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
Showing posts with label Official opposition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Official opposition. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Let's clear up county's MOU confusion
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
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
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.
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.
[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.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
CARS chairman urges county: No new MOU
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.
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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Ding-dong! The MOU is dead!
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:
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."
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Mielke claims Clark County Commission seat
Cowlitz casino opponent Tom Mielke has claimed a seat on the Clark County Board of Commissioners, despite the casino developer’s efforts to keep him out of office.
“In his victory statement, Mielke lambasted Cowlitz Tribe member and would-be casino developer David Barnett of Seattle, who independently spent $76,500 to attack Mielke by mail and telephone in the last four days of the race,” reported The Columbian Nov. 26.“‘The people of Clark County have rejected casino special interests,’ Mielke said.”
The race had been up in the air for a couple of weeks, but late-arriving mail-in ballots tipped the results to Mielke. His election appears to change the board to an anti-casino majority as he joins longtime casino opponent Marc Boldt on the board. Steve Stuart is the third commissioner.
For more on Barnett's efforts, see our earlier blog.
“In his victory statement, Mielke lambasted Cowlitz Tribe member and would-be casino developer David Barnett of Seattle, who independently spent $76,500 to attack Mielke by mail and telephone in the last four days of the race,” reported The Columbian Nov. 26.“‘The people of Clark County have rejected casino special interests,’ Mielke said.”
The race had been up in the air for a couple of weeks, but late-arriving mail-in ballots tipped the results to Mielke. His election appears to change the board to an anti-casino majority as he joins longtime casino opponent Marc Boldt on the board. Steve Stuart is the third commissioner.
For more on Barnett's efforts, see our earlier blog.
Friday, November 28, 2008
‘Casino MOU is Folly,’ declares Columbian
A Nov. 25 editorial in The Columbian dubs the Clark County Board of Commissioners’ current efforts to negotiate a new agreement with the Cowlitz Tribe “folly” and illustrates it with a great metaphor:
When the county passed its resolution opposing the casino in April, it was declining a marriage proposal. To now negotiate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is like discussing a prenuptial agreement -- for a marriage that will never be.
What the editorial and the article precipitating it fail to explain, however, is that a key decision-maker with the Department of the Interior has said that the absence of a valid Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County MOU “could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.” (For more on this, please see "County quietly negotiates with tribe."
The 2004 county-tribe MOU was invalidated in December 2007 for lack of public participation. CARS has long maintained that the best thing for the county to do is nothing. Let the document stay dead. That way there is no mistaking how the county and its citizens feel about this proposed development.
Read the editorial "Casino MOU is Folly."
Read the article "County-tribe casino deal in works."
When the county passed its resolution opposing the casino in April, it was declining a marriage proposal. To now negotiate a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is like discussing a prenuptial agreement -- for a marriage that will never be.
What the editorial and the article precipitating it fail to explain, however, is that a key decision-maker with the Department of the Interior has said that the absence of a valid Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County MOU “could potentially be a deal breaker for them, yes.” (For more on this, please see "County quietly negotiates with tribe."
The 2004 county-tribe MOU was invalidated in December 2007 for lack of public participation. CARS has long maintained that the best thing for the county to do is nothing. Let the document stay dead. That way there is no mistaking how the county and its citizens feel about this proposed development.
Read the editorial "Casino MOU is Folly."
Read the article "County-tribe casino deal in works."
Vancouver vs. NIGC II
The City of Vancouver is doing its part to fight the proposed Cowlitz casino.
Vancouver had filed a lawsuit in March in response to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) decision that tribal ordinances could replace the Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU had been invalidated in December 2007.
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the city’s lawsuit saying it did not have grounds to challenge the NIGC’s decision.
Earlier this month, the city told the court it was getting back in the ring and contesting the court’s decision.
Why challenge the ordinances?
The tribal ordinances are problematic. In addition to their content being unsatisfactory (as was that of the initial MOU), they are unilateral.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, “the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here.” It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
Read about this latest round in The Columbian.
Vancouver had filed a lawsuit in March in response to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) decision that tribal ordinances could replace the Cowlitz Tribe-Clark County memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU had been invalidated in December 2007.
In September, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the city’s lawsuit saying it did not have grounds to challenge the NIGC’s decision.
Earlier this month, the city told the court it was getting back in the ring and contesting the court’s decision.
Why challenge the ordinances?
The tribal ordinances are problematic. In addition to their content being unsatisfactory (as was that of the initial MOU), they are unilateral.
Additionally, they might not be enforceable. Even in his approval letter the NIGC chairman writes, “the issues concerning enforceability are not properly addressed here.” It is possible that new tribal leadership would not have to comply with ordinances written under its predecessors, making it a particularly bad deal for the county.
