Sadly, real life should not be played like a Monopoly game although it often is, especially in politics. Horse trading deals seem to be a way of life for many politicians. Councilmember Gary Sherwood penned a My Turn article entitled, Barrett is wrong, Franks is right: Casino means trouble for the Arizona Republic on April 20, 2013. Eighteen months ago he said:
- “Tohono O’odham’s massive casino is too close to residences and schools.”
- “It denies tens of million (sic) of dollars of future development, construction and sales-tax revenues to our state and local community.”
- “The casino will have a massive impact on Glendale’s already overwhelmed infrastructure – our police and fire departments and our roads — forever.”
- “Crime is already up. Does anyone believe that putting a mega-casino in a neighborhood will improve the situation?”
- “Franks is doing the right thing, and he is not alone.”
- “The tribe has disregarded our city’s well-being and wishes for years. Now we should simply trust them?”
- “Sadly, the Tohono O’odham Nation deliberately misled the public and even other tribal nations about this project and their casino-expansion plans for years. What kind of community leaders would willingly welcome such an unwelcome kind of neighbor?”
What caused Sherwood to do his flip-flop? Eighteen months ago Gary Sherwood was opposed to the Tohono O’odham casino. Sherwood has been asked repeatedly why he changed from anti-casino to pro-casino. His answers have been all over the place from, I was misinformed by others to Glendale staffers didn’t do their homework.
On September 17, 2014 Gary Sherwood testified at the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. In his testimony he said, “I was stunned to learn that the prior Glendale administration had failed to make any effort to learn more about this proposal before it rushed to oppose it.” When questioned further by Senator McCain on his change of stance he said, “Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue.” His reasons for changing his position are not only weak but mainly fantasy.
The city first learned of the casino project in January of 2009 when the TO simultaneously issued a press release and appeared at City Hall to reveal their plans. City staffers tried mightily at several subsequent meetings to get meaningful information from the Tohono O’odham about their plans. The TO repeatedly offered their conceptual plans but offered no concrete facts about their proposed project. They were arrogant and their position was that they were coming and there was nothing the city could do. If Sherwood couldn’t get the date correct about Glendale’s learning of the TO’s plans, how many other statements of his that day played fast and loose with the facts?
His reasons for doing a 180 on his casino position should not be considered as satisfactory. Sherwood’s position remained opposed until the fall of 2013 when at several city council workshops he suddenly supported Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira in their call for “dialogue” with the Tohono O’odham. What other dynamic could have occurred?
Gary Sherwood and Sammy Chavira took office as councilmembers in January of 2013. Sammy ran on his opposition to the casino deals that had been presented to the city prior to his taking office. He said in an October, 2013 campaign mailing, ““Too many sweetheart arena deals for out-of-state corporations have left us deeply in debt.” Sammy outdid himself in supporting not just an out-of-state corporation sweetheart arena deal but out-of-country owners (mostly Canadian) sweetheart deal. He was opposed to any proposed casino deal. He went on to say publicly and repeatedly, “The city needs to be a tough negotiator, making smart planning decisions that preserve Glendale’s future.” Sammy, while running, was in no mood to accept any Coyotes deal. Inexplicably, after 6 months in office he becomes the 4th (and majority) vote to accept the IceArizona deal. Sherwood becomes the 4th councilmember (a majority) to support a dialogue with the TO after 8 months into his term. Coincidence? You must decide for yourselves. Did these councilmembers play a game of Monopoly?
© Joyce Clark, 2014
FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law and who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use,’ you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Not defending Councilman Sherwood, but there is some truth to why he says he changed his mind about the casino issue. Former City manager Ed Beasley and a still sitting city administrator both told me in 2009 that “if my organization even talked to the Tohono O’odhams, it ‘could’ negatively impact our funding from the City”. It is my understanding that that “signal” (rather, gag order) was sent to many other organizations in Glendale and to city employees as well. The chairman of my organization and myself were both even “called on the carpet” by then Finance Director Art Lynch and told “we just didn’t understand the negative financial implications of a casino in our city” (when it wasn’t going to be IN our city). To add to that, pressure was being put on Beasley by property owners and then Coyotes ownership in the Westgate area to fight the casino, citing the fear of declining property values. Oddly enough, since then, all property owners offering objections that I am aware of have either sold their property and/or are in or have been in bankruptcy court (without any help/hindrance from the casino).
