I can't access the NYT article, so don't really know what the author is saying.
We know that the criteria that Tesla uses for Supercharger locations include:
Access to the primary highway
Distance from other Superchargers
Traffic counts
Real estate costs with rent or other fees
Obviously we don't know how Tesla ranks these criteria, especially in a location like Susanville that will not receive a lot of use, especially when compared to locations along interstates. It is entirely possible that the casino is not charging Tesla any rent, while other locations in town that are closer to 395 wanted some sort of rent payment. Highway 139 is more convenient traveling to and from K-Falls. Moreover, the location is more proximate for those on SR36 coming over from Red Bluff or from Redding or Mt. Shasta City via SR44. I would guess that there is going to be a lot more traffic on 139 and 36 than those souls heading from Reno to Alturas and beyond.
While I do not know for certain, I think this location has nothing to do with local politics or resistance to EVs. Susanville's ecoinomy also relies upon vacation travel, and most politicians realize that there are $$$$ to be spent locally at restaurants, motels, and other establishments by people passing through. More than likely, the casino location made sense to Tesla.