|
From the Sacramento Bee, Published August 3, 2008 Editorial: Not a time to gamble
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 3, 2008Gambling on gambling is a big gamble.
So it is more than a little alarming that gambling is such a big part pf Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to close
the state's $15.2 billion budget gap. As luck would have
it, the state's first payments from expanded new gambling deals that the governor negotiated with Indian tribes are set
to arrive just as the gambling industry is beginning to feel the effects of the recession, both nationally and at California's
Indian casinos . Two large Southern California tribes that signed
expanded slot machine deals with the state have announced layoffs. That suggests that the state's share of casino profits
won't yield as much money as originally forecast. Meanwhile,
the governor's plan to sell $15 billion in lottery bonds, to be paid off with future earnings from a bigger, glitzier
state lottery, has stalled. The Legislature must approve the deal before it goes on the ballot. So far, it has not. After reviewing a draft of the lottery plan, Howard Dickstein, an attorney for
several Indian gambling tribes, says it would have a "very deleterious impact on the Indian gaming industry" He
thinks it would allow casino-style banked games and "set the stage" for the lottery to use slot machine-like devices.
If either occurred, Indian gambling tribes will almost certainly use their considerablc political clout to oppose it. Finally, in its recent analysis of the lottery proposal, the California Budget
Project, a left-leaning think tank, raised a number of serious doubts. The proposal will disproportionately attract the poor,
who can least afford to gamble. It also could reduce state sales tax receipts. Given chaos in the financial markers, investors
who buy lottery bonds are likely to demand a bigger share of lottery revenues than the governor predicts. The state needs a serious solution to its serious budget problems. A reckless gamble
on gambling hardly fits that description.
From: Renn Vara
Sent: Monday,
August 04, 2008 8:32 AM
To: 'opinion@marinij.com'
Subject: Editorial response Dear Editor: I appreciate your editorial about Nevada gaming in Northern California. Giving
up using prudence as your argument is eye opening. I’m a big fan of facts versus the “for fear” argument you put forward. The facts are these: n Nevada gaming surrogate Gregg Saris flip flopped causing this problem. There is no assurance that he won’t
ignore this latest “fig leaf” once the casino is underway. n The ultimate
goal by Nevada gaming interests is to build a casino closer to San Francisco. That economic need will not end with paper. n The community groups in Rohnert Park have proved that Stations Casino, the potential
casino owner, can be stopped with no money, political support, or power. They have held up the construction for more
than 5 years. The most recent legal challenges could potentially delay it for another 3-5 years. n The recent vote by Marin and Sonoma County supervisors undermines the efforts of these
local community groups and implies endorsement of Stations Casino. n Once they get a foothold
and establish precedent, nothing will stop them from building another casino closer to San Francisco. n As with other social challenges, the only way to fight Nevada gaming in Northern California
is to join together in support of the community groups in Rohnert Park. We can stop this from happening. Casinos established years ago in New York and Connecticut under similar
legal protections have proved to be destructive to their local communities and don’t generate the expected revenue.
They are our case studies. We can see our future. We don’t need to give up now. What’s really sad to me is that our local leaders, business, editorial and political,
have bought into the intellectual argument of tribal sovereignty and inevitability. Where is our love for the beauty
of Marin and Sonoma Counties? Where is our love for our quality of life including tribal members? Where is our
stated commitment to environmental ideals? Where is our backbone? I hope Assemblyman Jared Huffman will continue
to fight this despite the elitist arrogance that seems to have taken over our other leaders. And finally on a personal note, let me apologize to the hardworking middle class citizens
of Rohnert Park. We don’t have a right to throw you to the wolves and I’m embarrassed and ashamed as a citizen
of Marin County that my rich and influential neighbors are doing just that. Thanks for letting me vent a bit. Renn Vara Mill Valley From: Renn Vara
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 12:29
PM
To: 'letters@pressdemocrat.com'
Subject: Apology from Marin County Dear Sonoma County: I’m writing to apologize for Marin County. I’m sure our supervisor’s
recent vote supporting Nevada gaming in Rohnert Park confirms your long-held belief that we’re a county full of rich,
arrogant and selfish people. Sadly
these days, our political and social structures suffer under a deadly mix of intellectual elitism and arrogant wealth.
This has caused many sophisticated citizens to lose sight of the reality of the everyday person. It’s a disease
that manifests itself in votes like these that separate the rich and educated from everyone else. I know you’re saying “what’s new?” So let me simply say
“I’m sorry.” Hopefully more citizens will wake up to understand that Nevada gaming in Rohnert Park
hurts us all. We can only hope this awakening will happen in time. Renn Vara Mill Valley,
California
Dear Paul (Gullixson, Editorial Board, Press Democrat), Thank you for running Marilee Montgomery's article on the loss for the county and the gains for Station Casinos.
Why invite crime, millions of gallons of waste water, groundwater depletion, greater air pollution, greater traffic increases,
increased driving fatalities, expansion inevitabilities, loss of local, fertile farmland, provide wasteful media/social models
to our youth, and political gains over constituant losses? Trick question? No, not really. The
drive for greed is intoxicating, quite contagious, and infects those who get close to the majority 'stakeholders'.
It destroys weakened ethical norms, mimics community benevolence to gain entry, relies on poor individual habits for success,
produces a waste that further weakens and infects the community's health, seriously effects our greater community's
self-perception allowing further acceptance of related structural and social contamination, perpetuates the frequency of occurance
in other areas, and dissociates the remnant subcultural legacy of strength, artistry, and wisdom. If
people need help let's help them in ways of Community Best Practices that model community health, safety and ecologically
sound productivity. There are such better ways than defaulting to political cowardice under the guise of non-binding promise.
Thanks again for your time. My Best, Douglas Emery Sebastopol
From the Press Democrat, Published August 2, 2008 Tribe gives up
little but gains much
By MARILEE MONTGOMERY
What would the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors do
if Station Casinos, a Nevada casino operator, were to buy land close to Highway 101 in Rohnert Park and seek to construct
a massive new casino that would generate thousands of car trips a day on already overcrowded Highway 101?
Sound preposterous? Well it isn't.
