|
Hear our interview on KCBS
The Press Democrat, May 15, 2010 For HealyEDITOR: Anthony Mills letter (“Torliatt
supporter,” Wednesday) underscores the main reasons we'll be voting for Mike Healy for 2nd District supervisor. Petaluma Mayor Pamela
Torliatt's list of endorsements reads like a who's who of Sonoma County power players and do-nothing politically correct electeds.
The unions have far too much power in our county, and the elected officials who endorse her make me ashamed to be a Democrat.
Assemblyman Wes Chesbro has moved all over the state to retain political power. State Sen. Pat Wiggins, Assemblywoman Noreen
Evans and the North Bay Labor Council cater to the gambling interests trying to entrench themselves in our county. The casino proposed
for my area is the biggest concern of me and my neighbors in District 2, but Torliatt is cozied up with the very ones who
want the casino built. As a resident of unincorporated Sonoma County, I am sick and tired of the monied interests controlling our
political process and ignoring people like us. I want a supervisor who will put himself on the line against the casino like Mike Healy has and who
can get things done. We'll be voting for Healy, an independent, effective leader with a great track record. MIKE SMITH Santa Rosa
The Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published: Thursday,
May 13, 2010 at 8:56 p.m. No
recuse on casino issue
Editor: I write in response to Max Mickelsen's assertion that I would have to
recuse on the casino issue if I am elected to the Board of Supervisors. Max is flat wrong. Local officials have to recuse under two circumstances.
The first is where the official has a personal financial stake in the outcome of a decision or owns property nearby. I have
no such conflict regarding the proposed Rohnert Park casino. The second situation
is where an official has demonstrated “bias” for or against a project. Presumably this is what Max has in mind,
but even though I'm admittedly biased against the casino, that recusal requirement doesn't apply to me either, for two independent,
technical reasons. The first reason is that bias only requires recusal for decisions
that are “quasi-judicial” in nature, such as land-use entitlements. That isn't the case with the casino because,
assuming the property is taken into federal trust for the tribe, the casino won't need local land-use approvals. The decisions
the county will be making with respect to the casino are (1) whether to agree to a memorandum of understanding with the tribe,
and (2) whether to sue to stop the casino. Neither of those decisions are quasi-judicial, so the bias rule doesn't apply. The other reason is that the bias rule applies to appointed officials but not, oddly,
to bias demonstrated by either elected officials or candidates. This is because voters are entitled to know the views of their
elected officials and candidates on important issues. Max, who is both an attorney
and a Rabbitt campaign insider, should know better. I also take issue with Max asserting that our lawsuit challenging the
federal government taking the casino site into trust is something that would appear on Judge Judy's docket. Actually, the
lawsuit raises serious issues, which Max would realize if he'd bother to read the complaint or the briefs. Finally, it is noteworthy that Max's preferred candidate, Mr. Rabbitt, in his response to the Argus-Courier
questionnaire, makes clear that he won't be fighting to stop the casino. I respectfully disagree. Mike Healy, Petaluma
The Press Democrat, March 6, 2010 Sarris is an issue
EDITOR: I agree that there's an effort to "to distract and stupefy the public" as Oona Risling-Sholl says in her
Sunday letter ("Phony issue"), but it isn't Marilee Montgomery who doing the distracting. It's Greg Sarris, who
it appears may have defrauded the U.S. government with false claims of native blood.
Sarris hasn't "given up" anything. He's made a good living by claiming to be a Native American.
He now holds the chair in Native American studies at Sonoma State University. In examining the family that Sarris himself claims, Montgomery arrived at the only logical conclusion:
that Sarris has no Indian blood. I don't know how showing Sarris is a phony Indian translates into anti-tribal independence
or being a "birther," which is generally considered a pejorative term. It's people like Sarris who pose a huge threat to tribal independence. Allowing non-Indians to become
tribal members could eventually undermine tribal sovereignty, affect federally funded tribal programs and ruin any credibility
a tribe might have. ELIZABETH LANDSBERG Rohnert Park
The Press Democrat, February 26, 2010 Fairness at stake EDITOR: I could not disagree more
with your position that the ancestry of Graton tribal Chairman Greg Sarris does not matter (“About Sarris,” Saturday).
