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.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
The uncertain future of the Cowlitz casino
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.
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.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Thank you -- and what's next
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)
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)
Friday, July 25, 2008
Clark County pans Cowlitz casino study
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."
Monday, July 21, 2008
FEIS comment period extended to Aug. 11
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
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
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Now is the time to voice your casino concerns!
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
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
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Why we want DOI to withdraw the Final EIS
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
