BestCraps.com

Environmental Effects of Upcoming Casino Project Questioned

Posted on September 14th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

In most development projects that involve the construction of a casino, groups that support the move and those that go against them usually have their standard reasons. For pro casino groups, the main argument to let developments with casinos be allowed would be threefold: for government to get more revenue, for more people to get employment and for the economy of the entire area to be boosted because of increased businesses and tourism activities. On the other hand, those against casinos would usually claim that casinos literally destroy the moral fiber of the residents in the area where it will be built. Those against casinos believe that is expected that residents from a town with a casino there will be involved in problems including gambling addiction, which leads to other problems like bankruptcy and the possibility of committing crimes like theft. Meanwhile, other social ills such as prostitution and drug trafficking are also being connected by other people to casinos.

For some sectors in the tourist hotspot of Lake Tahoe, though, opposition to a casino project is being forwarded for another reason – the environment. The areas watchdog groups that concern themselves with preserving the environment claim that there is something to be worried about in the Tahoe Biltmore redevelopment project, particularly in the environmental impact portion of the developer’s final report. The development plan is targeted at the area of Boulder Bay, which will house a hotel with 300 rooms, a casino spanning 10,000 square feet, 59 units available for whole ownership, a spa and other features. The report, entitled the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Boulder Bay project, includes ideas, amendments and reviews from various stakeholders, particularly organizations related to the local government, the citizenry and the environment.

The League to Save Lake Tahoe, one organization aimed at the preservation of the area, through its program director Carl Young has admitted that his group did not have enough time to really evaluate the document. But given the limited time they were give to analyze it, the members of his organization think that some issues , such as unmanageable traffic levels may prove to be concerns that are still outstanding. Young commented, “If there were no substantive changes to the traffic analysis put forth in the document, the league will still have issues with this project. We have concerns that this project will even be unable to maintain the VMT (vehicle miles traveled) baseline, let alone accomplish a reduction.” Young thinks that the gains with increased tourist arrivals to the area because of the casino resort facility will be trounced by the negative effects, such as traffic congestion, which may resort to increased noise and air pollution. He adds, “Tourists don’t come to Tahoe to languish in traffic jams. They come here to escape them.”

The FEIS also have insufficient answers when it came to other environmental concerns aside from traffic congestion, according to the president of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, Ann Nichols. She claims that issues such as the lack of sidewalks in the area, the final height of the buildings in the project which can affect wind movement patterns, the noise that may be produced during construction and actual operation and the effects of the casino’s operations on Speedboat beach which is close to the area, were not sufficiently addressed by the report. Nichols said, “We had really hoped the developer would have come up with substantive responses, but it is more of the same old justifications.”

The manager of the Boulder Bay Project, Brian Helm said that the project’s development has been focused on making the area friendlier to pedestrians instead of making it more of a strip development. He adds that the TRPA code only provides a threshold for scenery, not for height. For that concern, the scenic elements of the area have been improved by the developers by moving the buildings further from the road and getting rid of visible parking lots and replacing them with basement parking. The TRPA’s spokesman, Dennis Oliver, said that the points raised by environmental groups will only make the entire project better and will ultimately benefit the project’s execution. He adds, “The more robust public involvement we can get for the project, the better the decision the entire basin will end up with.”