Thursday, April 4, 1996 | 11:59 a.m.
The City Council shot down a proposal to build a casino at Centennial Parkway and U.S. 95, saying traffic and quality of life would suffer.
The proposal for a 300-room, 50,000-square-foot casino, advanced by Olympic Nevada, owner of 226 acres at the intersection, would have been the largest gaming project in the mostly rural area.
During a marathon hearing on the casino, several consultants to Olympic argued their studies showed the project wouldn't cause undue stress to the streets, utilities or water service and that the benefits -- including jobs, tax revenue and a gaming destination for northwest residents -- would outweigh any disadvantages.
But the council strongly disagreed, finally rejecting Olympic's request to expand the gaming enterprise district by a 3-0 vote, with Councilman Arnie Adamsen abstaining and Mayor Jan Laverty Jones absent.
"There is no way I could ever support bringing another casino into the northwest area," Jones said before leaving for a trip. "I have never seen a (developer-financed) traffic study come back and say there's going to be a traffic impact."
Councilman Matthew Callister, who represents the area, agreed. "Quality of life means something," he said, before moving to deny the project.
Before the vote, however, the hearing turned nasty, with Callister and Olympic attorney Kristin McMillan arguing over quality of life issues surrounding the project. At one point, Callister objected to a list of alternatives to the casino, including businesses that would bring just as much traffic, more apartments and fewer jobs close to home.
"It strikes me as a type of extortion, to put it quite candidly," Callister told McMillan.
A handful of neighbors also turned out to protest the casino. "I think you have to liken this casino to Arizona Charlie's. They're dropping a box into the community," said Bill Starkey, president of the Sheep Mountain Homeowner's Association.
Tom Skancke, another consultant to Olympic, said he was surprised by the vote.
"I was a little disappointed that they didn't look at all the benefits," Skancke said. "I don't think there was an in-depth look at the economic impacts."
Callister, however, said Olympic's case was "poorly done" and that the company didn't meet the standards for a gaming zone.
archive
