LEWISTON — Maine’s newest casino will remain open while environmental officials revisit the development permit review process less than two months after the casino opened for business, officials said Monday.
On Wednesday, the Board of Environmental Protection permit granted in July 2011 for development of the Oxford Casino was vacated after a Superior Court justice found the BEP violated its rules and state law in approving the permit.
Attorney Stephen Hinchman, who represents the Androscoggin River Alliance in the lawsuit against casino owner Black Bear Development and the Department of Environmental Protection, said that given the court’s decision to vacate the permit, DEP is violating state law by allowing the casino to stay open.
DEP officials said the agency will follow the judge’s order to reopen the development permit process but that it has no intention of telling the Oxford Casino to shut its doors.
Attorney David Van Slyke, who represents the casino in this case, said in a statement, “We have been asked to comment on the recent Kennebec County Superior Court decision regarding one permit issued for the development of the Oxford Casino. This decision deals with certain technical aspects of one of the Oxford Casino’s DEP permits regarding project phasing under the Maine Site Location of Development Act. The court’s decision did not indicate in any way that the casino poses any environmental harm, and the decision does not require the casino to shut down. The Oxford Casino is in agreement with the position of the DEP and the [attorney general’s] Office in this case and will continue to cooperate with the DEP and all regulatory agencies.”
In a 10-page decision, Kennebec County Superior Court Justice Michaela Murphy ruled that the DEP wrongly granted a development permit to Black Bear Development last year for considering just the first phase of the three-phase Oxford Casino project. Murphy vacated the development permit and ordered the permit application be sent back to the DEP for further consideration.
DEP officials and staff from the attorney general’s office met Monday to discuss the court’s decision, with both agencies expressing disappointment in Murphy’s ruling.
Casino owner BB Development LLC pursued the development in good faith and in accordance with the permit issued by the department, DEP officials said in a statement.
“No allegation by the appellant or findings by the court since have shown this development has caused any environmental degradation, nor did the appellant seek a stay of the construction of the project,” according to the DEP.
On Sunday, Hinchman said the segmented process by which the DEP reviewed the Oxford Casino permit never has been done in the 40-year history of state permitting procedure. The provision in Maine’s Site Location of Development Act to review permits for projects at full build-out rather than in pieces “has never been in question before,” he said.
“Frankly, the problem here is we had a new administration and they didn’t like the law and they tried to change it by executive fiat,” he said.
“It’s too bad that [Gov. Paul] LePage tried to ram through a permit based on political power instead of getting a permit based on good science and compliance with the law,” which he said has placed Black Bear Development in its current “pickle.”
On Monday afternoon, Adrienne Bennett, director of communications for LePage, said “the governor did not have any involvement in that decision-making process.”
In her ruling, Murphy wrote that all phases of projects must be considered in the permitting process. This is required, she wrote, because it “would be senseless, and contrary to the legislative intent, to allow applicants to circumvent” state law “by remaining silent about those long-term impacts that can be reasonably anticipated, and about which evidence is available” for multiphase projects.
Hinchman criticized Black Bear Development for moving forward with casino construction even after the alliance filed suit, saying it’s not a smart way to do business to “build your project as quickly as you can and dare a court to shut you down.”
Hinchman believes the DEP is obliged to force the casino to close pending approval of its Phase I permit. And, if the DEP isn’t willing to do that, he said, the Maine Gambling Control Board can and should.
Patrick Fleming, executive director of the gambling board, said the five-member board probably will follow the lead of the DEP. The board last met on July 17 and is not scheduled to meet again until next month.
Ronald Hamilton of Oxford, a plaintiff in the River Alliance lawsuit against the DEP and Black Bear Development, said he doesn’t think the DEP will shut down the casino, but he does expect some kind of “out of court settlement.” He joined the suit, he said, because he wanted to hold the casino accountable for its effect on the environment.
Hamilton lives about a mile from the casino on property served by a private groundwater well. He and his wife, who is also a plaintiff, are concerned that the casino will result in pollution to surface waters of surrounding ponds and groundwater, which could affect their drinking water source and enjoyment of local water for recreation.
Dennis Bailey of CasinosNo! who has actively campaigned against casino projects in Maine for years, said the DEP’s decision to allow the casino to remain open while it reviews its Phase I permit sets a bad precedent.
“It’s basically telling developers to go ahead with your projects even without proper permits, and there will be no consequence later on if it turns out otherwise,” Bailey said.
To see more from the Sun Journal, visit sunjournal.com.
Shut the dump down. The parking lot is empty on most days.
Yes, yes, I want to sit in front of a video screen and feed my money into it. What fun! Video games don’t steal from people, people steal from people.
