Hollister – After a heated public casino meeting Tuesday night,
the San Benito County Supervisors say they’re each standing firm on
their individual positions. Four of the five supervisors say they
still oppose the proposed Miwok casino off Highway 156, while
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz remains on the fence.
Hollister – After a heated public casino meeting Tuesday night, the San Benito County Supervisors say they’re each standing firm on their individual positions. Four of the five supervisors say they still oppose the proposed Miwok casino off Highway 156, while Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz remains on the fence.
The project was originally proposed at U.S. 101 and Highway 25 and a number of Gilroyans, including Joe Giacalone and Chris Vanni, are investors. The proposed casino could be similar in size to Yolo County’s 74,000-plus square foot 2,200 slot machine Cache Creek casino.
“I don’t think it’s any mystery that the board is not in support of this casino,” Board Chairman Reb Monaco said Wednesday.
But as the dust settles from Tuesday’s meeting, leaders are left to ponder issues raised by emotional residents.
Could proposal go to a vote?
Tuesday night, member after member of a standing-room only audience took the podium telling the board to ask the voters whether they want a casino. Casino supporters told the board they believed a vote would show hard numbers for how many people in the community want the jobs and economic stability the casino investors are promising. And casino opponents followed suit, saying they had nothing to hide and an election would only prove the majority of voters want to keep the casino out.
“I love the idea (of a vote),” De La Cruz said Wednesday. “It’s been such a heated debate and (Tuesday) was the first time I’ve seen the entire community come together like that.”
But it may not be as simple as putting the casino on a ballot and letting the chips fall where they may, according to Monaco.
“I don’t think that’s possible because first of all, I don’t think this is a thing you could put to a vote; I don’t think it’s legal. Also, I would assume the (casino) backers would have to fund the election,” Monaco said.
Hollister’s stance
Sheriff Curtis Hill was greeted with a standing ovation from casino opponents when he challenged the Hollister City Council to come out against the project as the Board of Supervisors has said it plans to do. But the casino’s investors and supporters say the board has already made too hasty a decision in opposing the casino, saying they have yet to review all of the information and project details.
Among council members reached Wednesday, the consensus was that the council was too short on information to take a stance.
“I can only speak for myself, but every issue that comes before us, I will be getting educated to the best of my ability on both sides of the issue,” said Councilman Brad Pike.
Councilman Robert Scattini said the council has not yet discussed the casino question as it had not been approached by any groups asking it to do so. And, like Pike, Scattini also said he would be continuing to research the project proposal before he takes a stance himself.
Hollister Mayor Pauline Valdivia said Wednesday she hadn’t been able to attend Tuesday’s meeting, but would be discussing the casino at the next council meeting. While she declined to elaborate, she said “At Tuesday’s meeting I will be making a statement about the casino, but I’ll wait until Tuesday.”
A clear message
Many casino supporters Tuesday night held signs with slogans like “We Need Jobs” or “SLOTS: Support Local Opportunities To Succeed.” Casino opponents took the floor to tell the board the 2,000 jobs Ramos is promising would be dead-end, minimum-wage and part-time. And supporters countered that even if they were, the investors have promised union-wage jobs, and even low-paying jobs would be better than no jobs at all.
But many agreed on one thing: San Benito County needs jobs.
“Their message is loud and clear. We need jobs in this community, and we shouldn’t minimize that,” said Supervisor Anthony Botelho Wednesday. “But opportunity comes all the time, and in the past we’ve turned down a lot of things that would have brought jobs into the community. I’m very cognizant of the fact that we need better employment opportunities, and I challenge those (labor representatives) that came down from San Jose to start promoting our community as a place that’s ready for business.”
Supervisor Pat Loe agreed with Botelho.
“I think that any time we can bring jobs we need to take a serious look at that. But I also think that the community itself could make a difference in jobs, because if we start to buy local and shop local, we could create more jobs,” Loe said.
De La Cruz, however, said one of the driving forces behind his indecision on the casino so far has been the county’s need for employment and the investors’ promises of 2,000 union jobs.
“I was not elected to voice my opinion, I was elected to be objective,” De La Cruz said.
De La Cruz also said he believed the county has previously turned down opportunities for large-scale employment, and that he would keep this in mind as the struggle continues.
“The people have given me a mandate: We need better jobs. If I’m going to vote no on the casino, I want to make sure that in the future we say yes to other opportunities,” he said.
The next step
At the supervisors’ Feb. 1 meeting, the board voted unanimously to draft a resolution opposing the casino, hold a final public meeting, and vote on the resolution on Feb. 22.
Loe, who was appointed to compose the resolution, said Wednesday she would still be putting the resolution together, it would still be written to oppose the casino and the board would still be voting on the resolution on Feb. 22. Before the supervisors vote, they will be allowing time for anyone who did not comment at Tuesday’s meeting to voice their opinion.
