It's about the casino, stupid!

In rebuttal to Vincent Armenta's article in Capitol Weekly, a Santa Ynez resident says it clearly enough that even Mr. Armenta should understand. It's not about race hatred. (How can it be about "race" when most people have potted plants that are more "Indian" than the "Chumash"?) According to Vincent however people like Ms. Bowen here are full of hatred and jealousy, and have no business stating their opinion, she's just another whacko, gonzo, hater.

“Hate groups” or average citizens?
By Kathryn Bowen (published Thursday, November 08, 2007)

I am a 43-year-old mother of two. I have a family, a job, a home, I vote and I pay my taxes.

In the year 2000, a 260,000 square foot casino gets built in the heart of our rural community in Santa Ynez Valley (Population 22,000) less than a mile from four elementary schools and our high school with little to no input from the public. In fact, the mere questioning of the size and scope of the project brought immediate and brutal allegations of racism among other epithets from tribal Chairman, Vincent Armenta and tribal spokeswoman Frances Snyder.

Fast forward 7 years. Not much has changed. Screaming racism or “hate” as Chairman Armenta did in his November 1 “Gonzo journalism gone wild” commentary in Capitol Weekly is far easier than to address the real issues of land use, regulatory paralysis, the loss of representative government and the outright abuse of federal law.

Slowly our rights as a community have disappeared as elected officials continue to turn their backs on the people that elected them to office and open their pocket books to big gambling interests. Unlike much of the legalized gambling spreading like a cancer across this country, our casino along with 390 other tribal casinos nationwide are non-transparent, government sponsored, cash printing machines. Casino tribes are allowed to rely on services and infrastructure provided by the hosting community, but the community in turn cannot impose its regulatory system or property taxes for reimbursement because it is perceived as impeding on their sovereignty.

Let’s just be very clear. Casino tribes are not subject to the same laws or taxes as any other business in this country, are not accountable to host communities, not accountable to their own tribal members and if four casino tribes have their way come February, not accountable to the California taxpayer either. Yet, taxpayers are expected to subsidize a $27 billion and growing industry. Shall we dump the tea in the harbor one more time?

These issues are serious enough but just the tip of the iceberg. The more global issues are still submerged under the surface and considering the exhaustive list of related cases before our federal courts, is about to erupt.

Bottom Line: The American taxpayer and the growing number of disenrolled tribal members have become collateral damage to our government in a disastrous experiment that began with a train called the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) and given “run away status” when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was passed in 1988. Promoting inequality and separatism through granting gambling monopolies and allowing tens of thousands of acres to be placed into federal trust status to expand “sovereign” tribal territories within our borders because of past persecution is misguided at best and at worst will undue the constitutional protections secured to all people, tribal and non-tribal.

All we have requested from the press is to report the facts without bowing down to intimidation methods or multi-millions of dollars of casino advertising revenue. Nancy Crawford-Hall of the Santa Ynez Valley Journal has done both for our community. Giving Chairman Armenta space to spew such hateful and divisive remarks without having to address the real issues illustrates the kind of intimidation host communities have put up with for years.

Since when did taxpaying, law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to question what our government is doing become the enemy and labeled “hate groups” for challenging flawed federal laws that are weakening a democratic form of government?

Worldwide, casinos are being shut down by the thousands due to the economic and social strain they produce. So why is it considered “hate” when we challenge tribes and our government in their partnered effort to promote gambling as “easy money” when taxpayers are going to be the ones footing a very expensive bill when the party is over and the hangover begins? Why can we not question the Governor for signing every taxpaying citizen on to this lie of free money when he can privately negotiate deals excluding the host communities that are affected the most?

We challenge the Governor and the legislators on the false promise of growing revenue for the state. Where is the close to $1 billion Governor Schwarzenegger promised from his renegotiated 2004 compacts? He has collected an anemic $27 million with costs to the state continuing to grow. Just one example: Governor Schwarzenegger recently took away $1.3 million our community was suppose to receive from the Special Distribution Fund (SDF) intended to minimally mitigate the impacts of the casino. Who is going to pay for this?

