3.17.08
Editorial
Questionable hearing rallies casinos’ foes
Committee’s purpose was to trash Port Huron, Romulus bills
If there was any doubt about the purpose of U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ hearing on the casino gambling bills for Port Huron and Romulus, Friday’s meeting should have dispelled it. Conyers, D-Detroit, used his position as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to convene a forum for foes of the two bills.
The congressman’s casino opposition to the proposed casinos is no secret. Like most members of Detroit’s delegation, Conyers is against the prospect of any new gambling facilities relatively close to the city.
Detroit officials see the casinos’ proximity as threats to the city’s interests. With three casinos operating as cash cows, new competition might reduce that revenue.
Conyers said as much in his opening remarks at the committee hearing.
The two casinos would “unfairly disadvantage the city of Detroit, to put it mildly,” he said. The competition, he said, would take gamblers, tax revenue and jobs.
Given that introduction, the list of witnesses hardly was a surprise: it was stacked with opponents of the Port Huron and Romulus casinos.
Democrats Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit and Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas both spoke against the legislation. Chief Fred Cantu of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe added his opposition. Carl Artman of the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs also expressed his objection.
Only attorneys Kathryn Tierney of the Bay Mills Community and Alice Walker, who represents the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa, spoke in favor of the legislation.
The bills settle a long-standing eastern Upper Peninsula land dispute between the Sault and Bay Mills Chippewas. The Bay Mills Indian Community would drop its claim to 110 acres of land in Charlotte Beach in exchange for either 19.6 acres at Port Huron’s Desmond Landing or 16.5 acres at the Thomas Edison Inn. The Sault were given the choice of property in either Romulus or Flint.
The legislation also gives authority to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to enforce the Charlotte Beach land swap for the proposed casino sites. Conyers used the provision to win temporary jurisdiction of the bills for his Judiciary Committee.
In the end, the hearing counted for little. With no real effort to present a fair discussion on the merits of the legislation or to allow representatives of Port Huron and Romulus to speak, the meeting essentially served as a chance for the bills’ opponents to vent.
Last month, the House Natural Resources Committee approved both bills for consideration by the full House. The Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction is brief — it expires on April 5 . It also is secondary to that of the Natural Resources Committee.
The merits of both bills deserve a thorough hearing in the House and the Senate. The skewed Judiciary Committee hearing did nothing more than demonstrate the need for a fair discussion.
Committee’s purpose was to trash Port Huron, Romulus bills
If there was any doubt about the purpose of U.S. Rep. John Conyers’ hearing on the casino gambling bills for Port Huron and Romulus, Friday’s meeting should have dispelled it. Conyers, D-Detroit, used his position as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee to convene a forum for foes of the two bills.
The congressman’s casino opposition to the proposed casinos is no secret. Like most members of Detroit’s delegation, Conyers is against the prospect of any new gambling facilities relatively close to the city.
Detroit officials see the casinos’ proximity as threats to the city’s interests. With three casinos operating as cash cows, new competition might reduce that revenue.
Conyers said as much in his opening remarks at the committee hearing.
The two casinos would “unfairly disadvantage the city of Detroit, to put it mildly,” he said. The competition, he said, would take gamblers, tax revenue and jobs.
Given that introduction, the list of witnesses hardly was a surprise: it was stacked with opponents of the Port Huron and Romulus casinos.
Democrats Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick of Detroit and Shelley Berkley of Las Vegas both spoke against the legislation. Chief Fred Cantu of the Saginaw Chippewa tribe added his opposition. Carl Artman of the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs also expressed his objection.
Only attorneys Kathryn Tierney of the Bay Mills Community and Alice Walker, who represents the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa, spoke in favor of the legislation.
The bills settle a long-standing eastern Upper Peninsula land dispute between the Sault and Bay Mills Chippewas. The Bay Mills Indian Community would drop its claim to 110 acres of land in Charlotte Beach in exchange for either 19.6 acres at Port Huron’s Desmond Landing or 16.5 acres at the Thomas Edison Inn. The Sault were given the choice of property in either Romulus or Flint.
The legislation also gives authority to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan to enforce the Charlotte Beach land swap for the proposed casino sites. Conyers used the provision to win temporary jurisdiction of the bills for his Judiciary Committee.
In the end, the hearing counted for little. With no real effort to present a fair discussion on the merits of the legislation or to allow representatives of Port Huron and Romulus to speak, the meeting essentially served as a chance for the bills’ opponents to vent.
Last month, the House Natural Resources Committee approved both bills for consideration by the full House. The Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction is brief — it expires on April 5 . It also is secondary to that of the Natural Resources Committee.
The merits of both bills deserve a thorough hearing in the House and the Senate. The skewed Judiciary Committee hearing did nothing more than demonstrate the need for a fair discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment