.
The impact this massive development would have on local waterways and the fish in them.
How casino workers earning food-stamp wages would support their families.
Where 3,000 casino-resort workers—many of them new to the area—would live.
How the presence of another restaurant and retail mall, hotel, convention center, and event arena would affect local businesses.
Whether the presence of this casino-resort would deter future development.
The demand it would put on social service agencies.
The impact it would have on local schools.

CARS encourages you to send a note to officials, at the local, state and federal levels, so they continue to feel your concerns about this proposed development.

Gambling syndicate changes strategy

2007-10-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate—Seattle developer David Barnett and the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, together with their legal and public relations team—has dropped its effort to stuff the contents of the Cowlitz Tribe’s now-invalid Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County into a federal gaming ordinance.

The announcement last Friday came just three days before the National Indian Gaming Commission was scheduled to release a decision on the proposal.

Top officials with the U.S. Department of the Interior had asked the tribe to find a better solution, because that plan would have taken enforcement of local provisions out of local hands and placed it under federal control.

According to a front-page story in the Oct. 7 Columbian, the tribe plans to “submit ‘a refined and strengthened’ plan but offered no specifics as to what form that plan would take” or when it would appear.

The Cowlitz gambling syndicate needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contained the county’s pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the proposed casino site; the MOU was an integral part of the casino-resort’s Environmental Impact Statement, which is under review; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an important indicator of local support.

Reporter Jeff Mize’s story, which is based entirely on the statement released Friday and the contents of earlier stories, included a dig at the casino’s opposition, saying, “Wealthy business interests, the Grand Ronde Tribe of Oregon and the La Center cardrooms are spending millions of dollars to create bureaucratic and litigation roadblocks for the Cowlitz Tribe and the people of Clark County.”

Had Mize sought reaction from another source, such as an opposition group, he might have added that groups such as CARS are striving to block this project but not to cause harm to the Cowlitz Tribe or to Clark County. The goal of CARS is to protect the quality of life in this area. (See "Why you should care" on our Web site.)

The biggest roadblock the Cowlitz Tribe is experiencing is the gambling syndicate’s insistence on pursuing a reservation and casino at the La Center junction—close to the lucrative Portland market—rather than in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland in Lewis County.

>> Read about the alternate site idea.

Cowlitz casino strategy under fire

2007-09-28T16:42:00.000-07:00

The Columbian last week used some of the harshest language yet regarding the Cowlitz Tribe's 2004 agreement with Clark County: "Tribe's discredited deal with Clark County ought to be taken out and set on fire," declared its editorial board Sept. 21.

This strong reaction comes as the Cowlitz Tribe's representatives once again attempt to make an "end run" around local governments. No sooner had a state growth board's June decision found the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be invalid than the tribe's lawyers began mounting an effort to wrap its contents into a federal gaming ordinance.

But one of the top federal decision-makers on the Cowlitz casino issue expressed concern in a Columbian article published last week. He said that putting the contents of the MOU in the federal ordinance would take enforcement of local provisions out of the county's hands and place them under federal control. The U.S. Department of the Interior has asked the tribe to find a different solution.

The tribe needs the contents of the MOU for three reasons: The MOU contains the county's pledge to provide services, such as water and law enforcement, to the land where the tribe's developer wants to build a casino; the MOU is an integral part of the casino-resort's Environmental Impact Statement, which mentions the MOU more than 150 times; and federal decision-makers look to the existence of MOUs as an indication of local support for casino projects.

Clark County Commissioner Marc Boldt's recent letter to the National Indian Gaming Commission is right on: "The county's interests are better served by having no MOU in place than they would be by an uncertain and potentially ineffective federal effort."

>>Read other recent news about the MOU:
Court denies tribe's request
Tribe tries to "fix" MOU situation
Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs
>>Read about the invalid MOU.
>>Read about earlier MOU shenanigans.
>>Read about the secrets of the MOU.

Woodland considering resolution

2007-09-14T17:07:00.000-07:00

Woodland City Council has been discussing whether the city should join the ranks of Vancouver and La Center, which have passed strongly worded resolutions against the proposed casino.

Woodland was designated a cooperating agency due to its proximity to the proposed casino site but has not been active in the Environmental Impact Statement process. At recent meetings, the Woodland City Council has discussed the possible impacts a casino at the La Center junction would have on its housing stock, which is some of the most affordable in the area, and schools. Woodland citizens have expressed concerns about how the casino would affect the local business community.