The myriad of constitutional issues along with the fallacy that gambling revenue with solve budgetary shortfalls and stimulate economic vitality in our state must be questioned. Hate isn’t the issue.


RELATED ARTICLES:
Gonzo! Whacko! Holy Bingo Batman!!
SY Valley's Journal

The Rose Colored Glasses are OFF in Orange County

Too often we hear plaintive murmers about 'job creation' and 'economic boosting' by communities contemplating an indian casino in their midst. Not so in Orange County though, at least in Congressman John Campbell's office. From the California Republic.

Of Casinos and Indian Tribes
by John Campbell [congressman]
By now you may have heard that there are several groups trying to get federal recognition as the federally sanctioned Juaneno Indian Tribe in Orange County. It is very clear that the groups seeking recognition as this tribe are doing so because they intend to establish a casino in urban Orange County. I have a copy of a lobbying contract under which the lobbyists are paid only by a contingent fee of the "take" of the eventual casino. If there is no casino, they are working for free. Furthermore, the Orange County Register recently featured a story in which one of the tribe organizers, Joyce Stanfield Perry, says, “it is our inherent right to build any kind of economic development once we have a government-to-government relationship.” There has been talk of putting this casino in San Juan Capistrano or near Irvine's Great Park. The Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs is scheduled to decide whether to recognize this tribe in about 60 days. If they do achieve recognition technically they could establish a casino on any land they buy in Orange County, although they would have to get a gambling "compact" with the state.

I oppose the recognition of this tribe and I oppose a gambling casino in Orange County, or frankly any other urban area. Lest you think I am not consistent on this issue, while in the California State Legislature I aggressively opposed the establishment of what would have been the largest casino on earth for a roughly 20 member tribe that had been recognized in Berkley, California. We have been successful so far in stopping that one. Here is why I oppose these things:

1) Indian casino gambling was originally conceived in order to provide economic opportunity for big groups of largely full-blooded Indians who were poor and whose ancestral reservations were in remote areas with little economic opportunity. That has worked in many areas. Fine. But now you see a handful of professional people tracing small fractions of Indian ancestry, in urban areas where economic opportunity abounds wanting to become tribes so they can make tons of money on gambling. If they would agree to never have a casino, as a tribe in North Carolina recently agreed to do, then we would know that they were merely trying to preserve their cultural heritage. But the Juanenos are not doing that.

2) The federal tribal recognition process has existed for 30 years. Why has this tribal application only surfaced in the last 20 years or so? Perhaps because the availability of and profitability of casino gambling only came to California recently.

3) These are not tribes of thousands of people here. The people trying to establish these tribes usually number less than a dozen. I remember meeting once with a group of 6 trying to establish a tribe and a casino in downtown San Diego. So, we're supposed to grant gigantic casino rights so that 6 people can have economic opportunity?

4) Indian casinos are federally granted monopolies. You and I cannot open one to compete with the Juanenos if we wanted to. In an urban area, why not? They are also basically self-regulated in California so their profit margins are very high because of that lack of competition.

5) Casinos in urban areas are usually accompanied by increases in crime and spousal abuse and gambling addiction.

6) These things are hard to stop because they are very profitable that there is plenty of money to go around for lobbyists and cities and consultants and the only losers are the public.

For all these reasons I have introduced a bill to place a 25 year moratorium on Indian casinos for newly recognized tribes. This will preserve the tribal recognition process for those who truly desire to preserve their heritage, but it will stop the practice of setting up these monopoly casinos in urban areas for at least a while.

If you agree with this bill or that we should not have casinos in urban areas like Orange County, please e-mail me back so that I can show the Bureau of Indian Affairs the breadth of the opposition to this tribe's plans.

