After years of controversy, Richmond's City Council decided yesterday to nix plans for a casino at Point Molate. In a raucous five-hour meeting that dealt solely with the decision on whether to continue considering a plan to build a $1.2 billion dollar Las Vegas-style gaming resort, councilmembers voted 5-to-2, with Nat Bates and Jim Rogers dissenting, to end the six-year debate over the casino plan.

Mayor Gayle McLaughlin motioned to end consideration of the casino plan, citing a dozen points of concern including studies that connected gaming to increased crime, drunk driving and drug addiction. She said the casino resort would also increase traffic congestion, and be an economic drain to the city and its residents.

During three hours of public comment, the majority of speakers urged the council to reject the casino plan. The crowd booed supporters of the casino. (Photo by Christopher Connelly/Richmond Confidential)

Council member Jovanka Beckles seconded the motion, saying the project had failed to obtain federal approval. "The Bureau of Indian Affairs has not given a timeline for a decision-making process," she said. She added that it was clearly the will of Richmond residents ditch the casino plan.

Three of the six proposed plans for Point Molate have included a tribal casino to be run by the Guidiville Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians. Upstream Point Molate, LLC has spearheaded the proposal to build a tribal casino resort in the former Naval fuel station. Because the site is still contaminated and a couple dozen buildings still stand on the land, developing Point Molate is an expensive prospect.

Read the full story on Richmond Confidential.

Become a friend of Richmond Confidential on Twitter and Facebook.

Posted By: Richmond Confidential ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ) | April 06 2011 at 01:47 PM

Powered By WizardRSS.com | Full Text Feed | Amazon Affiliate

Source: http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&fd=R&usg=AFQjCNFBgh4au_yraUI4-Z8pCWLXUDqRGQ&url=http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/incontracosta/detail?entry_id=86501