The recent front page article regarding County Administrative Officer Terri Daly's resignation (March 18, "Supervisors block Daly's resignation attempt") begs for a response. Perhaps that article belongs more properly in the opinion section. As news, it is biased at best.
First of all, why do you consider the vote against the Intergovernmental Services Agreement by Supervisors Richard Forster and Louis Boitano a "hardline stance"? A vote reflecting the wishes of the people is responsive, not hardline. How do you characterize the voices of the other two supervisors?
Daly and County Counsel Martha Shaver work hard and they deserve and have our respect. Verbal attacks are unacceptable, but the public's frustration is understandable. There was no ad hoc committee formed, nor was there even one public meeting prior to the compact with this so-called tribe.
Speaking of verbal attacks, is it acceptable for a board member to tell workshop attendees that they wouldn't be at the workshops if the casino were proposed for Pine Grove or Jackson? Apparently he considers even the attendees from Jackson, Pine Grove and Plymouth as just a bunch of NIMBYs.
You failed to report that Friends of Amador County had their attorney in attendance at one workshop to give the board another legal opinion on the laws as they relate to the Buena Vista site. That legal opinion was given at no cost to the county. That same board member publicly stated that the FOAC attorney was just leading them on to take their money. Is that the proper treatment of a former Marine, former police officer and current attorney, who was trying to enlighten the board? Is that what Amador County has become? Thank goodness it's not, because other board members didn't display that attitude. They treated everyone with respect.
Your news article stated that after seven months of intense negotiations, the tribe scrapped plans for a hotel. Wrong. There were never plans for a hotel in the two draft environmental impact reports or the two final EIRs. The tribe has repeatedly stated they do not plan on building a hotel and, besides, there is no room on the site for a hotel.
Your article stated that the tribe reduced the number of slot machines from 2,000 to 950, which is true. However, you failed to report that the reduction to 950 was to enable the casino to open without widening Ione-Buena Vista Road. In addition, there is not sufficient water to support the customer base that 2,000 slot machines would generate. Perhaps your readers should know that the tribe has the ability to ask for a one-time increase in slot machines. At that time, the county will have to renegotiate once again and once again hire a high-priced negotiating legal team, essentially paying twice for what the county could have paid for once. During the second round of negotiations, the county would be negotiating with a tribe that has a casino already in operation instead of a tribe seeking to open a casino. Guess which negotiations would be the most difficult.
Lastly, $7.7 million a year is a lot of money, but is it enough? For example, road improvements are "estimates" up to a certain amount. Why doesn't the tribe pay actual costs? If the total yearly costs to the county are more than $7.7 million, the difference will be on the backs of the Amador County citizens.
Lastly, how is it that the Ledger can get information regarding a closed session of the board of supervisors, including the vote? If the Ledger has such powerful investigative abilities, perhaps the Ledger could report on how this tribe became a tribe or how this fee land became eligible for gaming.