"The Untouchables"

If you or I owned a pub or bar, and were careless by feeding our customers too much alcohol, you can bet at some point one of our patrons would end up in a serious auto accident, possibly causing great harm to others. You can also bet that we would be named as defendents in lawsuits as a reward for our carelessness. However, if you are a tribal casino your sovereign nation status protects you from any such legal action. (Yet as tribal members you are allowed to contribute money to US political campaigns and vote in US elections.) From the Tucson Citizen:

Plaintiffs suing tribes can't get day in court
GARY FIELDS
The Wall Street Journal

The collision jolted Gary Filer awake in the back seat. A second impact brought his minivan crashing to a halt against a highway barrier. Filer lay partially on the road, his legs trapped in the wreckage, listening to the whine of his dog, Sadie. "She worked her way out and crawled over and lay on my lap," he remembers.

The minivan, driven by Filer's wife, had been hit by a Cadillac Escalade traveling the wrong way down Interstate 10.
The driver had been drinking heavily at the Desert Diamond Casino, six miles away.

The impact killed Filer's wife. The lower portion of Filer's right leg was later amputated. Sadie was euthanized.

The wreck's legal consequences seemed clear. Douglas Levitski, the Escalade driver, had a blood-alcohol level nearly three times the Arizona limit when he slammed into the Filers' Grand Voyager just after midnight on July 3, 2004. He was later charged with second-degree murder.

The casino where Levitski was drinking seemed a good target for a lawsuit. Like many states, Arizona has a law that makes liable establishments and employees who serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated customers who then cause accidents.

But when Filer went to sue the casino in state court in Tucson, he quickly learned that the textbook on civil litigation doesn't apply on tribal land, or to tribal entities. Under federal law, tribes are considered sovereign nations and are immune from most lawsuits. The Desert Diamond Casino where Levitski got drunk is on the San Miguel Reservation of the Tohono O'odham Nation.

So even though the accident itself involved no tribal members and took place off the reservation, Filer's state civil suit seeking $2 million in damages from the tribal-owned casino was rejected.

Arizona's appeals court upheld the decision.

"This conclusion, we hasten to add, may be unsatisfactory to some and arguably divorced from the realities of the modern world," wrote Judge John Pelander in the opinion.

Ripped off on the Reservation

Reading the comments at the GMA site where this story originated, you get the feeling people are missing the point. The arguement of "Pay him! Don't pay him! " seems to be irrelevant. Because of sovereign nation status - the casino cannot be sued. Tribal members can vote in US elections, can sue US citizens in US courts of law, and casinos on reservations can operate as a foreign country without tariffs or taxes.

Man Sues Casino over $1.6 million 'Jackpot"
By JIM AVILA, BETH TRIBOLET, DONNA CHOI and SCOTT MICHELS
ABC News Law & Justice Unit
Oct. 25, 2007

For about an hour last August, Gary Hoffman was a very lucky man.

Hoffman was playing the nickel slot machines at the Sandia Resort and Casino on an Indian reservation in New Mexico when he appeared to hit the jackpot: the machine said he won nearly $1.6 million.

"I became ecstatic," he said.

But the ecstasy was short-lived. Hoffman says in a lawsuit filed earlier this year that Sandia refused to pay, claiming that the machine malfunctioned. Instead, he said, they gave him about $385 and a few free meals at the casino.


"I won money, fair and square, and I've been cheated out of my winnings," Hoffman told ABC News.

The casino says it's not responsible for what it describes as a computer error and says it offered Hoffman the maximum payout of $2,500 for that particular slot machine. But, a jury may never decide who is right. Lawyers told ABC News that gamblers like Hoffman may have little legal recourse against Native American casinos, which sometimes operate beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

'I Was a Winner'

Hoffman, a retired Albuquerque city employee, was playing a "Mystical Mermaid" slot machine on the morning of Aug. 16, 2006, when he thought he hit it big.

The nickel slot said he'd won $1,597,244.10. Patrons and casino employees came to congratulate him. He even got a marriage proposal, Hoffman said. But, soon he was asked to come to an executive conference room, where he says he was told the casino refused to pay.

