Following a comment attributed to me in Thursday’s newspaper, I’d like to make a clarification of my personal opinion regarding the proposed changes to the third amendment to the original lease agreement for a casino development at Roth Hill Road. The proposed revision to the third amendment brings a slight improvement, but still deprives the city of the full benefit of the original contract.

On Jan. 12, I submitted a letter of request for information and documentation regarding the casino development. When a city is involved in the sale or lease of public property, certain requirements must be met and certain procedures must be followed, according to state law. Procedural law governs, for instance, the way in which a price is determined for the lease or sale of public property. Appraisals are required in order to determine a fair market value. The legislature enacted these laws to protect taxpayers and citizens from abuse of power by elected officials.

Additionally, local agencies and commissions must issue permits for the Roth Hill casino site, which attest to public safety and appropriateness of use for the site. The documents that I requested will help in affirming that the law was followed and legitimate approval was given for the project.

In regard to my statement in the Wednesday, Feb. 9, edition of The Natchez Democrat, I wish to further clarify my opinion concerning the third amendment to the original lease. My contention is that our elected officials should hold Natchez Enterprises accountable to the terms of the original lease, signed on July 10, 2007.

The promises made in the original lease are the terms upon which city officials made their choice of developers. Local authorities and the Mississippi Gaming Commission gave Natchez Enterprises temporary approval to begin construction based on the promises and terms in the original lease. They should continue on those terms.

Natchez Enterprises signed the original contract and their choice of financial partners should find the original contract acceptable. To make additional demands on our city at this late date is unacceptable.

Our city leaders, our aldermen and alderwoman, are within their legal right to refuse a new set of rules! And I encourage them to do so.

 

Gwen Ball

Natchez resident