Casino Project a Loser

Oxnard’s gamble on a retail outlet mall hasn’t exactly paid off with a jackpot but trying to cut the losses by adding an Indian casino to the site would be an even worse bet.

We encourage all three of the Oxnard City Council members who thus far have not opposed the project--Tom Holden, Dean Maulhardt and Bedford Pinkard--to join John Zaragoza and Mayor Manuel Lopez in voting no.

Las Vegas-based Paragon Gaming Corp. proposed a casino and 250-room hotel for 25 acres spanning the struggling Oxnard Factory Outlets and an adjacent field after it was rebuffed by Ventura County in a recent attempt to build an Indian casino at Channel Islands Harbor. Paragon is a partner of the Greenville Rancheria of Maidu Indians, a Northern California tribe that has no tribal lands. The tribe has filed a tentative development agreement with Oxnard.

Under the plan, the casino would be completed in two phases. The 21,600 square-foot first phase would open six months after the project is approved. The gambling operation would include 349 slot machines, 50 tables and a 15-seat snack bar. After two years, a 50,500 square-foot expansion would add 349 slot machines, 100 gambling tables, a restaurant, office building and storage area.

Like the Channel Islands proposal, the Oxnard plan is an outgrowth of Proposition 1A, the ballot measure that amended the state constitution to allow Indian tribes to operate slot machines and blackjack tables at reservation casinos. A handful of proposals have surfaced across the state to build casinos in urban areas.

Normally the governor would need to sign off on an Indian casino that wanted to expand its reservation, but because the Maidu tribe is landless, the governor has no direct veto power.

And so the decision rests with the Oxnard City Council. Over the strong objections of Lopez and Zaragoza, the council ordered city staff to prepare a report on the pros and cons of a casino. The report is due before May 8, when the council is expected to vote.

Supporters say the plan would bring money and jobs to a city that needs them. We question how good most of those jobs would be, at least the ones likely to be filled by local residents. Mayor Lopez put it well when he told The Times, “The positive effects will mostly go to the investors; the negative will go to the neighbors in Oxnard.”

We agree with Supervisor John Flynn, who represents Oxnard. He describes the casino plan as “a vacuum cleaner that would take money from our citizens [and give it] to Las Vegas and an Indian tribe.”

By its very nature a casino is designed to produce winners and losers. We know Paragon and the Maidu expect to be the winners. We can’t imagine why the people of Oxnard and their elected officials would choose to be the losers.