Video games dont steal from people, people donate money to video games. The casino is not “stealing” anything, people willingly go there and give away their money
True enough. You are right of course. Drug dealers don’t prey on folks either: users can use or choose not too. Ask any junkie. Beer companies don’t hope that folks stay addicted to their product either. People don’t have to use. It is their choice. David, I do in fact agree with you, truelly. I can’t see running a business that preys on folks’ weaknesses, though, but I guess making money, for some folks, is the most important thing. We are in big trouble.
This just in: Every consumer business preys on people’s weaknesses!
I challenge you to name one consumer business that does NOT use people’s weaknesses to sell products.
I was in construction my whole life. Is wanting a house a weakness? Is building what is asked of me preying on someone’s weakness? What a simplistic dodge.
The housing market crash.
Try again.
What does that have to do with me building what a consmer has asked me to build? I am preying on their weakness?
To be technical I am talking about a consumer business. You are in a service business.
But there are a million TV shows, commercials and ads saying that “your home is terrible and you should feel bad, why not go spend money at XXXX store”.
Gotcha. There are those who reason that capitalism is a dead end because it depends on folks consuming goods that, eventually, will deplete resources. Basically, capitalism depends on planned obsolescence.
Well, that went better than expected.
Has every industry paid the neuro sicence departments 100’s of millons over the years to figure out what fires the synapse in peoples brains to give them pleasure. like sound, climate, colors etc. etc. and the also remove all clocks and windows as to disorient etc, etc… If the state and local governments weren’t getting such a large take, they would protect the people from predatory practices such as these
Sort answer, yes.
McDonald’s spends 2 BILLION a year on advertising. You can bet each ad is designed to make people hungry for their food. Everything these large companies do is on purpose and very thought out. The color and design of the logo, the way a commercial is shot and what time it plays, who they market in what areas.
Singling out one business for using “nuero science” to entice customers is foolhardy when every company is guilty of it.
yes, but you know what your getting when you enter McDonalds, Slot machines give you hope of winning MONEY, McDonalds doesn’t
At the base level all consumer products are selling happiness. Happiness from winning money or from eating a cheese burger. The principal is the same. This happiness is fleeting, money gets spent and cheeseburgers get eaten. It’s the companies job to make you continually chase that fleeting moment of happiness gotten from consuming.
Then the tea party is in the same business since they revel in the delight of causing so many people misery and pain while making so many others happy that it happens.
It’s always someone else’s fault. Nobody should take responsibility for their own actions.
The Board, the State, the town/city all make money on slots. why would they protect the people. I believe they regulate the payouts and that they are slanted way over to the rule makers side.
The problem I see with “gaming” is that the public believes it’s like rolling dice and it is nothing like rolling dice. It is no more random than the sun coming up in the morning.
Strange I don’t hear you lib whiners crying about the State Lottery who preys almost completely on the poor..In fact it could be said it is a money laundrying scam to funnel welfare and SSDI money back into the general fund…As with all libs..State good , private sector bad…
I’ve no idea what you are talking about and I doubt you do either. You sound like a preacher: all mouth, no ears. Is that you, Mr. LePage?
And all conservatives support corporate welfare.
People choose how to spend their entertainment dollars. Some enjoy going to bars, clubs, concerts, movie theatres, Bingo, etc. Others enjoy going to the casino for a little fun. As long as it stays fun who are they hurting? Big bucks must be going to the state on the profits the casino makes too.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, as I don’t go to casinos, but what I wonder is this; does the Androscoggin River Alliance and Mr. Hinchman have any empathy whatsoever for all the folks who will be put out of work if the casino is shut down as they are demanding? If the DEP determines that the additional phases that have not yet been built will be harmful to the environment, then don’t allow those additional phases to be built, but don’t screw a bunch of folks who are working there and trying to earn a living.
I agree with you 100%. I’m not the least bit interested in gambling but the people that are will find a place to gamble one way or the other and if it keeps these people employed it might as well be there until they get this whole mess straightened out.
Now if Androscoggin River Alliance and Mr. Hinchman will pay the wages of all those that would be out of work and the Casino’s overhead, I’m sure that they would be willing to close while this gets resolved …………………….. NO …………………………… well, they constructed with a permit issued for phase I and if it comes to it they can aways scrap phases II & III, so no reason for them to close.
Also if they were so concerned for the environment, WHY didn’t Androscoggin River Alliance and Mr. Hinchman buy that trace of land and make a sanctuary?
why does the media always run to bailey to get his opinion who cares about him hows the latest chandler files coming along dennis?
Their concerns have nothing to do with the environment…they are anti casino, and will use whatever laws or avenues they can to shut it down.
If the State dropped the ball, the business should not be adversely affected by it. To shut them down would cause a huge hardship for it’s employees, and the business. I say let it stay open. Of course, I am not one of those who want to see all casinos shut down, or an ultra-environmentalist that opposes all new development, which really seems to be the driving force here. Another instance of special interests trying to subvert the will of the voters. If you can’t win the vote, sue!