We will let you know when a draft resolution goes on the City Council agenda.

Court denies tribe’s request

2007-08-28T15:01:00.000-07:00

The Cowlitz Tribe was rebuffed Aug. 17 in Thurston County Superior Court when it attempted to insert itself into Clark County’s appeal of a ruling on the county’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe.

The tribe wanted to join the case so it could move to have it dismissed, which would reinstate the MOU, a document that is a key part of its Environmental Impact Statement.

The MOU, under consideration by various courts and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for the past three years, was invalidated June 19 by the growth board. It determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU with the tribe in March 2004.

The county appealed that ruling and argues that it is less interested in maintaining the MOU than in determining that the growth board, an appointed body, does not have authority to override an agreement made by the County Commission, an elected body.

Thurston Superior Court will hear Clark County’s appeal of the Hearings Board decision, likely in late September or early October.

Tribe tries to “fix” MOU situation

2007-08-28T14:59:00.000-07:00

Now that its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County is invalid, the Cowlitz Tribe is trying to keep its contents alive by inserting them into its gaming ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005.

The tribe has been framing this plan as a way to ensure that problems arising from its proposed casino development would be mitigated. But it is clear that this is a last-ditch attempt to maintain an agreement so the county could provide the property with services, if it is taken into trust by DOI.

A response to the proposal by the county will be key.

What is particularly alarming is that putting the contents of the MOU into the NIGC ordinance would take the enforcement of local concerns -- law enforcement, county court, fire protection, health regulations, traffic mitigation, sewer and water issues, building codes, revenue-sharing, among others -- out of local hands and place it with a federal commission, which is not set up to oversee local matters. We have urged the NIGC to deny the Cowlitz Tribe’s request to amend its gaming ordinance.

(You might recall that the NIGC was the agency that approved the tribe’s restored lands application -- potentially qualifying the land at the La Center junction for gambling -- at the same time. That decision, which broke with all precedence, came under heavy fire and is under review by the Department of the Interior (DOI).)

Tribe blasts La Center in DOI memo

2007-08-28T14:46:00.000-07:00

The Cowlitz Tribe blasted La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort in a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).

The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from -- finally -- having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)

The La Center city attorney sent a letter Aug. 23 to DOI stating the city’s strong disagreement “with the tribe’s characterization of the policy positions the City Council has taken” and its legal arguments.

“The City’s primary source of general tax revenue is the four non-tribal cardrooms that have operated for many years in La Center,” wrote City Attorney Daniel Kearns. “The City Council has made the policy choice to try to protect the non-tribal cardrooms within its boundaries, as the Council views that as the best way to protect that City revenue source.”

In May, the La Center City Council unanimously approved a resolution stating its strong opposition to the casino project, and in June, the city council voted 4-1 to turn down the tribe’s offer to extend the city’s sewer lines west to the site of the proposed casino and to pay half the cost of upgrading the city’s sewage treatment plant.

Also included in the tribe’s memorandum is a section describing its “local outreach” efforts, listing local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.

>>Read the tribe’s memo.
>>Read the list of local leaders.
>>Read La Center’s letter.

Tribe tries to attach itself to area

2007-08-28T14:38:00.001-07:00

The Cowlitz Tribe continues its quest to appear as if it has had a significant presence in Clark County “since time immemorial.” Most recently it has employed a Clark County Fair booth (“Cowlitz Indian Tribe. Clark County. Our Past. Our Future.”) and a piece written by Cowlitz Tribe Chairman John Barnett in the Aug. 22 Reflector (“Cowlitz Tribe’s history shows residency in Clark County”).

CARS disputes the tribe’s inaccurate historic claims to Clark County because it is using them in an attempt to fulfill Department of the Interior (DOI) criteria. To take land into trust for gambling, newly recognized tribes must first qualify for an exception to a federal prohibition. The Cowlitz Tribe has applied for two exceptions: an initial reservation and restored lands.

In 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, George Skibine (then an acting deputy assistant secretary at DOI) testified that to qualify for an initial reservation or restored lands, DOI requires a tribe to have historical and geographical ties to the land.

