s
s
Sections
Sections
Subscribe
You've read 3 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app starting at just 99 cents per month!
Already a subscriber?
You've read 6 of 10 free articles this month.
Get unlimited access to Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app starting at just 99 cents per month!
Already a subscriber?
We hope you've enjoyed reading your 10 free articles this month.
Continue reading with unlimited access to Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app starting at just 99 cents per month!
Already a subscriber?
We've got a special deal for readers like you!
Get unlimited access to Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app starting at just 99 cents per month, and support community journalism!
Already a subscriber?
Thanks for your interest in award-winning community journalism! To get more of it, why not subscribe?
Get unlimited access to Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app starting at just 99 cents per month, and support community journalism!
Already a subscriber?
Want to keep reading? Take the next step by subscribing today!
Starting at just 99 cents per month, you can keep reading Petaluma360.com, the Argus-Courier e-edition and our mobile app, and support local journalism!
Already a subscriber?

A win in fight over casinos

X

The "Follow This Story" feature will notify you when any articles related to this story are posted.

When you follow a story, the next time a related article is published — it could be days, weeks or months — you'll receive an email informing you of the update.

If you no longer want to follow a story, click the "Unfollow" link on that story. There's also an "Unfollow" link in every email notification we send you.

This tool is available only to subscribers; please make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

Login

X

Please note: This feature is available only to subscribers; make sure you're logged in if you want to follow a story.

LoginSubscribe

Petalumans don’t want a casino anywhere near the city limits. That much is clear.

In a 2006 advisory ballot measure, 80 percent of Petaluma voters said they do not want a casino to be built near the city. All of our city council members have been united in opposition to casino development.

In the effort to thwart Indian gaming, which has already taken hold in the county, the city council has sent letters, and Councilman Mike Healy has even testified before Congress, in opposition to a bill that would take land into trust for the Lytton tribe near Windsor.

The bill, H.R. 597, was flawed when it was introduced and passed in the House. As it now makes its way through the Senate, the bill prohibits gaming on the Lytton’s Windsor property and any other land the tribe takes into federal trust in Sonoma County — north of Highway 12.

That is a key distinction.

The bill also prohibits gaming on any land the Lytton tribe owns in Sonoma County south of Highway 12, but only for 22 years. After that time, according to the legislation, Sonoma County south of Highway 12 is open for casino development.

As city leaders have pointed out, this paints a giant bull’s-eye on Petaluma. Rohnert Park already has the Graton Casino, so the bucolic land with easy freeway access around Petaluma would be the logical choice of a tribe bent on developing another Sonoma County casino.

Indeed, the Dry Creek tribe, which owns Geyserville’s River Rock Casino, already owns 277 acres south of Petaluma on Kastania Road, and casino opponents have long been concerned about the tribe’s intentions.

The bill taking the Lytton’s Windsor land into trust should have included a prohibition against gaming anywhere in Sonoma County. The geographic distinction was an unnecessary compromise. By now, however, it’s too late in the process to amend the bill, so officials are attempting to use a bilateral agreement to codify the prohibition on gaming.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors this week amended their agreement with the Lytton tribe to include a permanent ban on gaming anywhere in the county, including the south county. While it does not carry the weight of federal legislation, the agreement is enforceable. We commend the county for working to protect Petaluma from casino development and the tribe for showing good faith by renouncing gaming in the county. (The tribe already owns the profitable San Pablo Lytton Casino in the East Bay.)

Petaluma even made an effort to insert itself into the county-tribe agreement, but in the end it didn’t make much difference. The city attempted to become a party to the agreement with veto power over any future changes to the gaming prohibition.

The city argued that, in 20 years, a different board of supervisors could undo key provisions in the agreement, and the city’s veto is a safeguard. But we trust that the county is just as adamant about preventing another casino as the city, and who’s to say future city leaders would feel as strongly as today’s casino opposing council members.

Sonoma County already has two casinos, which is probably already more than the market can bear. Any new casino development would likely be attempted south of the Graton Casino in order to get closer to the lucrative Bay Area customer base. Petalumans should remain vigilant in opposition to casino development to make sure it doesn’t happen in our backyard.