The legitimacy of federal tribal benefits and Indian sovereignty depend on the existence of Indian ancestry. California voters
granted Indian tribes a monopoly on Las Vegas style gaming. Tribes cannot grant membership to anyone they choose to share
in this profitable privilege. That would not comport with the voters’ intent or with principles of equal protection
under the U.S. Constitution. Non-Indians are not allowed to conduct Las Vegas-style gaming, and a tribe with non-Indian members
should not have any more right to operate a casino than the general population. This is especially true if the chairman has
no Indian ancestry. ALAN
TITUS Mill
Valley
The Boston Globe, Monday April 12, 2010 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/04/12/loser_friendly_casinos/ Loser-friendly casinos
By Leslie
Bernal | April 12, 2010 BERNIE MADOFF picked the wrong line of work. Even though his Ponzi scheme eluded investigation
for a long time, he would not be sitting in a North Carolina jail today if he had gone into casinos and lotteries —
the most effective something-for-nothing scheme ever devised. What other commercial venture besides a casino makes its
money from the heavy financial losses of its clients? What other entity besides the Lottery is exempt from truth-in-advertising
laws so it can deceptively dangle the prospect of life-changing riches? And what other business would still be operating
today if its core product was designed to get every user "to play to extinction’’ — until all their
money is gone — by using technology that has been labeled a "high-tech version of loaded dice"?These observations
are from research findings of Natasha Schull, associate professor in MIT’s Program in Science, Technology, and Society,
who has testified three times before the Legislature. As a gambling operator, Madoff would have evaded nearly all scrutiny
because many well-intentioned people know almost nothing about the business practices behind casinos and lotteries, the "products’’
and "services’’ they offer, or the marketing behind all of it. They do not regularly visit casinos or frequently
use the Lottery. If they did, they would learn that casinos and lotteries are the most predatory business in America
today. The business model is based on people who are addicted or heavily in debt, which explains why Harrah’s found
that 90 percent of its gambling profits come from the financial losses of 10 percent of its visitors, according to Christina
Binkley’s book, "Winner Takes All.’’ Matthew Sweeney, author of "The Lottery Wars,’’
found that in some states 70 percent of lottery sales comes from the financial losses of 10 percent of its users. To
make so much money from so few people, gambling operators rely on such practices as issuing loans to drunk patrons or using
casino staff to act as "hosts’’ to lure out-of-control gamblers back into the casino after they have left.
The Lottery pushes $20 scratch tickets and speeds up its Keno games to every four minutes so people will lose more money at
higher wagering amounts at faster speeds than ever before. To keep the focus away from the real questions about how
their business works, gambling interests have spent $12 million in Massachusetts promoting a fictional "jobs, revenues,
and inevitability’’ narrative over the last decade. If every legislator on Beacon Hill was outspent 5 to 1 during
his or her campaign, never mind 500 to 1, nearly all of them would lose reelection regardless of their merit. Yet we allow
casino operators to tout polling numbers as genuine evidence of public support, despite their incomparable spending advantage.
