Parties Say No GBPA-Casino Deal
GETTYSBURG, Pa. – The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association’s (GBPA) Aug. 16 endorsement of the proposed Mason-Dixon casino in Gettysburg was not sought by casino applicant David LeVan “or any officials related to Mason-Dixon,” according to spokesman David La Torre. This was confirmed by GBPA President Brendan Synnamon. La Torre also denied rumors that LeVan ever promised money in exchange for the GBPA’s support. Questions about possible money for the endorsement were raised after details surfaced over remarks at the January 2010 GBPA board meeting. Meeting minutes include: “[GBPA President] Kathi [Schue] reminded the board that if the ‘casino’ license gets approved, Dave [LeVan] had, at the time of the original project, indicated that GBPA would receive $250,000 a year for 10 years.” The “original project” refers to LeVan’s Crossroads casino proposal in Gettysburg, which was rejected by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2006. At the January meeting Schue moved that the board support LeVan’s efforts to purchase the Eisenhower Inn. His pending application is for a resort hotel casino license at that site, which he has under option. Schue confirmed to Civil War News that she and LeVan discussed him donating money to GBPA if it endorsed his Crossroads project. She said it was a verbal understanding she and LeVan had back then. In an email La Torre said, “There was never, ever any promise made to GBPA for financial support by Crossroads. Period. None.” Schue testified before the Gaming Board in 2006 in favor of the Crossroads application. While she was GBPA president at the time, Schue spoke only for herself as an individual, she explained. The organization did not endorse Crossroads. Some who were present at the January GBPA board meeting got the impression that the money for endorsing Crossroads would be given if GBPA endorsed the current Mason-Dixon proposal. Concurring with La Torre and Synnamon, Schue said there was no such agreement. When the GBPA board voted in August, with one against, to endorse the current casino proposal, there had been no contact with Mason-Dixon or LeVan, according to Synnamon. He said the board looked at the proposal from a narrow, preservation-only perspective, considering that it would not change the building and parking lot footprint or viewshed since existing commercial property would be reused.
|