The historic record -- including findings published by DOI -- shows that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland was well to the north, primarily along the Cowlitz River. In July, the chairman of the Chinook Indian Nation added his tribe’s concerns to the discussion in a letter to The Reflector that said, “Recorded and oral history is very clear in that the indigenous peoples of the La Center, Ridgefield and Vancouver areas were Chinookan. The principle indigenous lands of the Cowlitz People were not in the present-day area of Clark County.”

For all its efforts, the Cowlitz Tribe only began attaching itself to Clark County a few years ago. Its July 20 memorandum (the one attacking La Center’s opposition) states on page 2, “Soon after the Tribe filed its fee-to-trust application in 2002 it began to reach out to the City of La Center.” (By this time, Cowlitz developer David Barnett had already purchased land and options at the La Center junction; and in 2002 the tribe asked the state to begin negotiating a gaming compact.) Had the Cowlitz Tribe truly been in Clark County to any degree, it already would have had strong ties to local communities.

Moreover, it surely would have had some presence in local media. A CARS analysis of 1994-2001 news coverage in The Columbian shows few stories related to the Cowlitz Tribe before 1999. That year, its eight stories were primarily about the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition—and its reaction to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe’s interest in placing a casino in Clark County.

DOI unresponsive to Baird request

2007-08-28T14:34:00.000-07:00

The Department of the Interior (DOI) has not yet responded to Rep. Brian Baird’s May request that the agency release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.

The casino project’s Business Plan and attached “Unmet Needs Report,” a required element of the fee-to-trust application (which the tribe filed incompletely in 2006), appears to have been held back until the preliminary Final EIS was released to cooperating agencies last spring, so it could be used -- without public scrutiny -- to provide a rationale for not considering a site in the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The preliminary Final EIS argues that a northern site would not make enough money to satisfy the tribe’s needs.

The Plan and Report contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. Among what the tribe calls its “unmet needs” -- which add up to $113.6 million a year -- are a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually), two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually) and a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).

Reservation requests on hold?

2007-08-28T14:27:00.000-07:00

An article in the Boston Globe raises questions about whether the Cowlitz Tribe could even get land taken into trust until the next President is in office.

In a story about what could become Massachusetts’ first casino, the Boston Globe reported, “No action is expected by the Interior Department during the next 18 months, because President Bush’s administration has said it will not approve applications by federally recognized tribes to create reservation land.”

The reporter later said that he had received the information from the Massachusetts tribe working on the casino proposal.

Tribe complains about La Center to DOI

2007-08-15T16:07:00.000-07:00

In a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the Cowlitz Tribe blasts La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort. The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from—finally—having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)

According to a July 27 article in The Columbian,

City Councilman Troy Van Dinter disputed (Cowlitz Tribe attorney Heather) Sibbison’s depiction of a city council in cahoots with the four nontribal cardrooms.

“That’s just completely wrong,” he said. “We’re just trying to keep the city intact and protect the citizens we have, as well as the tax base we have.”

The article includes a reaction from La Center city attorney Dan Kearns: “This is the definitive slamming of the door, on negotiations for mitigation and negotiations for sewer service.”

The memorandum includes a section describing the tribe’s “local outreach” efforts and lists local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.

>>Read the memo.

Commissioners' choice: Protect MOU at all costs

2007-06-26T17:33:00.000-07:00

The Clark County Commissioners threw away a golden opportunity this week to deep-six once and for all their much maligned Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Cowlitz Tribe.

Absolved by a regional growth board of any obligation -- real or imagined -- to honor the MOU, our leaders opted instead to appeal the ruling. (See "County to appeal casino deal ruling" in The Columbian.)

Handed down by the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, the ruling declared that the MOU was negotiated and approved without the state- and county-required public participation, and gave the county six months to fix that.

Commissioner Steve Stuart identified in The Columbian three possible courses for the county: pursue a new agreement involving the public, let the document die or appeal the ruling.

The first two options are certainly preferable. If the document were left for dead, it would send a message to federal decision-makers that the county is not a casino proponent. If county leaders and the public worked together to produce a new document with the tribe, we might get something that would actually protect the county.