A casino employee "became quite intimidating with me, pointed his finger in my face and said, 'You didn't win. We're not paying you any money. Do you understand what I'm telling you? You're not getting any money,'" Hoffman said.

A technician from the slot machine manufacturer arrived at the casino within the hour and the casino cordoned off the machine.

"I was a winner and I walked out empty handed," Hoffman said.

Computer Malfunction

A technical report said the slot machine's computer malfunctioned, and incorrectly made it appear as if Hoffman won more than the machine is able to pay out. The slot machine has a disclaimer that says it pays a maximum of $2,500 and warns that malfunctions void all winnings, said Paul Bardacke, Sandia's lawyer.

Sovereign Immunity

Regardless, a jury may never get chance to hear Hoffman's case. Native American tribes, as independent nations, have their own court systems and can be sued in state courts only under limited circumstances. New Mexico law generally does not allow tribes to be sued in a state court over a contract dispute, Kleiman said.

Hoffman's lawyers say they should be able to sue the tribe over what they call big business. "They spent millions of dollars getting these customers, these gamblers, to come in and gamble money, then when someone hits it big, they say, 'Sorry, we are not going to pay you," said Hoffman's lawyer, Sam Bregman. "The jury is going to be outraged by that."

READ IT ALL

Follow the Money

It sounds like a step in the right direction but I am not sure how practical it all is. Verifying where every dime comes from would be a problem. (I seem to remember recent contributions to Hillary Clinton from dubious sources - undocumented workers in a chinese restaurant making $1000 & $2000 campaign contributions.)

Casino bill targets big spenders
By Stephanie Vosk also by George Brennan
STAFF WRITERS October 21, 2007

Federal authorities have ordered the Mashpee Wampanoag tribal council to turn over all information about contributions to political candidates and committees.

The request is part of a deepening probe into tribe finances in the wake of chairman Glenn Marshall's Aug. 27 resignation, according to documents obtained by the Times.

Just who is giving political contributions — both for and against — legalizing casino gaming in Massachusetts is also an issue expected to be spotlighted this year as legislators on Beacon Hill gear up for the casino debate.

When individuals give contributions to legislators, it is often hard to tell who is connected to casino interests. A state representative is expected to file a bill this year that would make it clear to the public who is donating money to support or defeat the casino effort and which politicians are getting the most money.

The Wampanoag tribe spurred the gambling debate back to the forefront since receiving federal recognition in the spring.

This winter the debate is expected to intensify as the Legislature begins to consider Gov. Deval Patrick's plan to allow three commercial, resort-style casinos, the licenses for which would be put out to bid. The state's two federally recognized tribes would be given preference for those licenses. The Mashpee Wampanoag want to build a $1 billion Indian casino in Middleboro.

Since Patrick's plan requires legislative approval, casino backers are likely to target members of the House where an uphill fight is expected. The bill is expected to easily pass the state Senate.

The tribe, backed by casino investors since 2000, and its supporters have donated as much as $85,000 to campaigns since 2003, according to state campaign finance records.

Only someone who knows the players, their families and associates, would be able to calculate the total contributions to tribe members, their associates and others who would benefit if casinos are legalized.

Bill to force disclosure

The bill state Rep. Paul Loscocco, R-Holliston, plans to file would force anyone connected with a casino — by ownership, employment or through family members — to disclose that interest when making a political contribution.

"The problem as I see it is not that any legislator is corrupt, but there could be a perception of whether they are making decisions based on their constituents' interest or the interests of a very powerful lobby," Loscocco said Friday.

Though campaign contributions are public record — and easily accessible online — it is not easy to discern the connection between a group of donors who want the same legislative outcome. Those connections are often masked by the names of family members and associates, with varying addresses and occupations.

In the case of the Mashpee Wampanoag, donations are in the names of tribal associates such as lobbyist Stephen Graham, tribal council spokesman Scott Ferson, tribal council attorney William McDermott, and lobbyists James Morris and Robert Quinn, who represent the tribe. The position of these donors is easily discerned.

But then there are donations from Paula Marshall, Alycia Marshall and Evamarie Kidwell — former tribal council chairman Marshall's wife and children.

"It shouldn't be as hard as it is to find the connections between special interests' campaign contributions and their sources," said Pam Wilmot, executive director of Common Cause, a political watchdog group that supports campaign finance reform. "We need to have a better way of making all of this completely transparent."

Common Cause is considering whether to support Loscocco's bill.

"Certainly having more disclosure is important," Wilmot said. "Our initial concern is why this fight should be substantially more important than other fights."

It's not that casinos are the only special interest group that use campaign contributions to gain access to legislators, she said.

The amount of money gaming is expected to generate for the state — Patrick estimates $400 million a year for the three he's proposed — puts casinos in another league, Loscocco said.

A search of other contributions shows it's not just the tribe and their supporters whose connection to casino interests are unclear.

The Carney family, for instance, which owns and operates the Raynham-Taunton greyhound track, has tried for years to secure slot machines and is planning to bid for a casino license.

George, Christopher, Dennis, Heather, Kelly, Laetitia, Maura, Thomas, and Timothy Carney, all of whom are linked in some way to the greyhound park, have donated about $130,000 to state campaigns and committees since 2003, state campaign finance records show.

Christopher Carney alternately lists his occupation on his various campaign contributions as a self-employed attorney, the vice president of Carney Trucking, and the president of American Waste Services, among others, all while using the same Raynham PO box as his address. It is only after a more time-consuming analysis of the contributions that one finds Carney the track owner, Carney the attorney, Carney the trucking executive and Carney the waste services president are the same person.

Big names, big money

Some of the biggest names in casino gaming have either officially announced their intentions to bid on one of the three licenses the state would grant under the governor's proposed plan, or are part of the speculation.

"The problem is how we can get the best decisions out of our government, and that should never be based on how much money one side has over another," Wilmot said.

In Rhode Island last year, more than $10 million was spent on both sides of a referendum question that, if approved, would have allowed an Indian casino in West Warwick.

Among the biggest contributors of the anti-casino campaign were Sol Kerzner and Len Wolman, South African casino moguls who at that same time were inking a deal — worth hundreds of millions of dollars — with the Mashpee Wampanoag to build a casino in Middleboro. Kerzner and Wolman spent $2.6 million in an effort to also protect their investment in the Twin River racino — a race track with slot machines, in Lincoln, R.I.

Those contributions were made through a group called Save our State.

Loscocco said his bill would give voters confidence in the system and the debate.

"There's nothing like the bright light of disclosure to act as the best disinfectant," he said.

Disenrollment defined

To disenroll: dis·en·roll Pronunciation [dis-en-rohl] –verb (used with object)
to dismiss or cause to become removed from a program of training, care, etc.
(from dictionary.com)

You might disenroll your child from their school, or disenroll yourself from your worker's union or your current car insurance program. But if you are indian in America you might have a different take on the word. From the LA Weekly by Marc Cooper:

Tribal Purge
State Dems back gambling-rich Indians’ greedy wars of expansion
By MARC COOPER Wednesday, June 13, 2007 - 7:30 pm

YOU KNOW LOCAL, EASTSIDE STATE Senator Gloria Romero, right? The feisty Democratic majority leader in the California Senate? The highest-ranking woman in the state Legislature? Ardent defender of civil liberties, consumers, workers, minorities? Fearless reformer of prisons and rogue police forces? Great.

Now you can add another title: Gloria Romero, faithful in-the-bag servant of wealthy gambling interests.

Romero has written and is carrying an onerous piece of legislation titled “Unlawful Entry: Tribal Land” that would allow California Indian tribes to issue stiff fines against non-tribal members entering what are called “Indian Lands.” The uninitiated here might be scratching their heads asking: Exactly what problem does this bill solve? Aren’t “non-tribal members” just the usual endless flow of pasty-faced patsies hurriedly tooling through the rez eagerly trying to get to the slot machines? Or has there been some unreported invasion of Indian holdings by a Palm Springs cattle-rustling gang?

Hardly. What the tribes are worried about are, in fact, their own members — members who have been booted out of the clan and who still live on the rez or might want to visit family members who do. Booted out, by the way, because the tribal bosses don’t want to share juicy gambling revenues with them. Some of these “disenrolled” members are now among the strongest voices opposing Romero’s bill — arguing that it will be one more cudgel that gambling tribes will use to whip up their profit rates. The result, they say, will be hundreds of the disenrolled getting evicted from their homes, and then banned from visiting relatives who stay behind.

Paranoia? I don’t think so. The casino-owning Pechanga tribe in the Temecula area, for example, has purged some 400 members since 2004, about one-third of its population. And why not? The monthly stipend handed out to enrolled members from casino profits has reportedly doubled since then, now topping out at a handsome $30,000 per month per person. The Pechanga purge was a nasty, Sopranos-like affair — digging up relatives’ graves and scanning the remains for DNA. The tribe hired an independent consultant to oversee the probe and authenticate tribal bloodlines. But when his report revealed that those on the purge list were, indeed, authentic Pechanga Indians, his recommendations and findings were simply ignored and dozens of families lost their income — and their heritage — anyway.

It’s not just the Pechangas who are shaving down the tribal rolls and increasing their own payouts. The Enterprise Rancheria tribe kicked out a third of its 200 members in a 2003 dispute. A few months ago, the Jamul tribe, near San Diego, flattened the homes of two non-tribal families that were in the way of a casino construction site. Statewide, an estimated 3,000 Indians have lost their tribal status since the gambling boom of 2000.

Now, thanks to Romero’s efforts, the hapless members who have been cut off the tribal vig may now get literally tossed right out of their homes. “This bill as written will abuse the civil rights of both tribal and non-tribal citizens,” Cheryl Schmit, of the gambling watchdog group Stand Up for California, told the Weekly.

Romero, like a deck full of other Democrats (and numerous Republicans), is an eager recipient of campaign contributions from the Pechangas, the Agua Caliente, the Morongo and other powerful gambling tribes (she’s also a recipient of contributions from local card clubs). Her voting record shows that a reliable 75 percent of the time Romero votes for tribal gambling interests.

READ IT ALL

If we knew then what we know now...

If the Chumash Tribe had waited until 2007 to start their bid for casino expansion, perhaps Santa Ynez would have had a different landscape along 246 in the future. Maybe if the SY Valley had seen the effect of new indian casinos around the country for the last seven years, actions similar to those of Woodland in Washington State would have been taken. From The Columbian:


Woodland to consider anti-casino resolution
BY JEFFREY MIZE, Columbian staff writer

Woodland could become the third city to pass a resolution opposing the proposed Cowlitz casino and threatening litigation if the federal government approves the project.

The Woodland City Council will consider a three-page draft resolution Monday night that says the casino would have a negative effect on the city's schools, roads, affordable housing stock and social services.

"The city of Woodland has identified gambling addiction - which results in crime, bankruptcy and domestic violence and which strains law enforcement and social services - as a significant negative effect the mega-casino will have on city residents and businesses," the resolution says. "The casino proponents propose no mitigation for the strain on law enforcement and social services the casino will cause."

The resolution goes on to argue that federal approval would be "an abuse of discretion, not supported by the evidence and made without following the required procedures."

In May, both the Vancouver and La Center city councils unanimously adopted resolutions opposing plans for a $510 million casino complex on a 152-acre site a couple miles west of La Center.

The tribe was dealt a stiffer setback in June when the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board struck down the agreement the tribe brokered with Clark County in 2004.

Under federal law, the Bureau of Indian Affairs must evaluate the casino's impacts.