The latest Globe poll showed casinos clinging to support from 52 percent of those polled. In the modern annals of political
history, is there any other individual or group that has spent so much for so long with so little to show for it? Even
the prodigious spending of gambling interests, however, cannot hide the most revealing truth of all: this is a product or
service that the people who own it and promote it do not use. Nearly every leader of the three constituencies who advocate
for casinos and the Lottery — gambling operators, labor union officials, and political officeholders — has publicly
acknowledged they rarely lose their own money in casinos or on Lottery tickets. Yet they still push the "jobs’’
message. Bernie Madoff employed people and he produced a lot of revenue but who believes his kind of phony prosperity is the
right direction for our state and for our country? After a decade of housing bubbles and financial speculation, the era of
casino capitalism is over. A vote for casinos is not a vote for jobs. A vote for casinos is a vote for a something-for-nothing
scheme that veils the most cut-throat business in the country. But above all else, a vote for casinos is a vote about who
we are as a people. Leslie Bernal is the executive director of Stop Predatory Gambling and a resident of Lawrence.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Stop Predatory Gambling
100 Maryland Ave NE, Room 311, Washington, DC 20002
Contact: Les Bernal, (202) 567-6996
The Press Democrat, Published Monday March 15, 2010 Inconsistent county EDITOR: So, Sonoma County doesn’t want land taken into trust for the Alexander
Valley Wappo tribe and removed from the county’s authority (“County seeks to intervene in casino plans,”
Tuesday). Wait a minute: Isn’t that our lawsuit? Stop the Casino 101 Coalition is now in court trying to stop the federal government from removing the Graton Rancheria
casino site from local authority. The county could have joined us but chose to cut a deal with Graton Rancheria and promised
it wouldn’t join our lawsuit. We told the Board of Supervisors they were being short-sighted; our litigation would affect all future Indian trust
land acquisitions, not just the Graton Rancheria land. A federal judge might think that the county is inconsistent, fighting one trust acquisition but not fighting another,
thus creating a credibility problem for the county. The county makes almost $1 million a year in property taxes on the Rohnert Park casino site alone, taxes it would
lose if the land goes into trust. As more and more land is taken off the county tax rolls and placed into trust for Native
Americans, the county will sink ever deeper into the red, and local planning and zoning will be thrown out the window. CHIP WORTHINGTON Rohnert Park
Petaluma Argus-Courier, Published March 11, 2010 Tribal casino: The whole truth
By Marilee Montgomery
Published: Thursday,
March 11, 2010 at 6:40 p.m. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria’s guest commentary in the Argus-Courier
March 4 talks about how pointless, useless and maybe even ridiculous it is to allow the residents of Sonoma County the opportunity
to voice their opinion on tribal casino projects. They make it sound like local opinion will have no effect on any gambling
compact the FIGR might get or their casino plans in general. The FIGR is, as usual, failing to tell the whole truth. Getting
the compact from the governor is just the first part of a two-step process. The second part is getting the compact ratified
by our state Legislature. Although the governor may be required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to negotiate in good faith,
the state Legislature is under no such imperative, and is not required at all to approve any tribal gambling compact. In
2005, the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians shelved the gambling compact the governor gave them that would have allowed them to
have 2,500 slot machines at their casino in San Pablo. Under stiff pressure from the public and Sen. Dianne Feinstein and
State Assemblymember Loni Hancock, ratification of the Lytton’s gambling compact had no chance in the state Legislature.
Although the Lytton’s casino is open, it only has bingo machines. It cannot operate slots or table games. People
in this community are legitimately concerned about the problems Class III gambling would bring to the community. The FIGR
has continually minimized the social impacts of Las Vegas-style gambling, the increases in costs to local governments, and
the impact of 24/7 casino traffic on Highway 101 and local roads. In exchange for 4,000 jobs, a casino would have following
in its wake loan sharks, illegal gambling including illegal sports books, thieves, prostitutes, increased drug and alcohol
addiction, as well as ever-increasing numbers of gambling addicts and the resulting child abuse and neglect, spousal abuse,
bankruptcy, divorce, embezzlement and suicide. The FIGR’s own NEPA study indicates there is a 43 percent increase in
drug arrests following the opening of a casino. It seems a stiff price to pay for 4,000 mostly dead-end service jobs. A
recent report from the Rockefeller Institute indicates that payments from casinos are a bad way to balance a municipal budget.
The additional costs caused by a casino in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the burden on social programs, increased
wear and tear on public roads, etc. increase year to year because of inflation, but casino payments in agreements such as
the FIGR has with Rohnert Park never increase. The result Is an ever-expanding red bottom line for local government. The
FIGR is being deceptive when it states that the current site is consistent with Rohnert Park’s development plans. The
site, currently county land zoned Rural Residential and Agricultural, has the potential to be re-zoned if and when the property
is annexed by Rohnert Park, something that will not happen if the land is taken into federal trust for the FIGR. Even
under the Rohnert Park General Plan, there was never envisioned this kind of enormous high-impact project that would attract
in excess of 10,000 patrons every single day, using resources equivalent to that of a small town. Social problems, government
budgets and land use are all local issues. The public has never had an opportunity to actually vote on the non-conforming
casino project itself or on the agreements with Rohnert Park and the county of Sonoma. Had they been allowed to vote, the
outcome would have been much different for the FIGR, because as it well knows, there is overwhelming opposition to this casino.
