The failure of the Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association last week to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that it place a casino advisory measure on the June ballot was as much puzzling as it was disappointing.

The group didn't even vote on this important issue; its members sidestepped it entirely when they referred it to their executive committee due to an apparent “lack of clarity” in the organization's bylaws. Since this committee, which rarely meets, won't consider the issue until well beyond the deadline for placing measures on the June ballot, the group's inaction may have killed the chance of giving county voters the opportunity to weigh in on a proposed mega-casino development in Rohnert Park — a project that would cause extensive, lasting and irreparable harm to Petaluma and Sonoma County.

Curiously, while some cities' leaders had discussed their position before they came to the meeting last week, the city of Petaluma arrived at the meeting wholly unprepared. The reason: Petaluma Mayor Pam Torliatt had failed to agendize this important issue to enable the City Council to discuss and vote on the matter in advance.

South county Supervisor Mike Kerns, who previously expressed support for a measure, has now backed off, citing concerns about the cost (estimated to be between $63,000 and $126,000) and using the mayors and councilmembers group's dithering as an excuse for not bringing it to the Board of Supervisors.

Kerns should recognize, however, that two supervisors elected in 2008, Shirlee Zane and Efren Carrillo, stated they would support just such an advisory measure. Zane signed a pledge in support of a measure before the election and Carrillo subsequently said he would support it. With Kerns as a third vote of support, the supervisors could go ahead and place the measure on the June ballot.

A countywide advisory measure would send a very strong message to the governor and the state Legislature, who would have to recognize and take into account public sentiment before approving any gaming agreement. A public vote would be the people's only chance to weigh in on the single largest commercial development in the county's history — a project that is wholly exempt from state and county environmental laws, zoning ordinances and all other local land-use regulations.

Given the sheer magnitude of the project and its many deleterious environmental impacts, shouldn't members of the public at least get a chance to express their opinions on the 762,300-square-foot development before it's built?

What's at stake is nothing less than the quality of life of this county. According to county officials, the project will bring unacceptably large increases in traffic congestion on Highway 101, crime, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and groundwater degradation — and there would be no way to mitigate any of these impacts. The county would forever be scarred, with Las Vegas gambling interests being the primary beneficiary.

Yes, the county is strapped for cash and should look very carefully at each and every expenditure. However, Kerns has already secured a $31,000 pledge from a leading opponent of the casino, the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, to help underwrite the cost of the advisory measure. Supervisors should also consider that the long-terms costs to Sonoma County from the project will far outweigh the relatively small investment aimed at giving people a voice in the process.

Despite the inaction by the mayors and councilmembers' association, there is no reason why Kerns can't step forward and bring the issue to his fellow supervisors anyway.

The many long-term negative impacts to the county of the casino development going forward are worth at least that much effort.