They want to make the amendment retroactive to November 14, 2018!

Link to Petition

From August 24, 2019 (Facebook post)

One of the 3 remaining cases is 60CV-19-9172: Citizens for a Better Pope County and James Knight vs. The Arkansas Racing Commission.

In their initial petition, they ask for relief on the basis that the Second Casino Application Period was illegal.

In an April 10th, 2020, letter to the Racing Commission (defendant) counsel, CNB’s attorney, Dustin McDaniel, wrote,

At the (January 3rd) hearing, Judge Griffin made quite clear that no part of his TRO extended to the ARC’s ability to consider any application submitted pursuant to the “good cause” provision. My partner, Mr. Richardson, asked the Court if it would be permissible to proceed pursuant not to the Second Application period but upon a showing of good cause for submitting an application. Judge Griffen articulately made his point, as Judge Griffen often does, so that it would not take an attorney to decipher when he said: “I double, triple dog dare anyone to point to a single word in my order that applies to the ‘good cause’ provisions in the Rules.”

CNB had submitted its application for the second application period with a cover letter that stated that it was being submitted for “good cause.” Whether the Racing Commission or their counsel recognized that doesn’t matter. The plaintiffs were correct. There is nothing in the gaming rules that allowed for an additional application period.

The application was subsequently submitted and accepted by the Racing Commission, along with requested supplemental material, under the “good cause” provision of the casino gaming rules.

This case is the one that resulted in the temporary restraining order that stopped the licensing process. The Racing Commission and their counsel (the AG’s office) recognized that they could not proceed with the Second Application Period application under the casino gaming rules as they stood.

The basis for the case is now moot with the application submitted under “good cause.” The case is also moot with a license having been issued.

The case should be dismissed in the very near future.

At the August 13, 2019 quorum court meeting, Quorum Court Attorney Clay McCall explained why the county’s local option ordinance wouldn’t work. An ordinance presently before the quorum court is similarly unworkable.

I transcribed Clay McCall’s discussion in an August 2019 blog post. Here are a few excerpts:

Local Ordinance 18-0-42, known as the local option ordinance, was an attempt to restrict the Pope County Judge and the Pope County Court.., Quorum Court, from issuing a letter of support or a resolution of support without first submitting the issue to a vote to the citizens of Pope County.

The amendment requires each applicant to have a letter of support or resolution of support were issued by the county judge court or quorum court, respectively.
This is a constitutional power afforded to the county judge and quorum court and cannot be restricted by legislature or local ordinance.

The Arkansas Constitution is the preeminent law of the land. With regards to any conflict between the Constitution and state and local legislation, the Constitution prevails.

The language of the ordinance attempted to prevent the Pope County Judge or Quorum Court from issuing their support.

However, no local legislation shall be enacted contrary to the Constitution or any general law of the state and any general law shall have the effect of repealing any local legislation which is in conflict therewith.

So, if the ordinance is, in fact, in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution, by effect, repeals the ordinance.

…the local ordinance is in conflict with Arkansas Constitution Amendment 100, which expressly grants the county judge and Pope County Quorum Court the authority to issue a letter or resolution of support.

Of course, since the license has been issued, the current proposed ordinance is moot, but it is still on the agenda for the next quorum court meeting for the third and final reading.

Just sayin’

The precedent was set in 2019 when they refunded it to all of the applicants.

By refunding the full amount, they avoid 1 item of potential litigation from Gulfside.

The Casino Gaming Rules provide for returning half of the fee. The State of Arkansas incurred unnecessary costs they wouldn’t have otherwise.

It was a prudent move to return the full amount. It avoids potential litigation from Gulfside on that point. However, returning the whole amount is not covered in the gaming rules, though I do think it comes within the administrative authority of the Commission.

This is from Russellville Resolution No. 1790, December 19th, 2019, “A Resolution Addressing City Services for Cherokee Nation Businessess’s Casino Development for their “Site 1” and for Other Purposes.

It’s in the application, which I am pretty sure the Racing Commissioners didn’t get this deep into the document.

Forget about the people in power. This facility is going to have the biggest impact on the city and the people of Russellville. The biggest population center of the county is Russellville. Most of the 911 calls (police, fire, ambulance) are for people in Russellville. Most of the incarcerated people are from Russellville. Away from the casino itself, the biggest impact on infrastructure as it exists now and infrastructure needs of the future because of the new facility will be in Russellville. Sure, some of the traffic may venture out into the county, but most who venture away from the facility will go into town.

Just think beyond the current bozos and think of the people and the future.

More from the APPLICATION. (yeah, I’m still reading it)

Comment: I recall reading that CNB has a target goal of having 3% of their work force be disabled as defined by the ADA.
That’s admirable.

That is in the Economic Development Agreement.

The Economic Development Agreement is more than the $38.8 million that the media seems fixated on.

Another thing that’s admirable is their commitment to their employees. They’ve NEVER had a layoff. Noone has gone without a paycheck during COVID, including one of the ladies who works in the R’ville office and she was hired in February 2020, just before the pandemic hit.

The Gulfside case was a judicial review of this Racing Commission order. After over 2 years, three months, and three trips through Judge Fox’s docket, the October 2021 Supreme Court Ruling, in essence, affirmed the order.

It’s done.

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF POPE STATE OF ARKANSAS AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

(descriptions of several tracts of land follows)

pdf of license