What the FIGR fears most is a local vote, and that is why they have worked so hard to prevent it. (Marilee
Montgomery is a founding member of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition (www.stop thecasino101.com) in Rohnert Park and secretary
of Stop Predatory Gambling (www.stop predatorygambling.org). Copyright © 2010 PressDemocrat.com — All
rights reserved. Restricted use only.
The Press Democrat, Published March 6, 2010 Sarris is an issue
EDITOR: I agree that
there's an effort to "to distract and stupefy the public" as Oona Risling-Sholl says in her Sunday letter ("Phony
issue"), but it isn't Marilee Montgomery who doing the distracting. It's Greg Sarris, who it appears may have defrauded
the U.S. government with false claims of native blood. Sarris
hasn't "given up" anything. He's made a good living by claiming to be a Native American. He now holds the chair
in Native American studies at Sonoma State University. In
examining the family that Sarris himself claims, Montgomery arrived at the only logical conclusion: that Sarris has no Indian
blood. I don't know how showing Sarris is a phony Indian translates into anti-tribal independence or being a "birther,"
which is generally considered a pejorative term. It's
people like Sarris who pose a huge threat to tribal independence. Allowing non-Indians to become tribal members could eventually
undermine tribal sovereignty, affect federally funded tribal programs and ruin any credibility a tribe might have. ELIZABETH LANDSBERG Rohnert Park
The Press Democrat, Published Monday February 22, 2010 Hold casino vote EDITOR: Some people complain about
the cost of putting a casino advisory vote on the ballot. However, this cost would pale next to the cost to our county of
hotels, restaurants and other businesses closing and the tax dollars they pay to our county. It's simply irresponsible to nestle a gambling hall in a seven-mile radius of six Sonoma County cities, two
colleges, numerous public and private schools, many homes and a freeway that already sees gridlock. I resent the idea that the big bucks of Las Vegas Station Casinos can mandate that we have organized
gambling in our community whether we want it or not. Our governor has stated
that community input will have an impact on erecting future casinos. Our elected
officials have a moral, ethical and political responsibility to the people they represent to allow them their right to vote
on an issue of this magnitude. If the vote helps to save local businesses, protect our neighbors' wells, keep problem gamblers
out of our county and not turn our freeway into a parking lot, then this would be the best money our county could ever spend. JOHN METRAS Cotati
The Press Democrat, published Saturday, February 20, 2010 Stop the casino
EDITOR: Tony Cohen of Santa Rosa wrote a letter advising the people of Rohnert Park to "adapt to the inevitability
of Graton's Rohnert Park casino" (NIMBY vs. law," Thursday). Cohen neglects to state that he is the head of the
Indian law department of Clement, Fitzpatrick & Kenworthy, a Santa Rosa law firm. The Graton Rancheria may well be his
client. This is more of the defeatist
propaganda that the people of Rohnert Park have been fed for the past eight years. The truth is the opposite. Station Casinos,
the Las Vegas outfit that has bankrolled the Gratonites, is in bankruptcy. Its creditors want to be paid. The casino industry
is in depression. The federal government has vacated a decision to take the land for the proposed casino into trust because
of a lawsuit that alleges that the state of California never gave the constitutionally required consent to the removal of
the land from its sovereignty. The use of Rohnert Park's sewer system has also been denied. We had laws against casinos for a long, long time before anyone had the brilliant idea of giving
Indians a monopoly on gambling. These laws have nothing to do with Indians or Cohen's lame name-calling and everything to
do with the evils of gambling. JOHN
F. HUDSON
Rohnert Park
nv
GUEST OPINION: Why we are suing to block the casino By MIKE HEALY and CHIP WORTHINGTON
The Press Democrat Published: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. As two of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Kempthorne, challenging
the U.S. Department of Interior’s decision to take 254 acres near Rohnert Park into trust for a casino to be owned by
the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, we would like to report to the community on the progress of the lawsuit. On Monday, our attorneys filed opening briefs in 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in San Francisco. This important
case tests the federal government’s ability to displace state jurisdiction and all local planning controls over a parcel
of land and install Las Vegas-style gaming. More immediately, the court will decide whether local citizens directly affected
by the government’s action have the right to ask federal courts to review it. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Station Casinos intend to open a 762,000-square-foot
hotel and casino, including at least 2,000 slot machines. There
is Indian land, and then there is Indian land. That is, there are remote lands Native Americans have occupied for generations,
and there are urban lands tribes are now trying to purchase with the help of Las Vegas partners, such as Station Casinos,
so they both can take advantage of the Indian monopoly on slot machines. Many people think that California voters intended to approve Indian gaming only on historical Indian
lands but not on newly purchased lands. We agree. The
Wilfred Avenue site sought by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has been governed by state law since California joined
the Union in 1850. But the federal government now claims that it can take title to the land in trust for the tribe, and state
law will automatically no longer apply. That is not the law. State land remains under state sovereignty unless either (1) the federal government reserved jurisdiction
over land it owned when the state was admitted to the union, or (2) the state consents to cede its jurisdiction over the site.