It is happening right now, and the only difference is that Station Casinos is "partnering" with a group of Indian
descendants, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). The Board of Supervisors has now blessed the project, and The
Press Democrat has concurred. They claim that the FIGR has given up the right to seek a second casino in the county. The truth
is the FIGR has given up a right it does not have. Neither the federal government nor the state of California has yet
recognized the sovereignty of this Indian group over any land. The Graton Rancheria was a small piece of land that the federal
government purchased in 1921 from the then-current owners to house Indians. The idea was that the Indians could work on farms
in the area. The few Native Americans who lived on the rancheria from 1936 on never organized as a tribe. There was no thought
that the Graton Rancheria was sovereign Indian land; it had been under state jurisdiction and remained under state jurisdiction. Now
the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria want to buy a different parcel of land just off the freeway to build a casino
that will be inconsistent with county zoning laws, generate traffic not in compliance with the county general plan, and conduct
casino games in violation of state gaming laws. Is this legal? No, of course not. Indians are sovereign over land which
they were allowed to retain before the state came into existence. There are many Indian reservations around the country which
were established more than a century ago and to which Indians have sovereignty. This is not such land. The land sought here
has been governed by California law for many years. Residents have established homes in the area relying on the fact that
the area is controlled by California law. Business owners have established businesses in the area relying on the fact the
area is controlled by California law. Neither the descendants of these residents, the FIGR, nor Station Casinos can
suddenly oust the state of jurisdiction and claim that their Indian partners suddenly have legal jurisdiction. That is not
the law and will never be the law. The Press Democrat dismisses the legal challenge to the FIGR's trust acquisition
before it is heard, saying that county lawyers have determined that there is little chance to overturn the trust decision. The
county has hardly looked at this theory. If it had, it would know that is not the issue. The issue is whether the Graton tribe
can obtain sovereignty over the site even if the land is taken into trust. It has yet to be decided whether Indians can buy
land for a casino and gain sovereignty to operate under federal gaming law and contrary to state gaming law. Recent cases
in New York have denied tribes the right of "reservation shopping" and establishing casinos on newly purchased lands. The
tribe has nothing to give and has given up nothing. It has no land in the county and any land obtained in populated areas
will be governed by state and local law. Nor has it any right to operate a Nevada-style casino. That is all a myth.
From the Press Democrat, Published June 25, 2008 Gambling the future on El Casino RealAre we so desparate for revenue and employment that we have to compromise important values or principles in casino
promises?By TONY WHITE
Published: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday,
June 25, 2008 at 12:03 p.m.
Whether you call it
gaming, as opposed to gambling, and hire the best PR firms to disguise reality, the gargantuan casino proposed for Rohnert
Park is just bad public policy, and positive spin does not make it a good policy.
While I appreciate the need for projects
that will benefit the first Californians, why compound a litany of historical misdeeds with a project with so many downsides?
Let me list some of them: Gambling is a regressive tax, which affects those least able to afford it. It is a serious
addiction that affects many hardworking Americans, including Native Americans, and destroys lives and families. The California
Lottery, hailed as an unlimited source of funds for education, has not lived up to its promise of funding public schools. Not
only would the proposed Rohnert Park casino add 18,000 vehicle trips per day to an already gridlocked Highway 101 and increase
carbon emissions, but the casino and its parking lot would obliterate precious wetlands. Rohnert Park faces serious water
and sewage problems, and drilling wells for the casino will deplete the local aquifer. Even if green building techniques are
used, the casino would have a sizable footprint and release large amounts of greenhouse gases. Are we so desperate for
the revenue and employment that the casino promises that we have to compromise important values or principles? If our schools,
cities, police and fire departments and hospitals are starved for resources, then it is the community's obligation to
support them with tax revenue. As the saying goes, there is no free lunch. There is no guarantee that a casino will
flourish and have millions to spare, and it passes the burden of financing public services and projects onto the backs of
low-income families. Just this week, the Sycuan tribe in San Diego deferred payment on the $30 million it owes the state of
California from gambling. While the creation of new jobs would be welcome, many would be in low-paying service positions.
Since we already have a housing shortage for working families, casino workers would have to live outside the area and commute
long distances to work. The Rohnert Park casino plan raises other questions. Will the profits from gambling stay in
Sonoma County or be siphoned off by a Nevada gambling company? Will this mega-gambling site increase criminal activity and
require additional police or social services? How many Pomos and Miwoks will be employed or benefit from the project? In
order to accurately measure the impact of this project, a comprehensive community impact report should be prepared and submitted
for approval. Since this project will affect county residents, candidates for the Board of Supervisors should not only state
their position on the casino, but also indicate whether they support a countywide referendum on the project. Since other
tribes already operate casinos in Geyserville, Hopland and Lake County, do we really need another gambling center in the North
Bay? River Rock Casino not only built a massive parking structure without prior approval, but is planning a mega-sized resort
in Alexander Valley. Will this experience be replicated in Rohnert Park? This country owes a tremendous debt to its
original inhabitants, and our history is replete with atrocities and abuses committed against them. But we need more constructive
ways of helping them to help themselves through self-improvement and education, while preserving their culture. Very few Californian
Indians currently benefit from gambling, it has not reduced poverty and Indian communities are divided on the merits of owning
casinos. There also appears to be a basic contradiction between building a casino on wetlands and the ideal of living
in harmony with nature and your neighbors. Does the tribal vision also include shopping around for casino sites, preventing
other tribes from fulfilling their destinies or intimidating critics?
Tony White of Santa Rosa, a retired
Sonoma State University history professor, is co-founder and contributing editor of planetwatch.org, a global warming/energy
independence Web site.
From the Press Demcorat, publsihed June 28, 2008
No take-backs
EDITOR: In response to the thoughtful Close to Home column by Tony White
on Wednesday, I have only to add that once a casino is built, it will be too late to go back. Once the traffic is terrible,
crime is worse, our environment compromised . . . that huge gambling project will be there forever.
There are
no take-backs. Let's do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen in the first place.
I voted for the
Indians to have gambling on their reservations. I even checked to see where they were located to make sure they weren't
close to home. What we now have is not what we voted for. No one knew that reservation shopping was a part of the bargain.
If you care, speak up now.
CONNIE MADRID
Petaluma
From the Press Democrat Published June 18, 2008
Casino lawsuit
EDITOR: Thank you for your coverage of the legal action on the Rohnert Park
casino site ("Casino foes say feds can't secure land for tribe"). Your story states that "the suit was
filed by Stop the Casino 101." However, the lawsuit that was filed to prevent the casino site from being taken into trust
was filed not only by Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, but by a number of individuals from the community as well. It is anticipated
that more individuals and groups will add their names to the lawsuit, which could be a landmark case.
On June 11, the
day we released our information on the lawsuit, Madison County, N.Y. announced it was joining the state of New York in a legal
challenge to the decision to take 13,000 acres into trust for the Oneida Nation. The New York state lawsuit is based on constitutional
grounds. In addition to the state and Madison County, two New York towns and a number of citizens groups are bringing suit
against the federal government. On June 6, the state of Rhode Island filed suit against the federal government in the matter
of the Narragansett trust decision, citing constitutional issues. Clearly, this is an idea whose time has come. MARILEE
MONTGOMERY
The Press Democrat, Published - May 4, 2008
CHRIS SMITH
Feeling
lonely? Go squeeze into the casino
By Chris Smith, Press Democrat Columnist
If you haven't visited River Rock up near Geyserville,
Sonoma County's only Indian casino and possibly the first of who knows how many, you really need to do it.
