Casino Attacks Preservation Group...calls Civil War Preservation Trust insulting, sad, implies they are illegal

[Susan Star Paddock]

At the same time the pros are slamming our local politicians for not coming out in their favor ,

at the same time LeVan is asking them behind the scenes to come out in their favor,

LeVan and Lashinger are criticizing CWPT for asking us all to write letters to the governor and legislators. This is totally bogus.

First, the application isn't even in yet.

second, LeVan when he was pushing Crossroads, held a rally in the rotunda of the State Capital. He actually brought in a bunch of union workers. The one I spoke to didn't know that that casino would have been a mile from hallowed ground.

Third, Lashinger and LeVan have spent mega-bucks on political donations.

Here's the Story as told by the Gettysburg Times:

Mason Dixon questions preservation group’s campaign

BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER
Times Staff Writer

Published: Monday, March 22, 2010 7:15 AM EDT

Developers behind the proposed Mason Dixon Resort & Casino think a letter-writing campaign organized by the Civil War Preservation Trust is “highly improper,” since it aims to influence legislators to oppose the Cumberland Township project.

In a letter dated March 18, Mason Dixon attorney Bernard A. Yannetti Jr. informs CWPT President James Lighthizer that “in organizing a letter-writing campaign to state legislators regarding the Mason Dixon application, you are attempting to compromise the licensing process by encouraging state lawmakers to exert their influence over the (Gaming Control) Board and the licensing process.”

Gettysburg businessman David LeVan and co-partner Joseph Lashinger are seeking a newly created “slots resort” license, and plan to file an application with the Gaming Control Board by the April 7 deadline. They are looking to convert the Eisenhower Inn along Business 15 south of Gettysburg into a resort — Mason Dixon Resort & Casino — with up to 600 slot machines, and 50 table games.

The Civil War Preservation Trust joined three other state and national organizations in January to announce opposition to the project. Now, the organization is directing opponents to write letters to state lawmakers, via a link on the group’s Web site.

Yannetti cited the state gaming act’s prohibition on “ex parte” interaction, defined as “off-the record communication engaged in or received by a member or (officer) of the board regarding…a pending matter before the board,” which may later come before the board in an official legal hearing or proceeding, such as the Mason Dixon proposal.

The seven-member gaming board is the sole agency responsible for issuing casino licenses in Pennsylvania.

“The Gaming Act requires the board to make their licensing decisions based solely on the information that is contained within the applications, presented to them during public hearings and disclosed in investigative reports,” wrote Yannetti. “Board members are prohibited from speaking with any person, including state lawmakers, regarding the merits of the applications for the remaining Category Three license.”

Mason Dixon spokesman David La Torre described the preservation group’s campaign as “really unfortunate and sad,” adding that it’s an “insult to the majority of people in Adams County who support the project.”

“To make matters worse, they’re pushing people to ask legislative leaders, including the governor, to exert their influence on the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board,” said La Torre. “That would clearly be against the law, and it’s an unfair request to make of these elected leaders.”

“Perhaps they should focus more on preserving land that is actually within the National Military Park’s boundaries,” continued La Torre. “The project they’re fighting isn’t even located in the park.”

A scientific survey released last week by nationally-recognized pollster Dr. G. Terry Madonna found that 62 percent of the 600 Adams County residents polled support the project. Opponents, such as the No Casino Gettysburg volunteer group, have argued that the poll results are skewed.

Preservationists argue that the Eisenhower Inn, while no new construction is planned with LeVan’s project, is situated only a “half-mile” from Gettysburg National Military Park boundaries, and that a casino would diminish the nearby Hallowed Ground.

The Civil War Preservation Trust was joined Jan. 28 by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the National Parks Conservation Association and Preservation Pennsylvania in announcing opposition to the Mason Dixon project. All four groups stressed that their position “does not stem from any opposition to gambling, but from our longstanding commitment to ensuring that singular and significant historic sites like the Gettysburg Battlefield are treated with the respect and consideration they deserve.”

The groups also opposed LeVan’s previous casino project — Crossroads Gaming Resort in Straban Township — in 2006. That proposal was denied by state gaming regulators.

The Preservation Trust has protected more than 29,000 acres of land since 1987, including 700 acres at Gettysburg. Now with a membership of 55,000, the Civil War Preservation Trust claims to be the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation agency in the United States.

[No Longer Idle]

The Pros are good at playing semantics I guess.....i.e. - "Two Miles from Maryland". If their proposal is so good, why do they need to mislead people?

[Susan Star Paddock]

letter sent to the reporter by a supporter
Scott,

Your recent article "Mason Dixon questions preservation group’s campaign" contains the statement,
"Preservationists argue that the Eisenhower Inn, while no new construction is planned with LeVan’s project, is situated only a “half-mile” from Gettysburg National Military Park boundaries"
Why is "half-mile" in quotation marks? Is this distance not a fact? Could you please report the correct number?

It also contains the statement,
"A scientific survey released last week by nationally-recognized pollster Dr. G. Terry Madonna found that 62 percent of the 600 Adams County residents polled support the project."
Why is the word "scientific" not included in quotation marks, as this is the opinion of the investors and Mr. Madonna and is disputed by many including Peter Miller, the president of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, who described the survey to the Hanover Evening Sun as, "It's more of a strategy-development tool than something that portrays public opinion. They only posed positive scenarios. So they're trying to get guidance about what kind of things they could say to help them out."

I know you own the ink, and there is little point in arguing with you, but I would hope your future articles could separate facts from "opinion."