Neither of these exceptions apply to the Wilfred site, so therefore it remains governed by state law. Plaintiffs have sued for a court declaration to clarify that even after the federal government takes
title, state law will continue to govern this site. This raises important constitutional issues that go to the heart of the
practice of purchasing traditionally non-Indian property to be taken into trust for casino gaming. The trial court judge did not listen to the merits of the case. Rather, the judge threw the case
out, ruling that the plaintiffs do not have standing. She ruled that the injuries alleged were speculative because the Graton
tribe will need to obtain further approvals. She is mistaken. The injuries alleged are both real and immediate. Taking the land into federal trust would deprive us all of the
benefits of local zoning regulations, including compliance with local general plans and zoning ordinances, as well as depriving
us of the ability to challenge a project inconsistent with those planning laws in state court. Taking the property into trust would deprive us all of the benefits of state law outlawing casino
gaming. Taking the property into trust would
cause an immediate drop in the value of nearby homes, due to the prospect of a huge casino, because the Department of Interior’s
internal guidelines mean that once the property is taken into trust, allowing a casino is essentially a foregone conclusion.
The threat of a casino is not merely speculative. This
country is governed by the rule of law, and that requires that sovereignty be determined at the threshold, not at some later
time. This matter needs to be settled now. Chip
Worthington is a pastor in Rohnert Park and founder of the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma
City Council.
The real threat The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor Published Monday October 26, 2009 EDITOR: The Oct. 18 article about the
Laguna de Santa Rosa ("A waterway rediscovered") was a pleasant read, although somewhat incomplete. While reading
about the natural beauty, the wildlife and the proposed public access, I couldn't help but feel heartsick and angry knowing
that those who profess to love the Laguna are ignoring the biggest threat to it. That would be the 850,000 square-foot casino/resort
the Graton Rancheria intends to build at the head of the Laguna. According to reports, the project will require truckloads of soil to be brought in six days a week for 22 months
to bring the building pad up high enough out of the flood plain to build on. Proponents of this project claim that creation
of this building pad will have no effect on the annual flooding and no negative impacts on the Laguna. The thousands of additional
vehicles and tour buses won't affect it either. The casino owners intend to flush their treated wastewater down the Laguna
as well. Gosh, maybe that will get rid of the Ludwigia weed that is flourishing after the failed eradication efforts of a
few years ago. If you truly care about the Laguna,
forget about the bike trails and the sweet talk. Get serious and do something that will actually save it. PAMELA A. MILLER Santa Rosa
An online poll conducted by the Petaluma Argus-Courier shows that 86% of those responding are opposed
to the Rohnert Park casino plan. The poll asked two questions: 1) Should the county put a casino advisory measure on the June 2001 ballot? Yes -
64.2% No
- 27.7% Not Sure - 8.2% 2) Do you favor or oppose the proposed casino in Rohnert
Park? Favor - 11.3% Oppose - 86.8% Not Sure - 2.5%
People are Talking about ACR 56 Casino votes Press Democrat, Sunday, September 13, 2009 EDITOR: For anybody who thinks that Rohnert Park residents aren't
against a casino on their border, just tally the votes. In 2004, we unseated our pro-casino mayor. In 2006, we voted out a
pro-casino 17-year council member (his comment, "It was the casino"). After the election on Feb. 5, 2008, many Rohnert Park residents and others spoke before the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors, asking for a countywide non-binding resolution showing local sentiment with regard to the expansion
of gambling in our county. The response from Supervisor Valerie Brown was that because Californians had just voted in favor
of casino expansion (Propositions 94-97), this meant that Californians wanted casino gambling. Oops. Brown must have forgotten
to check the registrar's Sonoma County Statement of Vote, which shows her district and the county as a whole voted 64 percent