If
you don't like casinos, that's all the more reason to go.
I hadn't been for quite a while when I drove
up on a recent Saturday night. Just one thing surprised me, but strikingly so.
The place was packed. I trolled
deep within the multilevel parking garage before finding a vacant space. The cavernous, temporary casino bulged with people,
and buses disgorged more.
Walk around it and you get a sense of the enormity River Rock will attain once the Dry
Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians' hillside casino resort is built out -- and a sense of the scale of the gambling
mecca the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria seeks to build in Rohnert Park.
One side in the "gaming"
debate says major, 24-hour casino resorts will bring jobs, tourists, money and other good things to Sonoma County. The other
side says they will be magnets for crime, addiction, traffic and other ills.
The truth will lie somewhere in the
middle. But part of that truth will be that the casinos will be huge, bustling, lit up all night, and they will change Sonoma
County.
Take the drive up the hill. The clearer our idea of what these casinos are, the better.
The Press democrat, published - Apr 30, 2008
Gambling obstacles
Gamblers tell you there are no sure things, but it's a near certainty that a deal made this week by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger would increase pressure for a vast and ill-advised expansion of casino gambling in California.
Schwarzenegger
signed an agreement with an Indian tribe from the Sierra Nevada that wants to open a casino about 35 miles away, along Highway
99 near Fresno, and share some of the profits with the Wiyot tribe from Humboldt County, even further from the San Joaquin
Valley.
Significant obstacles remain before the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians can proceed with the state's
first off-reservation casino.
The land must be taken into trust by the federal government, which has promised greater
scrutiny of casinos proposed more than a "commutable distance" from a reservation. State legislators -- many of
them opposed to urban casinos -- must approve the compact. And some casino-operating tribes and anti-gambling groups already
are saying the plan would clear the way for reservation shopping by other tribes.
Schwarzenegger also must reconcile
the deal with his own policy, announced in 2005, which states that he will not negotiate with tribes unless they own land
that is federally eligible for gambling. He also said he would oppose casinos in urban areas away from traditional tribal
lands.
On this score, the governor's first roll of the dice came up snake eyes.
Andrea Hoch, Schwarzenegger's
legal affairs secretary, explained that both the North Fork and Wiyot tribes own eligible land -- it just isn't where
the casino is proposed. The governor's policy "doesn't necessarily mean that the gaming-eligible land is where
the casino is ultimately located," she said.
What stands to be gained?
The cash-strapped state
expects to receive $25 million a year in revenue from slot machines and banked card games at the casino, and it got a promise
that the Wiyots wouldn't build a casino on their environmentally sensitive land near Humboldt Bay in return for payments
of $3 million to $5 million a year from the casino.
But there's another price to be paid by Californians, who
didn't expect a $7.7 billion a year industry with glitzy Las Vegas-style casinos in and around cities when they approved
Indian gaming initiatives in 1998 and 2000 as a way to help impoverished tribes with few other options.
Proposals
to build casinos far from traditional Indian lands soon followed. North Coast tribes have proposed casinos in larger population
centers including Richmond, Oakland, San Pablo, West Sacramento and even Barstow.
So far none of those tribes has
succeeded. But the state's growing reliance on casino revenue seems to be softening the governor's resolve to limit
tribal casinos to traditional Indian land, which is primarily in rural areas.
As a side note, when Schwarzenegger
administration officials announced their deal, they touted support for the North Fork casino proposal from the Madera County
Board of Supervisors and in a telephone poll of area residents. We will be interested to see if local views are given the
same weight when the governor reviews proposals to open tribal casinos in Cloverdale and in Rohnert Park, where the Graton
Rancheria tribe has teamed up with Station Casinos, the gambling partner of the North Fork tribe in Madera County.
©
www.pressdemo.com
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published: Thursday, Apr 10, 2008
Little secret about casinos
Editor: There’s a little secret that
Greg Sarris isn’t telling the public when he says “The county really doesn’t have any choice” than
to cooperate with his tribe on the massive (casino) development.
Yes, they do. You see, in California, all gambling
compacts between a tribe and the state must be ratified by the state Legislature. If a compact isn’t ratified, the tribe
cannot conduct Class III gambling.
That’s why San Pablo Casino has bingo machines, and no slot machines nor
Class III gaming of any kind. You’ll never hear that from Mr. Sarris, however.
Does the public count in this
process? You bet it does. I urge Sonoma County voters to contact their candidates of choice in the upcoming primary and ask
them where they stand on the issue of casinos in our county. Let them know that if they want your vote, they need to be publicly
and vocally opposed to casino expansion.
Marilee Montgomery, Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Published April 23, 2008
A fighting chance
EDITOR: The practice of "reservation shopping" by Indian tribes is
relatively new. But contrary to Mark Leno's position in Thursday night's debate, it is already clear that communities
can resist such takeovers.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that when a tribe in New York state bought back land that
used to be part of its reservation, the tribe does not automatically get back sovereignty. Long-settled expectations of residents,
businesses and local governments can preclude that.
The Graton Rancheria was not considered sovereign Indian land
when it existed, and the tribe's claim of sovereignty over land being newly purchased is not proper. However, we will
need political leaders willing to challenge this as communities have back East.
SUNI WURZ
Petaluma
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published March 20, 2008
Casino threats surround Petaluma
When 80 percent of Petaluma voters went to the polls
in late 2006 and said “no” to a casino in their back yard, they meant no casino.
So imagine the community’s
collective dismay at the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors’ unfortunate agreement this week with the Dry Creek Rancheria
Band of Pomos stipulating that no casino may be built on the tribe’s 277-acre property just south of Petaluma ... for
eight years.
Eight years? Petaluma voters put no such time limit on their overwhelming opposition to a casino
in their community. Petaluma does not want a casino here, period.
Well then, if the city doesn’t want to see a
casino sprout up here in eight years, it can ensure that never happens simply by providing water and sewer treatment service
to the property, says the tribe, which could then build any other massive, non-gaming commercial development on the pastoral
site located between the Petaluma River and Highway 101. Super Wal-Mart, anyone?
The tribe’s brazen, bullying
tactics, documented in this unfortunate agreement with the county, sound a lot like blackmail: Give us a large chunk of your
increasingly precious water supply or risk a massive casino development on your doorstep. Your choice, Petaluma.
It’s really quite remarkable, this persistent chutzpah on the part of local Indian tribal leaders who demonstrate
total disregard for the concerns of people living in Sonoma County. Commenting in a Press Democrat story on the county’s
recent pact with the Pomo tribe, Graton Rancheria Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris, who is leading the charge to build a gargantuan
$1 billion casino complex in Rohnert Park, stated arrogantly, “The county really doesn’t have any choice”
than to cooperate with his tribe on the massive development. “The public understands that this is going to happen and
that it is better to join us than try and beat us.”
Excuse us, Mr. Sarris, but not all members of the public
are scurrying, lemming-like, to support the singularly largest development in the county’s history, especially since
it would, according to an official county report, “cripple the transportation sys-tem, significantly increase air pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions, impact local water supply and flood control, induce crime ... and substantially increase county
costs for law enforcement, justice system, fire and emergency services, public works, health and human services and other
county programs.”
Despite all the money Sarris and his Las Vegas partners at Station Casinos have thrown
at the best lobbyists to win this dirty, high-stakes game, many people in Sonoma County remain justifiably and steadfastly
oppos-ed to the cancerous spread of casino development.
We just wish that county supervisors took these very serious
public concerns more seriously, and acted accordingly. Insofar as the governor’s policy for approving Indian gaming
compacts spells out that such casino proposals must have local community support, even to the point of suggesting “a
local advisory vote” to accurately gauge that sentiment, the supervisors’ recent refusal to let their constituents
speak out on this very important issue in an advisory vote looked a lot like retreat.
Their decision this week
to negotiate a first-ever financial deal with a tribe while officially opposing the presence of casinos in Sonoma County looks
more like total surrender.
Last changed: Mar 19, 2008 © Argus Courier 2007
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published March 13, 2008
Stop gambling in its tracks
By Dane Erbst
There are many issues regarding the possible building of casinos in Rohnert Park
and south of Petaluma that need to be considered before the construction begins.
In Sonoma County, there is a lot
of open land that is very scenic and beautiful. Why would we want a Vegas-type casino in the middle of that land? I don’t
like driving up to Ukiah and seeing a huge parking garage and casino in the middle of the beautiful scenery. It ruins the
picture. A big casino like that shouldn’t be in the country; it should be in the city, if there at all. Let Sonoma County
stay a beautiful place, and let Vegas be Vegas.
By putting a huge casino in Rohnert Park, many of the quiet streets
in the area will be a lot more active. Highway 101 is very busy as it is, and that’s just from people living here. Imagine
how much commotion there would be if people drove through the city to go to the casino also. The increase in traffic will
make life hectic for the citizens living there. By bringing so many more people in, it will put more stress on the police
force. There will be more crime. There will be more drinking and driving and problems related to gambling that the town will
have to deal with.
River Rock Casino in northern Sonoma County has a small road leading up to it. The casino doesn’t
currently have a liquor license. The people around there are very happy because the road is dangerous and alcohol would cause
more problems. If the new casinos end up getting a liquor license, it will cause many issues revolving around drunken driving.
The city is going to have to pay the police force to reduce the issue. Why do we need to have this conflict when we could
not have the casino here at all?
Sonoma State University is a college that will be affected by this issue in a
greater perspective than you would think. By putting a casino near the school, it would cause its students to want to go and
gamble. The students should spend their time at the university studying, doing projects or extracurricular activities —
not fiddling around with a slot machine to win big bucks. Also, where would the students get the money to gamble, if they
are already paying a lot of money to go to school there? Many of the students are having a hard time with that already, so
why make it worse? Obviously, the students have a choice in deciding their future, but why make it an easily-accessible temptation
for them to go to?
One of the big issues that is being talked about in Sonoma County is the water shortage. All
of Sonoma County is being told to use less water wherever they go or whatever they do. If a huge casino is built, it will
take up vast amounts of water for all of the toilets, sinks, and kitchens inside it. Also, if they end up building a huge
hotel near it, there will be way too much water being used in such a little space. Why should we build it and have that problem
in Sonoma County? If we are preserving water for people to use, we shouldn’t use it just for that one Vegas-like casino.
We already have one casino here; we for sure don’t need two more.
I don’t believe that a casino would
really benefit our county right now in any way, shape or form. The desire to gamble has led to large increases in problems
throughout the state of California. The traffic, the hassle and the increase in problems with all sorts of things will not
improve the quality of life for Rohnert Park residents or surrounding communities. Isn’t that what this country is for?
Making communities better? Let’s take a stand together to stop gambling in its tracks.
(Dane Erbst is a freshman
at Casa Grande High School.)
Last changed: Mar 12, 2008 © Argus Courier 2007
The Press Democrat, Published February 28, 2008
Letters to the Editor
Why the secrecy?
EDITOR: The federal and state
governments have promoted gambling and the building of Indian casinos wherever any tribe, or remnant of a tribe, wants them.
The people who make these decisions are wealthy and well-protected in their gated communities and limousines. They
don’t have to fight the traffic or fight for limited services because government’s funds are being used for law
enforcement. These same government representatives want to deal with the casino issues in secret.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
doesn’t tell us that he is negotiating with the Graton tribe. It is a secret. Sen. Barbara Boxer didn’t tell us
she was going to give the Graton tribe carte blanche for establishing a casino anywhere in Sonoma County until the deed was
done.
Why the secrecy? Money. It is all about money, a lot of it. They both want to maximize their campaign contributions.
Gambling interests are buying their way into Sonoma County, and our elected officials are standing in line. If they
buy off enough people, we will be happy with the casino.
Now the Board of Supervisors has joined the cover-up.
Valerie Brown, that outspoken casino foe when it was proposed for her district, knuckles under with barely a whimper. A vote
would organize the casino opposition to make a solid statement on how the people living in this county feel. Now she tells
us that the system is fixed against us and the casino is inevitable. I don’t believe that.
Life is good when
you have Station Casinos and gambling deep pockets on your side.
GERRY LENNOX
Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Published February 12, 2008
Gaming secrecyEDITOR: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s secrecy about his negotiations of Indian compacts is inappropriate.
The
governor will neither confirm the existence of negotiations with the Graton tribe nor their content. Negotiations today would
be premature, and thus their existence would be an important issue. Negotiations presume that a tribe has land that qualifies
as Indian land but that is not the case with the Graton tribe. It has not yet taken this land into trust.
The governor
has previously affirmed that he would not negotiate compacts unless the tribe had land eligible for a casino. Similarly, the
BIA has set policy that it will not approve compacts unless the tribe has such land. That makes sense. Further, the size of
a casino, the variety of games and the number of machines are all dependent on location. The governor should not negotiate
a compact until he knows where the facility will be and that the tribe rather than the state has sovereignty over that land.
As
for the disclosure of the content of negotiations, many of the issues are routine and should be the same in all compacts.
Why do different accounting rules apply
to different tribes? We are a land of laws and of the rule of law. The governor,
in applying different rules to each tribe, seems to revert to a monarchy. As for the issues of the size of the casino and
the number of machines, these are zoning issues, and just as cities make such decisions in public meetings, so the governor
should allow public debate.
MARILEE MONTGOMERY
Santa Rosa
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published December 26, 2007
Casino advisory vote
EDITOR: I write in response to the letter from M. Lee Hunt, who criticized my proposal for a countywide advisory ballot
measure on the Rohnert Park casino.
It is notable that Hunt, who is a San Rafael-based divorce lawyer, was among the
signers of the flashy and expensive two-page advertisement in support of the casino placed in local newspapers and magazines
last month by Friends of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. So count Hunt as among the hard core of casino supporters.
Three
themes are notable in Hunt’s letter. First, she attempts to portray the Graton Rancheria casino as procedurally distinguishable
from the proposed casino for Petaluma that was the subject of the successful advisory vote in 2006. Second, she tries to imply
that the casino is inevitable and there’s nothing anybody can do about it. Third, she uses soothing rhetoric to calm
concerns about the casino.
First, the laws and procedures for taking land into trust and permitting casino gaming
are complex and yes, there are some procedural distinctions that can be drawn. But it’s a dynamic process with many
moving parts and numerous decision makers, many of whom are keenly attuned to public sentiment. And ask yourself this: “If
public sentiment doesn’t matter, why are the Friends spending tens of thousands of dollars to create the appearance
of public support for the casino?
Second, casino supporters are fervently pushing the myth that a casino at their chosen
location is inevitable. It isn’t any more inevitable than the previous Highway 37 site was inevitable. As but one example,
a strong showing in an advisory vote could encourage our federal legislators to reintroduce legislation to modify the tribe’s
restoration legislation, which is precisely what encouraged them to abandon the Highway 37 site.
Third, the talk of
collaborative processes, mitigating impacts and public input are merely window dressing to distract attention from the fact
that the casino will create massive impacts that cannot feasibly be mitigated. Hunt carefully avoids promising that the casino's
101 congestion would be mitigated. That's because it really can’t be.
Casino supporters are scared of an advisory
vote because they realize it could upset the path toward the casino’s approval. This confirms the value of an advisory
vote.
MIKE HEALY, Petaluma
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Published Monday December 10, 2007
Hypocrites?EDITOR: In reference to the article about Rohnert Park closing two schools and the Founders Day celebration,
I find it very hypocritical that the two past city officials, Jimmie Rogers and Armando Flores, who were chosen for quotes
in the article, are two of the many who are encouraging a Las Vegas-style casino to come to our small town known as Rohnert
Park.
I wonder what will be done with the schools if they do close down? Wonder which developer might purchase the
property and make it into a strip mall? Codding or Rogers?
TAMARA PITMAN
Rohnert Park
The Petaluma Argus-Courier Letters to the Editor, Published : Wednesday, Dec 5, 2007
Opposed to casinos
Editor: I am one more Petaluma citizen who opposes the building of any future gambling casinos in Sonoma County. According
to one member of Friends of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), community opposition to a proposed gambling
facility in Rohnert Park “is based on hysteria and misinformation.” Maybe so. I prefer to think that my opposition
is based on substantive aspects of this issue that I have carefully considered.
First, the notion that some revenues
gained from gambling in Sonoma County will be used to improve the quality of education received specifically by the children
of members of the Graton and Dry Creek Rancheria Tribes, thus improving their prospects for a satisfying life, is an interesting
one. No one could argue against reducing the over 80 percent dropout rate by the ninth grade of tribal children. That is a
shocking statistic, and a hard reality that affects every single citizen in Sonoma County! However, associating a future gambling
facility with an improved high school graduation rate for these children is a reach in logic.
Second, the notion that
the gambling facility itself will provide better-paying jobs for the tribe’s adults, thus making it more likely that
future tribal generations will have better life prospects, is another interesting idea. Providing good-paying jobs for all
Sonoma County adults is a policy most (if not all) people would support! However, I somehow don’t think that a future
gambling facility will reduce the myriad social problems experienced by our county’s adults who currently work in low-paying
jobs, social problems that are the actual reasons many of these adults are locked into low-paying jobs in the first place.
Lastly,
the notion that some revenues gained from gambling in Sonoma County will be used to address drug and gang problems strikes
me as being patently absurd. With that line of thinking, we also might suggest using fast food restaurant revenues to address
obesity and diabetes problems.
Friends of FIGR can go ahead and refer to any opposition to its position as being based
on false information and emotionally driven, if that’s how it chooses to convince its neighbors that a gambling casino
in Sonoma County would be a community-wide asset. Argumentum ad hominem aside, the only advantage that I can see coming from
a future gambling facility in Sonoma County is the money itself. There’s no denying the influence prospective money
wields, especially when it has the backing of the powerful gambling industry. However, associating this gambling casino money
with solutions to very human problems, problems that are the result of injustices borne by the Coastal Miwok and Southern
Pomo Indians displaced years ago from lands in Sonoma and Marin counties, just doesn’t make any sense.
When we
as a community make decisions based disproportionately on the money that we anticipate will be brought into our community,
pretending that the undeniable financial rewards will ameliorate or possibly outweigh the predictable social, health, and
environmental problems, we are heading in the opposite direction from one that will provide for the health, safety, and welfare
of our community as a whole. I will sign any petition, vote for any ballot measure, to stop this from happening in Sonoma
County. Where do I sign?
Linda Sexauer, Petaluma
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat Letters to the Editor, December 3, 2007
Casino list
EDITOR: A few weeks ago, I received a glossy mailer urging me
to support the philanthropic and ethical Indians who wanted to benefit us with a Rohnert Park casino. I ignored it.
I
received another. My reply was vigorous, uncomplimentary and negative.
So what did they do? They put me on their list
of supporters. So much for ethics and philanthropy.
SALLY WATSON
Santa Rosa
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Let the public vote on casino proposalPublished: Wednesday, Nov 28, 2007
When an Indian tribe bought property just south of Petaluma hoping to establish a casino complex there, then-Petaluma City
Councilman Mike Healy suggested giving residents an opportunity to vote on the proposal. Healy’s reasoning was based
on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s May 2005 tribal gaming policy proclamation whereby the governor will only consider approving
gaming compacts if it can be demonstrated “that the affected local community supports the project, such as by a local
advisory vote.”
The governor’s policy seemed pretty clear. So when nearly 80 percent of this city’s
voters weighed in against the casino one year ago, it meant that a gaming compact would not, under the governor’s own
policy, be approved for a casino in Petaluma.
So why not allow Sonoma County voters the same opportunity to voice
their opinions on the gigantic casino complex proposed in Rohnert Park by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria? Healy
is posing just that question to county supervisors, but the reaction he’s getting is peculiarly indifferent.
Insofar
as the governor’s policy for approving Indian gaming compacts spells out that such casino proposals must have local
community support, even to the point of suggesting “a local advisory vote” to accurately gauge that sentiment,
why in the world would supervisors refuse to let their constituents speak out on this very important issue?
According
to Supervisor Valerie Brown, as quoted in the Press Democrat, county residents shouldn’t get a chance to vote because
the tribe “has done an incredible job trying to work with local government.”
Oh, really? Then why would
local government, specifically the County of Sonoma, state that this gargantuan project would “cripple the transportation
system” and “significantly increase air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, impact local water supply and
flood control, induce crime ... and substantially increase county costs for law enforcement, justice system, fire and emergency
services, public works, health and human services, and other county programs.” If that’s what Brown considers
“working with local government,” we’re afraid to ask what non-cooperation looks like in her world.
Oddly,
Brown even praised the scope of the project’s preliminary environmental report, the same one her own staff characterized
as “deficient in almost every issue area.”
Remarkably, even Petaluma’s supervisor, Mike Kerns, has
reacted negatively to the idea of an advisory vote, stating that it would cost too much money to include such a measure on
the ballot. For the record, the county election office told us it would cost somewhere between $58,000 and $117,000 to float
a ballot measure on the largest development proposal in the county’s history. Would it not be worth every penny if such
a vote were the one thing that finally stopped this behemoth development in its tracks? Especially since the public approval
process is non-existent for the casino development, given that local land use laws are not applicable in Indian affairs, and
since a lot of money is quietly being spent on lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington to push this project through, why not
give voters a chance to register their opinions on a 762,300-square-foot development complete with eight-story hotel tower
and 6,102 parking spaces located in the very heart of the county?
County supervisors should authorize an advisory ballot
measure on the casino to ensure that the public’s right to speak on this issue is not ignored.
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, November 27, 2007
CLOSE TO HOME
Voters
deserve say on casino
By MIKE HEALY
I
write to clarify certain points regarding the proposal to put an advisory measure on the June ballot to allow Sonoma County
voters an opportunity to weigh in on the Graton Rancheria casino in Rohnert Park.
Foremost among the regional impacts
created by this 2,000-slot-machine mega-casino are the 18,000 vehicle trips per day it is expected to generate. This will
turn Highway 101 into even more of a parking lot than it already is, worsening commutes and making it more difficult for visitor-dependent
businesses in Santa Rosa, the north county and along the Russian River.
In 2006, Petaluma voters gave a 79.2 percent
"yes" vote to Measure H, which I wrote, to oppose a proposal by the Dry Creek Rancheria for a similar casino immediately south
of Petaluma. That result got the attention of federal officials, who now appear unlikely to take that property into federal
trust to allow gaming. Supervisor Mike Kerns' concern that there is no guarantee that even a resounding rejection of the casino
by local voters would be decisive is technically correct, but recent history suggests it could be very important.
An
advisory measure is also an opportunity to gain the attention of Gov. Arnold Schwarz-enegger and to distinguish this casino,
in the heart of a heavily populated county, from other casinos in sparsely populated areas that have not been particularly
controversial. Sonoma County is not the same as the Southern California inland desert.
The casino's proponents acknowledge
that public opinion counts. They have paid for flashy advertisements in local newspapers to create a Potemkin Village illusion
of popular support. These efforts serve to underscore the value of getting an accurate gauge of public sentiment.
It
is a quirk of California law that although a local governing body such as the Board of Supervisors or a city council can place
an advisory measure on the ballot, such measures are not considered to be within the citizens' power of initiative.
In
other words, an advisory measure cannot be placed on the ballot by voters signing petitions. Thus, if an advisory measure
is to be placed on the county ballot, three supervisors need to step up to the plate.
It is also unfortunate that Supervisor
Valerie Brown -- whose district is the least dependent on 101 -- opposes an advisory ballot measure and appears ready to deal
with casino promoters so the county gets its cut. The sad fact is that any such deal might, at most, result in some money
for the county's budget. But the casino's impact on Highway 101 would likely go unaddressed because adding a fourth lane to
the freeway (in addition to efforts to add a third lane) would be prohibitively expensive and take decades to achieve. So
the casino developers are not going to mitigate the impacts on Highway 101 in a meaningful way.
In sum, Sonoma County
voters should be allowed to vote on the proposed Rohnert Park casino. What's wrong with a bit of democracy?
Mike Healy
is a former Petaluma City Council member.
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, November 19, 2007
No casino supporter
EDITOR: On Wednesday, my name appeared in an advertisement in The Press Democrat supporting the Rohnert Park casino and
resort. The ad was on pages A6 and A7. For the record, I never gave my authorization to support the casino. I never agreed
to be on the advisory board for the "Friends of Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria."
Recently, I went before our county Board of Supervisors asking it to please consider the health care needs of Sonoma County's
10,000 Native Americans before considering the closure of Sutter Medical Center of Santa Rosa. I think it's unfortunate that
my interest in Native American health care could be construed as support for a proposed casino
MARY O'BRIEN
Registered nurse, Santa Rosa
Is this justice?
EDITOR: When native Americans want to increase the size of their casinos, all they do is pay a higher percentage of profits
to the state. Why not make them pay off their past debts?
A small amount of private non-native citizens won lawsuits for accidents during employment at the reservation casinos,
but California's judicial system has no jurisdiction. Thus, non-native citizens can be crippled during their employment on
the reservation and not receive court-ordered compensation. In fact, they must rely on Medi-Cal to pay their medical costs.
Is this justice? Why are these cases not settled before granting casinos the right to expand? Why is the California Medi-Cal
system responsible for injuries incurred during casino kitchen employment? The deep pockets of the casinos are being tapped
to ease the state budget crunch, but what about the workers? What about their rights and protections?
The former employees are not after anything not granted by a judge as fair compensation, so why hide behind native American
sovereignty? It smacks a little like picking and choosing which laws to follow, which ones to ignore. When the governor grants
casinos the right to expand their operations, he should relieve the Medi-Cal system of these onerous cases by having the casinos
uphold their responsibilities as employers and pay their injured former employees whatever the judge ordered.
DAVE GEBHARD and GARY BIAGI
Lakeport
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat, November 16, 2007
Casino non-support
EDITOR: Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to take out a two-page color rebuttal to the "Why we support the Rohnert
Park casino" ad. So this letter will have to suffice. I'll call this "Why I don't support the Rohnert Park casino."
Let me count the ways. . . The location is in a flood plain. It's in a residential area.
It's within five miles of two colleges. It will make a parking lot of our already overcrowded freeway. It will create more
crime. It will create gambling addicts. Why should the nearby residents have their wells sucked dry so that a few individuals
and Station Casinos get rich?
