The proposal for a casino near the border of San Benito and
Santa Clara counties already has stirred a lot of discussion, and
now formal opposition, in our community. Many see a casino as a
scourge that would draw unwanted crime, traffic and gambling
addiction.
The proposal for a casino near the border of San Benito and Santa Clara counties already has stirred a lot of discussion, and now formal opposition, in our community. Many see a casino as a scourge that would draw unwanted crime, traffic and gambling addiction. The local Amah-Mutsun Ohlone Indians see it as an infringement on their traditional land. Others see an intriguing potential new business that could offer 1,500 jobs, a way to widen Highway 25 and expand the Hollister sewer plant. Still others see a place to go have some fun
There is going to be a spirited debate, as there should be, on what is the appropriate course of action.
We hope that debate doesn’t go down the same rancorous road Measure G did. The March land use ballot measure was the most contentious and divisive political battle this county has seen in recent memory, and wounds have been slow to heal. Now comes another political hot potato, which has the potential to be as controversial.
We hope local leaders will step in to ensure the discussion will be civil and fair to all sides. Already there are some positive signs. The San Benito County Board of Supervisors said Tuesday that it plans to hold a public meeting to discuss the casino proposal. Phillip Thompson, the lawyer for the Miwok Indians who are proposing the casino, also said the group will hold a series of meetings to explain the proposal.
Supervisors and Thompson can go even further by working together to set up a series of public town hall meetings to hash out the issues. They can invite experts to discuss the positive and negative impacts Indian casinos have had in other California counties. They can invite the proponents to discuss their vision and answer residents’ questions. And they can ask opponents, like Sheriff Curtis Hill and the recently-formed group Casinos Represent a Poor Solution (CRAPS), to present a case against the casino. CMAP, our local community access TV channel, could provide a real service by recording the meetings and rebroadcasting them often.
Such an undertaking would be well worth the effort. We are hard pressed to see what issue could be more important than a proposal to plop down a $100 million to $300 million casino with an unknown amount of local control inside our borders. The proponents say it would be similar to Yolo County’s Cache Creek Casino, which has 1,700 slots and 120 table games.
That’s a daunting proposition already raising many questions. And without an organized effort to educate the public, there likely will be accusations and misunderstanding as the proposal for a casino moves forward. But working together, we can employ our time and resources to ensure the public is educated in a fair and balanced manner on the issue that undoubtedly will have a huge impact on our quality of life.
There has been a lot of talk about restoring an atmosphere of civility in San Benito County politics. Now, there is another hot-button issue looming with the potential to divide our community again.
But with proper handling, and a real effort to educate the public about the pros and cons of a casino project, we can avoid the pitfalls of Measure G and work to restore an atmosphere of civil, yet spirited, debate and honest discourse.
