Laserfiche WebLink
May 26, 2020 <br /> <br />organized crime), alcoholism, and gambling addiction. I for one feel that we have <br />enough of such problems in our community <br /> <br />already, and like many, I feel that our city is already at the breaking point and we <br />need no other encouragement in this direction. Many of our citizens strongly feel <br />that a casino adjacent to residential neighborhoods and in close proximity to our <br />Tidewater Community College campus would be a virulent pestilence that will <br />undermine neighborhood civility, property values and is not conducive to academic <br />learning. This sentiment is already expressed by the legislature in its legal <br />prohibition of ABC stores locating in proximity to public schools. Are not casinos in <br />the business of gambling and selling lacquer in the same category, no matter how <br />you widow dress them? Approving this resolution is like the Armada Hoffler - City <br />Hall project. It is "putting the cart before the horse", in an attempt to constrain the <br />public into a situation from which they may feel they cannot escape. This is what <br />happened with the Midtown Tunnel tolls, would have happened with the Armada <br />Hoffler - City Hall project and certainly should not happen in this instance in a <br />similar manner. The State Legislature has passed a bill that permits five cities to <br />opt to build a casino on contingencies and based on approval of their peoples by <br />referendum. This resolution is premature. It should only come after the citizens <br />have had an opportunity to vote for their consent or rejection of a casino in <br />Portsmouth. Authorization to build a casino can only be made by the will of the <br />people in accordance with the law. And since no referendum has been voted on <br />by the people this matter should be rejected as untimely. This resolution should <br />be viewed as an effort to channel the will of the people in the direction that the <br />Council is on, prior to the upcoming election. This matter should not be ramrodded <br />through to satisfy the desires or interests of any member(s) of this Council, or those <br />of any special interests, or parties not on the Council. The City should do nothing <br />that would shackle feet of the people to the floorboards of a vessel caught up in a <br />tempest with dark clouds on all sides and water coming in over the gunnels. <br /> <br />Vote No <br />4) I encourage all members of the Council to on this resolution. It is <br />untimely and out of phase with the legislation recently passed in Richmond and <br />constrains and confuses the will of the people, and disregards their yet unheard <br />voice. To do otherwise is to disrespect the Citizens of the City and their rights <br />under the law. This matter should be tabled until a referendum has been held and <br />its results tabulated and formally announced to the public. <br /> <br />Cliff Page <br />465 Primrose Street <br /> <br />2) I write to urge rejection of Resolution 20-137, which would designate Rush Street <br />Gaming, LLC, and its affiliate, Portsmouth Gaming Holdings, LLC, as the preferred <br />casino gaming operator for the City of Portsmouth. My objections to its adoption <br />include: <br /> <br />the City of Portsmouth has expended tax dollars to advance the cause of casino <br />gambling at the Virginia General Assembly without public consent; <br />the designation of the gaming operator is the result of a single-bid procurement <br />rather an open and competitive process; <br />that designation involved no public hearings, either before the Economic <br />Development Authority or the Portsmouth City Council; <br />the resolution before you is an item "Submitted by Council Members" rather than <br />the subject of a public hearing; <br /> the designated "preferred casino gaming operator" has previously announced that <br />its interest in developing the Victory site is limited to the gaming operation and not <br />the other entertainment uses contemplated; <br />the consideration of this item in this manner does not adhere to the guidance <br />provided by the Attorney General of Virginia in the Sullivan Opinion regarding the <br />types of issues appropriate for a virtual meeting; <br />the constraints of the virtual meeting format impede the ability of citizens to <br />participate in council deliberations as fully as in a normal meeting; and <br />the Portsmouth citizenry have not consented by means of a referendum to hosting <br />a casino gaming facility in our city. <br /> <br />Please let me know if you need additional information. <br /> <br /> <br />