In an advisory vote, 80 percent of Petaluma voters rejected a gambling casino for their
city. Why hasn't the rest of the Sonoma County electorate been given a chance to vote on whether we want organized gambling
sandwiched between five Sonoma County cities?
The casino proposal in Rohnert Park is wrong in every logical and ethical
way.
JOHN METRAS
Cotati
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published: Wednesday, Sep 19, 2007
Stop RP casino
Editor: I wholeheartedly agree with your stance against Las-Vegas-style casino plans under discussion for Rohnert Park.
The proposals that have surfaced are ill-conceived and I believe would have an adverse impact on Rohnert Park.
The
traffic, the hassle and the increase in out-of-town gambling interests will not improve the quality of life for Rohnert Park
residents or surrounding communities.
This spring, I successfully fought for $80 million in state funds for Highway
101 Novato Narrows improvements just to keep pace with current traffic demands! To me it would be simply madness to exponentially
increase traffic in this area.
I understand the importance of new tax dollars to financially strapped communities.
However, the proliferation of gambling in California and the U.S. has led to large increases in the problems associated with
gambling addiction and devastation to many families. I also understand interest in providing new jobs, but the evidence shows
casino jobs tend to be lower-wage and without benefits or health care. In cities that do have casinos, local governments and
taxpayers often cover the health-care costs of casino workers.
I don’t believe that this benefits the city of
Rohnert Park; in fact I voted against the governor’s proposal to expand California gambling earlier this year. Unfortunately,
it passed. Let’s take a stand together to stop this casino in its tracks.
Carole Migden, state senator, 3rd
Senate District
The Petaluma Argus-Courier Published: Wednesday, Oct 24, 2007
Casino’s huge impacts
Editor: Opposition to the Rohnert Park casino is not limited to the moral issue, as Gary Marsh (letters to the editor,
Sept. 19) suggests. There are profound environmental issues related to the casino project, not the least of which is the imposition
of a federal water right that would have the effect of removing a large portion of the Santa Rosa Plain Aquifer, a primary
source of water for the region, from the control of Sonoma County.
Casino traffic would negate planned improvements
for 101. For example, the Level of Service for the planned $40 million Wilfred Avenue Overpass would go from the current “E”
(with “A” being the best) to an “E” when casino traffic is included — in other words, no improvement
after spending $40 million!
The casino would be the largest commercial development in Sonoma County, yet it is not
subject to local planning. It will impinge on the greenbelt, and will place a 10-acre sewage treatment plant in a rural residential
neighborhood. The Rohnert Park casino would consume so much of the region’s resources that it would have a profound
effect on future planned projects.
That’s why reasonable people, including six of our seven cities and the County
of Sonoma, are opposed to the project. You can read more about the casino’s impacts at www.stopthecasino101.com
Marilee Montgomery, Santa Rosa
The Petaluma Argus-Courier Published: Wednesday, Sep 5, 2007
Huffman takes stand against casino plan
In a welcome attempt to defend Sonoma County from the specter of a gargantuan
Las-Vegas style casino complex proposed in Rohnert Park, North Bay Assemblyman Jared Huffman last week raised legitimate concerns
in challenging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who he suspects of engaging in secret negotiations to award a gaming compact
to the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria.
Such negotiations would be premature, Huffman correctly notes in
his letter to the governor, since the federal government has not yet ruled on whether the tribe can claim the Rohnert Park
property as Indian land, a prerequisite for a state gaming compact.
The fact that neither the governor’s office
nor Graton tribal chairman Greg Sarris denied having engaged in such talks lends credence to Huffman’s claim, and highlights
the troubling process by which government officials can meet behind closed doors to secretly determine the fate of the people
living nearby a proposed mega-casino.
Whereas many of his colleagues in Sacramento are happy to collect generous campaign
donations from Las Vegas casino interests partnering with tribes throughout the state, Huffman has made it clear that he opposes
the “reservation shopping” that has led to both the Rohnert Park casino proposal as well as another casino proposed
for south of Petaluma by a competing tribe. Huffman has seen what Indian casino developments have done to other communities
in California, so he is doing what he can to protect the residents of Sonoma County from a similar fate.
Most interestingly,
Huff-man’s letter to the governor raises constitutional questions about whether the Rohnert Park property can legally
be put into trust at all. Such arguments could well form the basis for a lawsuit challenging the project’s approval,
which seems all but assured due to the huge amounts of money being thrown around by the tribe’s partner, Station Casinos
of Las Vegas, as well as the firm’s powerful lobbyists working the hallways in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.
Huffman’s
opposition to Indian gaming casinos in Sonoma County has earned him the disdain of tribal chairman Sarris, whose op-ed piece
in Monday’s Press Democrat attempted to reassure Sonoma County residents, noting that the tribe has pledged to “mitigate
any potential impacts” of their 760,000-square-foot development, the largest ever in the county’s history.
But
how, exactly, does the tribe plan to mitigate 18,000 new daily car trips on an already severely congested freeway through
Petaluma?
How will they mitigate the quarter-million gallons of water that will be sucked up daily from the already
de-pleted underground aquifers?
How will they mitigate the shortage of affordable housing that will certainly be worsened
by the 2,400 lower-paid casino jobs created by the project?
How will they mitigate the increased air pollution and
massive wastewater disposal requirements?
And how will they mitigate the increased crime and heightened demand for
mutual aid from nearby fire and police departments, including Petaluma’s?
Sarris may brag about the “extraordinarily
generous” monies promised to Rohnert Park, presumably to offset the many impacts of the project locally, but no one
seriously thinks that the several million dollars promised annually will come anywhere close to negating the impacts of the
casino project that will extend far beyond the city limits of Rohnert Park.
Thank you, Mr. Huffman. Keep up the fight.
The Press Demcorat, Article published Sep 29,2007
Letters to the Editor
Land history
EDITOR: In a recent article, "Lawmaker: Casino talks premature," Staff Writer
Paul Payne writes that "The federal government recognized the tribe in 1920, buying it a 15-acre tract of land near Graton."
This is not accurate. The federal Office of Indian Affairs purchased land in
Graton in 1921 and held it in fee just like any other property owner, not in trust for an Indian tribe. This land was purchased
as essentially a homeless shelter for persons of American Indian descent living in California, regardless of their tribal
affiliation.
In a letter dated July 11, 1937, Indian Affairs Assistant Director William
Zimmerman summarized the purchase and intended purpose of the land eventually known as the Graton Rancheria:
"The records show that the deed conveying the property to the United States
does not contain any limitation or provision as to what Indians should be settled thereon. The land was paid for out of an
appropriation made by Congress for the purchase of lands for landless Indians of California. While the land was purchased
primarily for the occupancy and use of the Marshall and Sebastopol Bands, there is no limitation or reason why other landless
Indians may not be located thereon."
