A Sept. 10 letter signed by Bremerton City Council President Greg Wheeler and Mayor Patty Lent was sent to developer Ron Ragge, manager of Gold Mountain Capital, LLC.  The entire letter was comprised of only three sentences that pushed citizen opposition and city disinterest in supporting the development of a casino at a location on Callow Avenue.

Whatever the supposed good intentions by the council and the mayor were towards not wasting time and resources by either side for a project that faces considerable challenges at the federal, tribal and city code levels, was quickly lost by the wording, timing and unprecedented execution of this letter.

A community sets a policy and creates codes that outline, guide and determine either by acceptance or denial the types of businesses allowed within its borders. Existing city code and policy determines at various times, their locations, footprints, layouts and the compliance or safety measures required for them to open their doors to the public.

Codes and policy exist for transparency and accountability. It exists to create a level and equal opportunity playing field of common rules and conditions without personal bias or prejudice.

Elected members of the city council are the stewards of the municipal policy and city codes. Legislation that changes, corrects, adds and/or subtracts to or from the policy is conducted and is legally required to occur in open, posted public meeting conditions, in full view, access and knowledge of the public.

The elected stewards of the policy and code are by the very nature of their elected status a vulnerable and transient group that comes and goes.  Their personal issues and agendas that influence their decisions or their interpretation of the rules also come and go with them. Municipal policy and code is the foundation and stability that can be relied upon for consistency and fairness during all of the transitions of the elected stewards.

Circumvention of or refusal to comply with the existing policy and code cracks the municipal foundation and closes the door on the fairness and consistency that has been so carefully crafted and put into place.

I fully understand the concerns and desires of the surrounding neighborhoods in regards to the proposed project in question. With the extremely limited amount of information that has been made public, many of those concerns are also mine. However, the end does not justify the means and equal opportunity and due process exists for both sides of this issue.

To single out a business for dismissal before that due process has been completed is a slippery slope. The letter of dismissal has sent a misleading message to the neighborhood involved and the community at large that the project has been stopped. It has not. The right of the developer to the current due process still exists and the ability for him to move forward within the existing process has not been legally impeded in any way by the vote of the council to generate and deliver the letter in question.