Dixon speaks his mind with respect to the Stack Land Deal

http://www.northeasttimes.com/2005/0707/letters.html

Land dealis self-serving.
Regarding the article Stack stands pat with land (June 16 edition), its content notes, "the legislator (Stack) did not publicly reveal his interest in Beach Street Corp., arguing later that a Senate Democratic attorney told him to simply skip the vote" while the final sentence stated, "he (Stack) listed his ownership in Beach Street on financial disclosure forms before and after his 2000 election to the Senate."While comprehending the aforementioned, a plethora of questions come to mind: Why didn’t Stack make public his ownership interest? Why did he feel it was sufficient to simply skip the vote?
Does Stack agree with Ameristar’s statement when the firm noted it was "unaware of the potential for conflict of interest concerns as a result of Sen. Mike Stack’s alleged failure to adequately disclose his 4-percent interest in Beach Street Corporation in accordance with Senate rules?" Are the needs of the residents of the 5th Senatorial District being adequately addressed when its senator is forced to allocate resources in an ongoing effort to explain the subject issue?As Stack noted, he listed his ownership on financial disclosure forms before and after his 2000 election, but logic suggests to me that this act alone does not suffice. If so, why the controversy?
Stack insults our intelligence by continuing to promote the ideal that "he does not have a say in how the company is run and has no interest in being involved in gaming." Stack was unaware of the details of a potential business opportunity that was going to generate $1.6 million due to his 4 percent interest? He was not aware of the potential buyer’s industry? The Las Vegas-based Ameristar Casino, Inc. (noted above) initiated a $40 million option on the subject land, which in addition to the senator’s previously noted proceeds, would have generated an additional $14.4 million for other family members who have ownership interests (his mother’s 20 percent and four siblings at 4 percent each). Quite a rewarding stream of additional income for a "public servant" and his family.
Regardless of party affiliation, it is shameful when an elected official conducts himself in such a manner. Our free market economy enables individuals to capitalize on opportunities similar to the subject, but not at the expense of one’s public office.Ed DixonTorresdale resident, member of Neighborhood Civic PAC. Reprinted courtesy of the Northeast Times.