KIRSTEN BARQUIST
Santa Rosa
The Petlauma Argus-Courier published - Sep 19, 2007
Stop R.P. casino
Editor: I wholeheartedly agree with your stance against Las-Vegas-style casino plans under discussion for Rohnert Park.
The proposals that have surfaced are ill-conceived and I believe would have an adverse impact on Rohnert Park.
The traffic,
the hassle and the increase in out-of-town gambling interests will not improve the quality of life for Rohnert Park residents
or surrounding communities.
This spring, I successfully fought for $80 million in state funds for Highway 101
Novato Narrows improvements just to keep pace with current traffic demands! To me it would be simply madness to exponentially
increase traffic in this area.
I understand the importance of new tax dollars to financially strapped communities.
However, the proliferation of gambling in California and the U.S. has led to large increases in the problems associated with
gambling addiction and devastation to many families. I also understand interest in providing new jobs, but the evidence shows
casino jobs tend to be lower-wage and without benefits or health care. In cities that do have casinos, local governments and
taxpayers often cover the health-care costs of casino workers.
I don’t believe that this benefits the city of Rohnert Park; in fact I voted
against the governor’s proposal to expand California gambling earlier this year. Unfortunately, it passed. Let’s
take a stand together to stop this casino in its tracks.
Carole Migden, state senator, 3rd Senate District
© Argus Courier 2007
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, September 12, 2007
Huffman's integrity
EDITOR: Regarding Assemblyman Jared Huffman's letter pertaining to compact negotiations on a land acquisition on the
border of Rohnert Park, I thank him for his integrity because he is the only elected representative who has had the integrity
to speak out for the rights of the majority of citizens (including those in the region surrounding the city) who are opposed
to a destination casino.
Has anyone ever questioned why there are so many lawsuits filed against the city of Rohnert
Park? As more and more lawns turn brown let us be realistic; a mega Las Vegas style casino is nowhere to be found in the city's
mission statement.
EUNICE EDGINGTON
Rohnert Park
The Press Demcorat, Letters to the Editor, September 11, 2007
It's a casino
EDITOR: Aside from referencing the headline of an Aug. 25 Press Democrat editorial, Greg Sarris, in his Sept. 3 reply,
shrewdly avoids the word "casino," substituting instead "resort" or a "green, labor-friendly resort." So much for literary
license.
Let's be real. It's a casino you are proposing, Chairman Sarris. The rest is incidental.
Sarris goes
on to say this will provide "significant benefits to both Indians and non-Indians alike."
From news accounts we know
who the principal beneficiary has been and will most likely continue to be. What negligible percentage of "Indian" that entails,
others can decide.
As to the "non-Indians," one would assume Sarris is referring to the Las Vegas owners of Station
Casinos. We all understand the "green" they are envisioning. It comes in the form of U.S. currency -- in this instance with
certain benefits that would not be possible without their association with an Indian tribe.
Chairman Sarris, there
are some things money can't buy. The societal and environmental problems this proposed mega casino would bring to Sonoma County
cannot be mitigated by throwing a few bucks around.
BETTY FREDERICKS
Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor September 7, 2007
Casino conscienceEDITOR: No amount of money from the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (or Station Casinos) can
mitigate the social, economic and environmental impacts that a Las Vegas-style casino along Highway 101 would have on our
community.
At least two of the members on the tribal council are teachers. Considering the well-known adverse effects
of gambling, how are you, as educators, able to bring yourselves to reconcile with the idea of building a casino?
LEENI
BALOGH
Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, September 6, 2007
Rancheria factsEDITOR: The Press Democrat needs to check its facts a bit better. Sunday's article on the Graton Rancheria
quotes tribal Chairman Greg Sarris as if his statements were fact. Here's a few facts from the historical record: Fact:
The U.S. government didn't buy the tribe 15 acres in 1921. The land was purchased for the use of homeless Indians from Marshall
and Sebastopol, with no mention of a tribe. Fact: The land was held in fee simple, and was subject to the authority
of the state of California. Fact: In 1937, because no one had ever lived there, Graton Rancheria was opened up to any
California homeless Indian. Fact: The three men who lived there at the time of the termination act included the first
Graton resident, a Pomo man from Sonoma and Fred Everill, who was one-fourth Shasta Indian. You can read actual historical
documents on Graton Rancheria dating back to 1920 at www.stopthecasino101.com. One thing the record makes clear: There was never a tribe at the Graton Rancheria. Just check the record. PASTOR
CHIP WORTHINGTON Rohnert Park
The Press Democrat Article published - Aug 25,
2007
Shhhhhhh
Governor won't say if there's a casino in your future
Assemblyman Jared Huffman suspects that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a Sonoma County
Indian tribe are cutting a deal that would lead to a Las Vegas-style casino and resort along the 101 freeway in Rohnert Park.
But not even Huffman, a San Rafael Democrat, knows for sure.
He told Staff Writer Paul Payne that he spent an hour with two of the governor's
aides and came away without getting an answer. But "My gut tells me they have been in discussions."
"It was a little bit of speaking in code," he added.
When contacted by Payne, neither the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria nor
the governor's office would say if talks on a casino compact are under way.
So much for open government.
Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris blamed casino opponents for circulating rumors about
discussions that may or may not be taking place.
Since the tribe won't complete environmental documents until next year, no final
agreement is likely until then.
Whether you think a casino in Rohnert Park is a good idea or a bad idea, it remains
an astonishing state of affairs that the public is not even permitted to know if officials are involved in talks.
These deliberations, when they occur, won't just determine whether there will be
a casino. They will be staking out the parameters of mitigation measures to limit the development's impact on local communities,
and they will be determining what revenues will be shared with state and local governments.
Insiders will say that the public will find out in time. Which is no doubt true,
but by then, it will be a done deal.
We can be sure that Schwarzenegger and his aides believe they can represent the
public interest here, but what are the chances they understand the substance and the subtleties of hometown concerns, or the
social, economic and environmental impacts on central Sonoma County?
Indian tribes have sovereignty, but the last time we checked, state government
still was responsible to the people of California.
In these meetings, when they occur, the tribe and the casino operators will be
represented. Other folks? Not so much.
Last changed: Aug 25, 2007 © The Press Democrat.
The Petaluma Argus Courier, May 30, 2007
Casino threat draws closer
Plans by an Indian tribe and powerful Las Vegas gaming firm intent on ramming a gargantuan casino complex onto farmland
west of Rohnert Park demonstrate how bad laws, money and political influence are overwhelming, and ultimately ruining local
communities in California.
Plans by an Indian tribe and powerful Las Vegas gaming firm
|