Read about this latest round in The Columbian.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Statement to the Clark County commissioners
What follows is the statement that CARS Chairman Ed Lynch delivered this morning to the Clark County Board of Commissioners:
My name is Ed Lynch, and I’m here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS), a citizens group I formed more than three years ago to oppose a Clark County casino location. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
I understand that the county is currently negotiating with members of the Cowlitz casino development team to arrive at yet another memorandum of understanding involving land near the La Center/I-5 junction -- land that the tribe hopes to have taken into trust for a reservation and casino.
Since the commission and CARS have both stated our opposition to locating a casino in North Clark County, I’d like to understand your strategy here. By negotiating an MOU at this time, the commission seems to be going out of its way to facilitate building a casino at La Center.
Last April, when you conducted three hearings on this issue, you heard more than 100 people testify. More than 70 percent of those Clark County citizens told you they didn’t want a casino, and they didn’t want you to negotiate a new MOU. Clark County citizens don’t want a new MOU. A Seattle developer and a Connecticut Indian Tribe do. To whom are you responding?
None of the other cooperating agencies was as scathing as Clark county in commenting on the tribe’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The tribe has never even commented on some of the concerns you raised. Before you negotiate a new MOU with them, don’t you believe the tribe owes you that courtesy?
As you know, it’s the tribe that must have an MOU to have any hope for a successful application. The county certainly has no near-term need for such an agreement. The amazingly inferior quality of the FEIS alone means that even were it to be approved, the FEIS would be tied up in court for a long time to come.
You know, too, that until the zoning is changed back from its current “agriculture” designation, the county won’t be able to deliver the level of urban services to the La Center parcel that a casino would require. Why not wait until your appeal on that matter is concluded so you know that the agreement would be legal?
The county has spent many thousands of dollars on legal challenges to protect the 2004 MOU which is now before the court of appeals. Why not wait for the outcome of that process before negotiating a new one?
You appear to still be seeking the near-term security of an MOU to try to ensure that the county receives money from the casino operation in lieu of taxes, all the while declaring you don’t want a casino. How do you do that without sending a strong signal to the federal government that Clark County would really welcome a resort-casino?
The answer is: You don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways. This is not the time to negotiate an MOU. Meanwhile, a casino that does not belong in Clark County has never been farther from being approved.
Let it lie.
My name is Ed Lynch, and I’m here today representing Citizens Against Reservation Shopping (CARS), a citizens group I formed more than three years ago to oppose a Clark County casino location. Thank you for allowing me to speak today.
I understand that the county is currently negotiating with members of the Cowlitz casino development team to arrive at yet another memorandum of understanding involving land near the La Center/I-5 junction -- land that the tribe hopes to have taken into trust for a reservation and casino.
Since the commission and CARS have both stated our opposition to locating a casino in North Clark County, I’d like to understand your strategy here. By negotiating an MOU at this time, the commission seems to be going out of its way to facilitate building a casino at La Center.
Last April, when you conducted three hearings on this issue, you heard more than 100 people testify. More than 70 percent of those Clark County citizens told you they didn’t want a casino, and they didn’t want you to negotiate a new MOU. Clark County citizens don’t want a new MOU. A Seattle developer and a Connecticut Indian Tribe do. To whom are you responding?
None of the other cooperating agencies was as scathing as Clark county in commenting on the tribe’s final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The tribe has never even commented on some of the concerns you raised. Before you negotiate a new MOU with them, don’t you believe the tribe owes you that courtesy?
As you know, it’s the tribe that must have an MOU to have any hope for a successful application. The county certainly has no near-term need for such an agreement. The amazingly inferior quality of the FEIS alone means that even were it to be approved, the FEIS would be tied up in court for a long time to come.
You know, too, that until the zoning is changed back from its current “agriculture” designation, the county won’t be able to deliver the level of urban services to the La Center parcel that a casino would require. Why not wait until your appeal on that matter is concluded so you know that the agreement would be legal?
The county has spent many thousands of dollars on legal challenges to protect the 2004 MOU which is now before the court of appeals. Why not wait for the outcome of that process before negotiating a new one?
You appear to still be seeking the near-term security of an MOU to try to ensure that the county receives money from the casino operation in lieu of taxes, all the while declaring you don’t want a casino. How do you do that without sending a strong signal to the federal government that Clark County would really welcome a resort-casino?
The answer is: You don’t.
Stop trying to have it both ways. This is not the time to negotiate an MOU. Meanwhile, a casino that does not belong in Clark County has never been farther from being approved.
Let it lie.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Well done, Woodland!
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)
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)
Monday, June 11, 2007
HURRAY FOR LA CENTER!
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.
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.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
LA CENTER TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION AGAINST COWLITZ CASINO
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/.
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!
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
VANCOUVER FIGHTS PROPOSED COWLITZ CASINO
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
