| People Against a Casino
Town
|
| Information |
|
Casino
will be all bad news for the people of Florence
July 13, 2003, Eugene Register-Guard Newspaper
Guest Viewpoint by Susie Dewberry The Register-Guard’s July 7 editorial titled, “Clear way for casino” lightly dismisses Florence’s casino opponents by saying that none of their concerns should outweigh the tribes’ “hard won and clearly established legal rights”. The author got it right in that Florence is worried about the casino’s’ detrimental effects. One need look no farther than Highway 126, already one of the state’s most dangerous roads, to foresee the immense traffic increase and problems the casino would cause. People are also concerned about the increase in gambling addictions. According to Julie Hynes, Lane County’s Gambling Prevention Coordinator, when a casino comes into a community the number of people addicted to gambling doubles. We are talking about a recognized addiction defined in mental health manuals, just like drug addiction. The additional costs to society for these newly addicted people from within Florence’s city limits alone would be $1 million. The dollar figure doesn’t begin to address the costs in divorce, bankruptcy, suicide, child abuse, increased crime and devastated lives. Casino opponents are also concerned when they look at towns like Canyonville where the casino’s development company there bought up many local businesses after the casino was established. When the untaxed profits of under-regulated casino operations and related businesses take land off the local tax rolls and place businesses under the umbrella of sovereign immunity, the town is left to foot the bill for schools and social services. The Florence Events Center and many local restaurants, motels, and Bay Street’s retail stores would find it difficult to compete with a casino and ancillary businesses that did not have to pay taxes. What the editorial writer missed, however, is the crux of the casino opponents’ arguments – opponents that include the Florence City Council, which unanimously voted to ask Gov. Ted Kulongoski to appeal the Oregon vs. Norton decision. The city’s letter states, “The ruling ... represents another in a series of shortfalls in a process that is intended to protect surrounding communities from the detrimental effects of a casino”. Florence was denied due process both when the Hatch Tract – the proposed casino site – was taken into trust and when U.S. Magistrate Tom Coffin ruled that the land qualified as “restored lands” under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Several years ago when the Tribes applied for trust status for the Hatch Tract, it made representations that there were to be no gaming or economic uses on the Hatch Tract. At that time, Tribal Chairman Greg Norton stressed that the land would be used for cultural and historical purposes, adding that “no specific buildings have been planned for the site, and the land has not been identified for the purposes of a gaming casino or any other economic development.” During the course of the trust process, both Lane County and Florence were asked to comment. The County responded that it would support the trust acquisition for “cultural and historical” purposes but not for economic development purposes. Similarly, the city registered its opposition to the use of the land for gaming purposes. Relying upon the tribes’ representations, Florence was lulled into not objecting to trust status for the Hatch Tract. Florence was assured that a separate process would be undertaken if the land were intended for a casino. That was then. Now the tribes’ current web site unequivocally declares that they always intended to use the Hatch Tract for a casino site. Once the land was taken into trust, the tribes took advantage of the ambiguities in IGRA to neatly by-passed community input. Its assertion, adopted by the Department of Interior that the Hatch Tract was “restored lands” was what the state’s lawsuit was all about. The method used by the tribes for trust land status and gaining approval for gambling on the Hatch Tract under IGRA exemptions circumvented Florence’s contention that a casino will have serious, detrimental effects. We believe the system was intended to protect the people of communities like Florence. If Coffin’s ruling were allowed to stand, it would set a dangerous precedent where the people of Oregon and the nation are denied even the minimal protections offered by gubernatorial veto of Department of Interior casino-site selections. Therefore, we are asking that the governor help remedy this situation where due process was not served. It is easy for the editorial author, sitting 65 miles away from Florence, to criticize casino opponents for, “scrambling for any and every possible means of stopping this project”. Perhaps the response would be different if the proposed site were closer to home. And given the disingenuous, back-door method used to gain approval for gambling on the Hatch Tract, a casino could very well be knocking on Eugene’s door next -- as is happening in numerous communities across the country. Susie Dewberry of Florence is a spokeswoman for People Against a Casino Town. |
|
Related Links: |
| PACT SEARCH FACTS LAWSUIT LINKS NEWS RESEARCH ACTION |