Consider the following:

1. The county was spooked into signing this MOU in 2004, before the casino developers had publicly defined the nature and scope of their project. (See "Secrets of the MOU" on our Web site)

2. Because the county signed the MOU prematurely, not knowing what the tribe had in mind, it failed to negotiate an agreement that would adequately protect the county given the size of the proposed development and its location. Among the MOU's shortcomings:

Property tax. The tribe agrees to pay "for revenue lost resulting from the removal of the Clark County Site from the tax rolls." That appears to be approximately $10,000 a year, according to an analysis by the economic consulting firm ECONorthwest.
Problem gambling mitigation. The tribe agrees to pay $50,000 a year. A similar agreement in Wisconsin promises $150,000 a year. Clark County has a population 2½ times larger than that county.
Potential expansion. The MOU does not address the possibility that, if the Cowlitz Tribe gets its requested land taken into trust, it could continue to expand its holdings -- taking more and more land off the county's tax rolls.
Compensation. An agreement structured like the one in Wisconsin would bring in nearly $29 million a year to local governments and charities. Clark County's would bring in only $5 million to $7.5 million, according to ECONorthwest's analysis.

3. Two of the three commissioners who signed the MOU now regret it and joined CARS' Steering Committee. The third, Betty Sue Morris, remains on the board, where by all accounts she is the casino's primary advocate.

4. Without the MOU, the tribe's Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is in serious jeopardy. The EIS mentions the MOU nearly 150 times. If the MOU goes away, it means serious consequences for the EIS.

5. When the county signed the MOU, it attached the following disclaimer:

"Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding should be construed as evidencing county support for or endorsement of the Tribe's trust application. The Board has concerns that the trust application, if federally-approved, would permit uses on this rural and resource land which otherwise would not be allowed under the County's comprehensive land use plan, would permit gaming, which is otherwise prohibited in unincorporated Clark County, and could potentially adversely affect existing business."

In our view those are real concerns and they exist today.

Support for the MOU is support for the casino. Why are the commissioners fighting so hard to resurrect this document? And why would they oppose giving the public a voice in an issue that could affect life in our county for many decades to come?

MOU declared invalid

2007-06-21T18:26:00.000-07:00

The proposed Cowlitz casino project was dealt another blow Tuesday when the tribe's agreement with Clark County was declared invalid.

The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe in March 2004.

The Board of County Commissioners signed the MOU before the tribe revealed its plan to apply for an initial reservation and develop a mega-casino and resort near the La Center exit on Interstate 5. The tribe has since used the MOU to bolster its application to put lands into trust and has relied on it as a critical part of its Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The 2006 Draft EIS mentions the MOU more than 150 times in an attempt to demonstrate that the agreement would prevent or mitigate negative impacts. However, because the county signed before knowing the tribe's plan for the site, it failed to get a deal that would reasonably help offset the negative impacts of what could become the largest casino-resort on the West Coast.

The MOU was appealed in June 2004 by a property owner adjacent to the proposed casino site and owners of the La Center cardrooms. The case traveled through Superior Court to Appeals Court, which declared the MOU a "de facto amendment" to the county's Comprehensive Plan and sent it back to the Hearings Board, which has given the county until Dec. 14 to bring the MOU into compliance.

CARS continues to believe there should be no agreement between the tribe and the county. This Memorandum of Mis-Understanding should be invalidated for all time.

>>Read the story in The Columbian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.

HURRAY FOR LA CENTER!

2007-06-11T16:14:00.000-07:00

La Center's City Council sent a strong message May 23 when it unanimously passed a resolution stating the city's opposition to the proposed Cowlitz casino.

This is an extremely important development because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials and La Center is the city closest to the proposed development.

Like the resolution passed by the Vancouver City Council earlier this month, La Center's voices frustration at having its concerns ignored by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and threatens legal action if its concerns are not addressed.

The La Center resolution mentions, among other issues, that the draft Final Environmental Impact Statement fails to adequately address the proposed casino's impacts on the city's socioeconomic situation, traffic, schools and law enforcement. It also expresses the city's concern regarding the possibility that the tribe would expand the casino and its land holdings in the future.

The City Council also voted to set aside money to send members Bob Smith and Dale Smith to Washington, D.C., to personally deliver the resolution to the Department of the Interior.

>>Read about the decision.

>>Read the resolution.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.

BAIRD REQUESTS COMMENT PERIOD

2007-06-11T16:06:00.001-07:00

Responding to concerns raised by Citizens Against Reservation Shopping and others, Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) has asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe's preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.

The Business Plan and Unmet Needs Statement, part of the Cowlitz Tribe's application for a mega-casino and resort proposed for Clark County, were to have been part of a revised trust land application filed on behalf of the tribe last summer. Instead they appeared, without notice, as an appendix to the preliminary Final EIS when it was released in March by BIA to cooperating agencies.

