Board declines to accept gaming report
The
Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declined to accept a study of the
economic impacts of the Chumash Casino Feb. 19, citing policy as its reasoning.
In
a 3-2 vote that could set a precedent for how the board will receive future
reports and studies that are undertaken independently of county involvement and
are privately financed, the board of supervisors declined to accept a study of
the financial impacts of the Chumash Casino, which was paid for and conducted
by the Santa Barbara Taxpayers Association. The board also withdrew the
taxpayers association’s request for the board to set a hearing for a
presentation to highlight the study’s key findings.
Third
District Supervisor Brooks Firestone called the request “inappropriate” and
said it would help advocacy of gambling expansion in Santa Barbara County.
“The
issue before us is whether or not to give the status of an accepted county
report to something which is privately funded and privately produced…It takes
on a different status as a report received by the board,” he said.
The
study is a 40-page economic assessment of the Chumash Casino. It was authored
by economist Mark Schniepp, director of the
California Economic Forecast Project, and includes an assessment of direct and
indirect economic impacts of the casino, including job creation, sales tax
receipts and salaries as well as effects on businesses in the valley and the
county.
Joe
Armendariz, executive director for the taxpayers
association, said he was stunned by the outcome.
“I
thought it was one of the most peculiar decisions that the board made,” he
said.
“This
is not a biased study,” he said. “It was commissioned by and for the county’s
taxpayers association. We’re not asking the county to endorse it or take any
action.”
The
board’s refusal to receive the study and the presentation follows a 2007
decision in which the board decided that it could not accept outside work that
was independent of the county’s involvement.
Supporting
and dissenting views on whether the board should accept and receive the study
was split among supervisors as well as public speakers.
Second
District Supervisor Janet Wolf said she wasn’t clear why the report needed the
status of being received by the board.
“Why
is it necessary to bring it before the board and have a special presentation
instead of just having a taxpayers association
luncheon and presenting it there,” she questioned.
“This
is a policy issue; if we move down that road it’s dangerous.”
Fifth
District Supervisor Joseph Centeno and 1st District
Supervisor Salud Carbajal
disagreed with other board members and saw no reason why the board shouldn’t
receive information that might prove helpful in the future.
“This,
for me, is nothing more than a bunch of information,” Centeno
said. “I can take the information and do what I will.”
Though
the board voted against receiving the study and presentation, Armendariz is determined to make the study public. He said
that the taxpayers association will be visiting city council meetings and
showing the study to anyone who’s interested. “We think that this information
needs to be understood and known,” he said. “…Yes, there will be people who
will use this study negatively and others who will use it to their advantage.
We have no control over that.”
For more information or to receive a
copy of the study visit www.sbcta.org.