I've been reading Marvin's rather inexplicable and rabid efforts to sway people into thinking this economic black hole of a massive casino complex jammed down our throats and the despicable thugs behind it would somehow be a "good thing." In fact, he writes editorials about the issue as if David Barnett has already bought him off like he did Steve Stuart, and like he twice tried to do with Pam Brokaw; fortunately for us, both efforts with Brokaw being unsuccessful.
I simply cannot fathom why someone seemingly responsible could support the economic and social rape of our community. Is there, perhaps, a deal between Case and the Tribe for payment for his efforts? A massive check, for example, for advertising? Why else would he sell out?
Mr. Case, here's a clue: ANY "service" the county provides this organized criminal enterprise is a violation of the Growth Management Act. This land is NOT zoned for this type of construction; no agreement between the county and the thugs running this effort will GET it zoned for this kind of development, and your insistence that we will somehow benefit from this disaster is simply beyond comprehension.
Your continuing effort to bang the drum for David Barnett, a man with restraining orders from women; a man who tried 3 times to buy politicians here locally so he could get his way, a man who DOES NOT AND NEVER HAS LIVED HERE, is simply unbelievable.
I thought you would have cared more about the community you're responsible to. I guess I am wrong. The people do not want this here. And it is up to our government to do everything it can to make sure it doesn't happen.
REFLECTIONS
Independent But Not Neutral
County, Cowlitz negotiate
It’s more than a little hard to get information on the topic, but officials of Clark County and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe continue to negotiate a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement.
What is known is that negotiations have taken place, there is no written draft of a new deal, and no available list of sticking points. And the process is in some sort of lull.
County administrator Bill Barron said the matter is “in negotiation,” that there have been one or more face-to-face meetings, and that lawyers for the two sides have consulted on the phone.
Phil Harju, vice chairman of the Cowlitz Tribe, said about the same thing, that “talks are on-going.” He said Ed Fleisher, a Cowlitz Gaming Attorney, and Curt Wyrick, an attorney with Clark County, have met and/or talked on the phone.
Neither side identified any specific issues that were under discussion.
Harju said the Tribe is a little uncertain about who they should negotiate with, given the fact that Tom Mielke has replaced Betty Sue Morris as one of three county commissioners. Mielke ran for election in part on an anti-casino platform.
Harju said the Tribe is ready to hold government-to-government talks with the county at any time. “We have talked concepts,” said Harju. And, said Harju, “the Tribe is not certain what the county wants.”
Harju was clear about one thing: the Tribe does not want to negotiate the matter in the newspaper.
Editorial
It’s more than a little hard to get information on the topic, but officials of Clark County and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe continue to negotiate a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreement.
What is known is that negotiations have taken place, there is no written draft of a new deal, and no available list of sticking points. And the process is in some sort of lull.
County administrator Bill Barron said the matter is “in negotiation,” that there have been one or more face-to-face meetings, and that lawyers for the two sides have consulted on the phone.
Phil Harju, vice chairman of the Cowlitz Tribe, said about the same thing, that “talks are on-going.” He said Ed Fleisher, a Cowlitz Gaming Attorney, and Curt Wyrick, an attorney with Clark County, have met and/or talked on the phone.
Neither side identified any specific issues that were under discussion.
Harju said the Tribe is a little uncertain about who they should negotiate with, given the fact that Tom Mielke has replaced Betty Sue Morris as one of three county commissioners. Mielke ran for election in part on an anti-casino platform.
Harju said the Tribe is ready to hold government-to-government talks with the county at any time. “We have talked concepts,” said Harju. And, said Harju, “the Tribe is not certain what the county wants.”
Harju was clear about one thing: the Tribe does not want to negotiate the matter in the newspaper.
Clark County entered into the existing MOU with the Cowlitz Tribe as a means of gaining compensation for services the county would likely provide were a casino constructed along I-5 at La Center. The agreement provides for payment in lieu of property and sales taxes for such things as police protection, emergency services, water and so forth. The Tribe has been unable to negotiate with the city of La Center for sewer services--or to negotiate with La Center for anything else, for that matter.
A state land use board invalidated the MOU because, the board argued, the agreement extended urban services outside urban boundaries. The county then tried to put the proposed casino site into the La Center Urban Growth Boundary, but the same board deleted that action as well.
The Tribe has pledged to live up to the contents of the existing MOU regardless of the validity of the document in the eyes of the state board. And the Tribe has waived its sovereign immunity and allowed itself to be sued if it does not comply with the provisions of the MOU.
Still, a new agreement could benefit both sides--protecting taxpayers if the casino gains federal approval, while providing the Tribe with public services needed to operate a large-scale business.
Both sides will try to keep the details of negotiations private as the process continues. That’s exactly the wrong thing to do. Public understanding and acceptance of a new deal would be greatly enhanced with a very public process--something that did not happen when the first MOU was inked and for which the county was justifiably criticized.
A state land use board invalidated the MOU because, the board argued, the agreement extended urban services outside urban boundaries. The county then tried to put the proposed casino site into the La Center Urban Growth Boundary, but the same board deleted that action as well.
The Tribe has pledged to live up to the contents of the existing MOU regardless of the validity of the document in the eyes of the state board. And the Tribe has waived its sovereign immunity and allowed itself to be sued if it does not comply with the provisions of the MOU.
Still, a new agreement could benefit both sides--protecting taxpayers if the casino gains federal approval, while providing the Tribe with public services needed to operate a large-scale business.
Both sides will try to keep the details of negotiations private as the process continues. That’s exactly the wrong thing to do. Public understanding and acceptance of a new deal would be greatly enhanced with a very public process--something that did not happen when the first MOU was inked and for which the county was justifiably criticized.
Marvin F. Case
Publisher
.
No comments:
Post a Comment