In a letter dated May 30, Rep. Baird wrote, "I can understand the concerns of some members of the community and appreciate their desire to thoroughly evaluate all elements of the application before a final decision on the Cowlitz Tribe's application is made."

>>Read Rep. Baird's letter.

>>Read about CARS' concerns regarding the Business Plan.

>>See CARS' May 14 news release.

>>Read the article in The Columbian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site.

LA CENTER TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION AGAINST COWLITZ CASINO

2007-05-10T16:24:00.000-07:00

La Center might follow Vancouver's lead by adopting its own resolution opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino.

The City Council discussed the possibility at its Wednesday meeting and plans to consider a resolution May 23.

This resolution would be particularly important, because La Center is the city closest to the site of the proposed casino-resort, which would be the largest on the West Coast.

>>Read the story in The Columbian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site: http://www.NotHerePlease.org/.

WAY TO GO VANCOUVER!

2007-05-10T16:06:00.000-07:00

On Monday, Vancouver's City Council announced its united opposition to the Cowlitz Tribe's bid to put a casino in north Clark County.

This is an extremely important development, because federal decision-makers are watching for input from elected officials.

After listening to 90 minutes of public testimony, the mayor and six council members unanimously approved a resolution. It explains their concerns and asks the Secretary of the Interior to reject the tribe's trust application for land in north Clark County as long as its plans include a casino.

Mayor Pollard said he and the council had received approximately 150 e-mails and phone calls weighing in on the issue.

>>Read the city's resolution.
>>Read the stories in Tuesday's Columbian and The Oregonian.

For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.

CLARK COUNTY CUTS BACKROOM CASINO MOU DEAL

2007-05-03T09:19:00.000-07:00

Rather than wait for a hearing on the validity of the troubled Clark County-Cowlitz Tribe Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Clark County commissioners took matters into their own hands and directed a county attorney to work out a deal with attorneys for casino developer David Barnett and the tribe.

This month the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board is considering the 2004 MOU as part of a case brought against the county by resident Al Alexanderson and the La Center cardrooms. They contend that in the MOU the county agrees to extend services to a site not intended for intense commercial development. Also, they say the county broke state law by approving the MOU without first amending its land use plan to reflect this type of development.

“That the county would keep massaging this MOU in secret—working with the casino developer’s attorney—is a breach of the public trust,” said Ed Lynch, chairman of the casino opposition group Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS). “The pattern of secrecy that has surrounded the creation of this document continues.”

>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.
>>Read about the court opinion in our November newsletter.

VANCOUVER FIGHTS PROPOSED COWLITZ CASINO

2007-05-01T14:53:00.000-07:00

Once a supporter of the Cowlitz casino project, Vancouver Mayor Royce Pollard on Monday voiced his “strong opposition” to the project.

The city has submitted comments three times, Pollard said, but the preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) still does not address its concerns.

“You can’t just ignore us and expect us to roll over for you,” he said.

>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.

For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.

REGIONAL BIA, CASINO DEVELOPERS COOK BOOKS TRYING TO SAVE LA CENTER SITE

2007-05-01T14:48:00.000-07:00

Two key reports that the Cowlitz casino developers should have released nearly a year ago were quietly issued last month to cooperating agencies by the regional office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). They were included in the preliminary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The casino project’s Business Plan and so-called “Unmet Needs Report” contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by regional BIA in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The report says a northern site would not make enough money to fulfill what the tribe calls its “unmet needs”—which add up to $113.6 million a year.

The Cowlitz Tribe’s unmet needs include:

a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually)
two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually).
a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).

In written comments to BIA, Vancouver City Manager Pat McDonnell called the Unmet Needs Report “exaggerated.”

>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.

For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.

SECRETS OF THE MOU

2007-05-01T14:29:00.000-07:00

Negotiators for the Cowlitz Tribe withheld important information from Clark County and misrepresented the tribe’s intentions while negotiating a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the county.

“They underrepresented what they were going to do—they misrepresented it,” said Judie Stanton, who was a Clark County commissioner at the time. “I now feel they intentionally deceived us.”

>>Read the full story and share your thoughts.

For more stories and information, see our Web site: www.NotHerePlease.org.