JUDGE STRIKES DOWNS CHALLENGE TO VOTER PAMPHLET ARGUEMENT AGAINST GUIDIVILLE BAND OF POMO HOTEL CASINO RESORT

Judge strikes down challenge to voter-pamphlet argument against Richmond casino




MARTINEZ -- A Contra Costa Superior Court judge on Monday upheld language in a ballot argument against a proposed Las Vegas-style hotel-casino resort on Richmond's waterfront, the day before the voters pamphlet reaches the printers.

The legal wrangling over wording underscored how carefully supporters and opponents are crafting their message to voters on Measure U, the advisory measure on whether a casino should be built.

Richmond resident Don Gosney argued that opponents incorrectly state in their ballot argument that there is no guarantee locals would be hired and that casino jobs would be low-wage. Gosney filed a petition in court last week seeking to delete the two statements.

Opponents have "no right in the public forum to make false statements," said Michael Sweet, Gosney's attorney.

But opponents maintain that the statements are true and that the public should hear them.

"They're trying to argue this is a done deal, and it is not," said Peter Sturges, who represents an opponent.

The promise of jobs has become a major issue in the debate over the casino-hotel resort that Upstream and the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians want to build at the old Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot.

The project's draft environmental report estimates 17,000 operational jobs. Under a current agreement, Guidiville would hire Richmond residents for 40 percent of nonmanagement casino and hotel jobs. Developer Jim Levine of Upstream has pegged that pool at 3,000 workers, meaning at least 1,200 spots would be set aside for Richmond residents. Levine has said the casino intends to go beyond that and include 1,500 on-site workers in retail, entertainment and other services.

Supporters have embraced these figures, but critics say the numbers are inflated and jobs for locals are not certain.

Named as parties of interest in Gosney's petition were the people who penned the opponents' ballot argument: Joan Garrett, Andres Soto, Kenneth Davis, Mayor Gayle McLaughlin and Vice Mayor Jeff Ritterman.

On Monday, Judge Barry Baskin twice sent the parties out of the courtroom to talk among themselves and come up with language everyone could agree on. The attorneys spent more than an hour attempting a compromise, each drafting wording and walking back and forth down the hallway to deliver sheets of paper carrying different proposals. They also met in a conference room but could not reach an agreement.

So they returned to the courtroom to argue their case. Sweet pointed to provisions in the land disposition and municipal services agreements between the city and developer that call for local hiring and a living wage, which would be $16.69 an hour without benefits and $15.19 an hour with benefits.

But Sturges, who represents Soto, said the agreements carry "loopholes galore." He read aloud provisions that give the developer some leeway with its work force. In addition, the contracts are not final, state and federal approvals are still needed, and legal challenges threaten to railroad the promise of jobs altogether.

Baskin ruled to deny Gosney's petition, meaning there will be no changes to the arguments for or against Measure U in the voters pamphlet.

"Both sides have overstated what the facts in the case are," Baskin said. While the opponents' argument oversimplifies, he said, "I don't think it rises to the level of being false or misleading."

Contra Costa Times- August 30,2010