Letter: Where were civic fathers at meeting?
So! Where were the city and county fathers the evening of March 12?
They certainly were not at the fairgrounds, testifying to the argument for not allowing the proposed Avenue 17 casino from coming to our community. Oh, there were citizens, and a few pastors who spoke against the casino. And some concerned tribal leaders and members of other tribes said their gaming operations would be negatively impacted by the unfair placement. Oh, and there were a lot of suits.
But, I don’t think there were any city fathers there.
There were a whole bunch of elected and appointed city and county officials there, numerous persons from the different chambers of commerce, building trades, Realtors, speaking in favor, but I don’t think I heard any city fathers get up and speak.
Call me old fashioned, call me archaic, call me the fringe, and maybe even call me delusional, but I think the phrase, “city fathers” was real important 50, 75, and 100 years ago. I think it meant there were men of the community, of stature and wisdom, who were certainly concerned about the negative affects of things going on in the community and how it affected families and especially children.
The city fathers’ wisdom to know when it was time to build schools, how and when the city and county governments would be formed, and even how and when to control sources of vice when it caused a serious problem is what made them city fathers.
Where is that wisdom now?
Jon Barsotti,
Madera
Webmaster’s note: The following text is the rest of Jon Barsotti’s letter as printed in The Madera Tribune on Monday. It seemed better to split the text into two parts on the Web site because of the lengthiness of his opinion, which was far beyond the normal allowance for letters to the editor.
Vice. That is an interesting word. I don’t think we even know what it means. Well, at least I had to look it up. And the definition, according to my Webster ’s, is:
a: Moral depravity or corruption. b: A moral fault or failing. c: A habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming.
And so forth. So, what a range of degrees. Certainly casino gaming for many persons is or will be a vice. And for many, a vice they cannot shake. To say it is not a vice for most casino gamblers is just not being friends with the truth.
In the Fresno Bee on March 10, a tribal chairperson is quoted as saying the EIR meeting, “is intended to get comment on the Environmental Impact Report and the tribe’s mitigation measures — not to decry the morality of gambling.”
I actually agree with that statement — for the meeting. But it is up to the community to decide what vice they will or will not allow into this community — the community, not an outside entity.
And concerning mitigation — the report says there will be 700 new problem gamblers added to the expected existing 1,400 problem gamblers for a new total of 2,100 problem gamblers. Problem gamblers are addressed on 1 1/4 pages (4.7-8) of the Report. I asked three persons involved with the report what the page count was and they didn’t know.
My guess is, by the thickness, 400-600 pages — and less than 1 1/2 pages are for problem gamblers. And absolutely not a word on how these problem gamblers will be affected by convenient gambling, or how their families, spouses or significant others, and children, will be affected.
Am I wrong or is something missing? I say the socioeconomic section is incomplete.
Oh, the offer to mitigate the problem gambling is $50,000 per year. Just a guess on my part, but being really conservative, 2,100 problem gamblers are going to be a problem for 1,000 spouses and 1,200-1,800 children. Hypothetical? The report projects the 2,100, not the opposition.
And arguments can be made from both directions, but the fact is, gambling, for some, is a real sickness and a real problem. To not believe this is not logical.
So, how will this sickness, this vice, affect our community, our welfare costs, and especially our children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren for decades to come? And don’t think problem gambling could never touch our family. The report does not address these issues. Why not? Is it afraid we would become informed?
Where are the city and county fathers on this issue? I would be real careful of which side of this issue I was on. Especially, if I saw it as a way to put a few more dollars into my government coffers or especially my pocket.
As for the children — Jesus said it, not I. “Whatever you do unto the least of these, my little ones, you have done it unto me.” We will be judged as a community and individually in this matter.
Don’t be fooled — God is watching. You can’t say, “I didn’t know.”