"The casino was not something that resonated with the community at large," said Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, who won re-election.
McLaughlin, Vice Mayor Jeff Ritterman, Councilman Tom Butt and the newly elected Jovanka Beckles and Corky Booze all have pledged their opposition to a Point Molate casino.
Unless the current council tries to fast track approvals within the next two months to push forward a project, the new council majority will have ample opportunity to nix it when they take control Jan. 11. That council could decide against certifying the project's environmental report, which some say is deficient. They could stall negotiations to revise the city's agreements with developer Upstream Point Molate and the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians. The land disposition agreement, setting the terms for transferring Point Molate to Upstream, expires in April.
Officials also point to a 2006 legal settlement with the developer and Citizens for East Shore
Parks over the land deal, in which the city won the right to choose an alternative project."At the end of the day, there are some legal arguments that the city maintains full discretion whether to sell this to Upstream," Butt said. "It's hard to imagine (the developer) continuing paying money into a project with an adversarial council."
Jim Rogers, a longtime supporter of the casino project who was re-elected to his third term, said, "We need to take a look and evaluate the whole issue in light of the vote. I don't have any snap answers right now."
Whether rejecting the casino will land the city in court remains uncertain. Upstream has paid the city $15 million of the $50 million cost for the land and is making $90,000 monthly payments to the city.
Jim Levine, Upstream's managing partner, challenged the city to find another project that would bring the jobs and revenue -- close to $20 million a year for the city -- that the developer and tribe have pledged if the casino gets built. Gambling would drive needed seismic work and preservation of historic buildings, open space protection and other benefits that no other project could deliver, he said.
"When people get elected they take on the responsibility of governing, which requires them to look at the facts and analyze realistic options," he said. "What are you really going to do? Pick up the costs, let the buildings fall down and lay off employees and cut city services? "... I don't believe the people that got elected are fundamentally irresponsible. Maybe they believe there's an alternative, but if so, what is it?"
Levine noted that it was the city that asked Upstream to develop a casino project, beginning in late 2003. Until recently, the proposal enjoyed majority support from a council that repeatedly extended the deadline for negotiations. A big turning point came in July when Butt, once a supporter, grew frustrated with negotiations and brought an advisory measure before the council, which voted unanimously to place Measure U on the ballot.
Upstream erred in its campaign strategy in the ensuing months, some political insiders say; its bevy of ads and mailers focused on the resort's jobs and revenue, but the developer failed to hype pro-casino candidates who could approve the plan.
In contrast, three Bay Area card clubs funding Stop the Mega Casino opened a political action committee to produce campaign material supporting anti-casino candidates. It raised at least $69,000 in support of McLaughlin, Beckles, Booze and losing candidate Eduardo Martinez.
The card clubs gave more than $220,000 to stymie the project, while the United Auburn Indian Community, which owns Thunder Valley casino resort in Lincoln, contributed $185,000. The developers and Guidiville, backed by Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, which owns Cache Creek Casino Resort in Yolo County, spent nearly $500,000 urging voters to approve Measure U, campaign statements show.
The measure would have won far more support "absent the deliberately false propaganda from the card clubs," Guidiville chairwoman Merlene Sanchez said in a statement. Sanchez lamented the focus on a casino when the project also promises hotels, a convention center, a performing arts center, housing, parks, restaurants and retail.
The Guidiville tribe stills need approvals from the secretary of the interior to place the land into trust, and it would then need state approval of a gaming compact to open a Las Vegas-style casino. But Richmond -- with its new political landscape -- now holds the cards.
"I'm not going to vote for a casino," said Booze, the top vote-getter in last week's council race. "The people have spoken and I'm going to follow it."
Killing the casino project would trigger a 120-day window for Upstream to come up with a new proposal, under the terms of their contract.
"Given the lies and misinformation that dominated the No on U campaign, it will be up to the Richmond City Council and federal authorities to wade through the reams of analyses on the project and realistic alternatives, and determine the best course of action," Sanchez said in her statement.
Staff writer John Simerman contributed to this story.
Powered by WizardRSS | Full Text RSS Feeds
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|