To the best of my knowledge, City administration stonewalled ANY attempt by the TO to even discuss the issue, until the council voted to “open dialogue” in 2013. I was pretty close to the issue, and if there were any attempts by city staff to “try mightily to meet with the TO to gain meaningful info”…I sure didn’t know about it. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen…but I have my doubts. If it did happen, it must have been “Top Secret”. The word was “we are not talking to them, we won’t talk to them, and you better not talk to them either…case closed”. You may have more inside info as a former council member, but several other council members at the time told me they were also told not to talk to anyone even associated with the TO’s.
I visited with Councilman Sherwood when he was elected and urged him to at least agree to open the lines of communication with the TO’s…especially since the City was losing every legal attempt they made to oppose the project. At least if the casino was approved and built…it seemed to make sense to me that you should, at some point, play nice with them as there could be a potential of significant dollars coming to the city in the future. What could possibly be gained to continue to stonewall the TO at every turn ? Not saying I swayed his change of heart, but at least he appeared to take it into consideration.
Remember, I am opposed to Indian gaming. I am a commercial gaming advocate, however. And, my father always told me….”If you can’t beat ’em…better join ’em”. I know those opposed to the TO’s still think they can fight and maybe win…maybe so. But I think you also must be prepared to “join ’em”. And I think I would rather have them as my friends than my enemies!
There is so much more to this whole issue….what we know only scratches the surface.
Don, you are absolutely correct about one thing…”there is so much more to this whole issue.” I suspect you missed the point of this article…was there horse trading between Sherwood and Chavira re: casino and arena deal? As for the Glendale casino there is Kool-Aid being consumed in large quantities by many. From the time the TO announced their plan in January, 2009 until the city council passed Resolution 4246 on April 7, 2009 good faith attempts were made to obtain concrete information from the TO and they stonewalled. After passage of Resolution 4246 it was city policy to oppose the casino and Beasley, having been instructed by council to legally oppose the casino, followed through by denying any further communication with the TO since it was in litigation.
You talked to Sherwood as did others in an effort to get him to support the casino but he didn’t change his stance until the fall of 2013, after Chavira voted for the arena deal in July, 2013.
Thanks…I knew you probably had more inside info. As for the horse trading…of course! I just wanted to point out that the TO’s aren’t the only bad guys in this whole thing. Beasley and company did their share of bullying, lying and stonewalling…and I got plenty of it.
My whole thing with this issue is that, no matter who wronged who, the opportunity lies there for a casino to be built and for the surrounding area to benefit from it..even if it is an Indian casino. They run first class operations…I just object to how they are regulated.
Glendale gets somewhat of a crappy deal, but better than no deal at all. And, who cares who the tribe is, really. The TO’s have NEVER given any concrete info…because they don’t have to. And neither did any of the other tribes when they negotiated their casinos…the Indians basically can do what they want!
At this point, why let the east and south Valleys reap the benefit of the casino action? That’s all I’m trying to say.
Good points, though. Thanks for the response!
Don, I understand your frustration with the city vs. the chamber on the casino issue back in the day. Your POV seems to be any casino, Indian or otherwise, is good. It is on this point that we will have to agree to disagree.
Not ANY casino, but fair enough. There ARE some bad casino operators out there, and I have dealt with my share of them over the years. However, the TO’s do run first rate casinos in the Tucson, Ajo area… as good as any of the other tribes. I just happen to believe the positives outweigh the negatives (even though I don’t like Indian gaming) from my 20 plus years of working with casinos…but I respect your position. I have witnessed, first hand, how a percentage of commercial casino revenues flowing to a municipality have made a tremendously positive impact (Clinton, Iowa).
Hey, it’s still fun to debate, anyway! 🙂
Is that city administrator a assistant city manager?
What city administrator are you referring to? Don? He is Past CEO of the Glendale Chamber of Commerce.
Joyce….
Had a hard time googling the article, and the AZ Republic’s pay wall archives aren’t the greatest for searches, but thanks to the Rose Law Group’s site I happened to find a back door link to the actual article for those who might question what you wrote.
The entire op-ed from Mr. Sherwood can be found at this link…
http://archive.azcentral.com/insiders/westvalleyeditorials/2013/05/21/sherwood-barrett-is-wrong-franks-is-right-casino-means-trouble/
Thanks. Had an old, very weathered copy that didn’t scan well but I still don’t know how to provide a link to my scanned files.