Just a couple of comments on the story reporting on the casino
public forum held at the Veterans Hall on Feb 15. I attended this
forum and was pleased to see so many committed citizens attend and
voice their opinions. I believe, however that the report in the
paper was misleading in some ways.
Dear Editor,
Just a couple of comments on the story reporting on the casino public forum held at the Veterans Hall on Feb 15. I attended this forum and was pleased to see so many committed citizens attend and voice their opinions. I believe, however that the report in the paper was misleading in some ways.
The reporter did mention the people holding signs in support of the casino, but failed to mention that many were members of a union and that some were paid to be there. The sign holders all left at approximately the same time and did not stay for the entire forum. It is unclear how many were residents of San Benito County.
Further on in the report it mentions “angry casino opposers.” I heard citizen speakers, on both sides, express passion and frustration, but not anger. With very few exceptions, all speakers were given attention and respect by the audience. Where a speaker’s comment did elicit a reaction from the audience, once the reaction to that one comment was over, the audience continued to listen to the rest of what the speaker had to say. Considering we listened to speakers for almost three hours, those in attendance should be commended for their ability to stay focused and polite.
In attempting to stay balanced in the story, it would appear, by the number of speakers quoted from each side, that half the speakers last night were for and half were against the casino. While I did not keep a tally, there were far more speakers against the casino.
And lastly, the story did not represent all the issues that were presented, but seemed to limit it to the pro casino jobs issue with a small mention of the important fact that this is an out-of-area tribe doing reservation shopping with no consideration of the local Amah Mutsun tribe. The story failed to mention the long list of issues presented by anti casino speakers including, but not limited to a possible net loss of jobs to the county due to the casino’s affect on downtown business, county restaurants and motels; traffic; infrastructure, light and air pollution concerns; crime; increase in alcohol and gambling addiction and their affects on families; lack of control because the land would be part of a sovereign nation not subject to local laws and law enforcement; social and moral concerns; land use and drainage concerns; lack of tax base and almost complete inability to enforce any financial agreements made with a sovereign nation by a local government.
From attending this forum, what is clear to me is that the majority in this county does not want the casino. Also what is clear to me is that those opposed to the casino also want what those in favor of a casino want for our county. All want sustainable jobs, affordable housing and businesses that are good neighbors and that will support our community by adding to the economic base. While we all agree on these same things, some of us are not willing to say that a casino is the only way to get it. With leadership from the Board of Supervisors and redirection of the committed passion of everyone in attendance, we should be able to do better than a casino to solve our problems.
Mary Lacey Gibson, San Juan Bautista