against expansion and Rohnert Park voted 60 percent against expansion. To settle this, let's finally have a non-binding resolution showing countywide sentiment regarding
the taking of county (non-Indian) land into trust for the purpose of casino gambling. And, at the state level, let's support
Assemblyman Jared Huffman's ACR 56, which urges the governor to consider local sentiment (as he promised to do) when negotiating
a gaming compact. LINDA M. LONG Rohnert Park Casino vote The Press Democrat, Published: Saturday, September 19, 2009
at 3:00 a.m. EDITOR: In his Tuesday Close
to Home column, Greg Sarris, chairman of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, opened fire on Assemblyman Jared Huffman's
resolution urging that public sentiment be considered as a condition for negotiating gaming compacts ("Indian gaming
resolution failed because it was unfair, illegal"). Can
you imagine allowing the people to have a voice in whether they want organized gambling inflicted upon their community? If
Sarris is convinced Sonoma County residents want a gambling hall sandwiched within five cities off our already congested freeway,
in a flood plain, in a residential area and within just a few miles of two colleges, then he should welcome an advisory vote. Sarris refers to a "positive partnership," which is nothing
more than a smoke screen for money that Station Casinos fronted the Rohnert Park Public Safety Department to help offset the
crime that the casino would generate. The partnership also refers to money the tribe gave to Sonoma State University for a
Native American Studies program, coincidentally directed by Sarris with a salary of more than $100,000 annually. I support Huffman's efforts to allow our residents to have a voice
in issues that matter. JOHN METRAS Cotati PD Editorial: Money talksSilence at legislative hearing on tribal casinos speaks
volumes Published: The Press Democrat, Friday, September 4, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. Would you like a freshly minted example of the enormous power of money in politics? Look no further
than last week's legislative hearing on tribal casinos. Assemblyman
Jared Huffman presented a resolution urging the governor and fellow lawmakers to consider public sentiment when deciding whether
to approve state gaming compacts, the equivalent of a license to open a casino. Not only did the San Rafael Democrat's resolution fail, he couldn't coax a single member of the innocuously
named Senate Government Organization Committee, which has jurisdiction over alcohol, tobacco and gambling, to call for a vote
on the measure. "The fix was in,"
Huffman told Staff Writer Paul Payne. "The message we got was don't even go there. There are too many powerful interests
involved." The non-binding resolution also
called on the governor to refrain from negotiating a gaming compact until land was taken into trust by the U.S. Interior Department,
another prerequisite for opening a casino. That's
the stated policy of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose May 18, 2005 proclamation on tribal gaming also says that tribes seeking
to open casinos would be required to show "that the affected local community supports the project, such as by a local
advisory vote..." It's not clear, however,
that the governor is committed to his own policy. Huffman
points out that Schwarzenegger has consummated deals with tribes that didn't have eligible land, and administration spokesmen
have declined to comment on reports that negotiations are ongoing with other tribes in similar circumstances. Meanwhile, there's never been a commitment to consider public sentiment
on the casino proposed just outside Rohnert Park by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. Huffman also introduced a bill that would require the governor to consider local sentiment when negotiating
a gaming compact. But, like the resolution that failed last week, his bill stalled in a Senate committee with little prospect
of action before lawmakers adjourn their regular session next week. California tribes have sown Sacramento with money - more than $120 million in campaign contributions over
the past 15 years - reaping political support from grateful legislators. Certainly, there's no shortage of opportunities to gamble in Sonoma County with the lottery, horse
racing and a tribal casino in the Alexander Valley. So, another casino would be only a marginal increase. Before it could happen, the Rohnert Park proposal is confronted
with several major obstacles, including the recent bankruptcy filing of its business partner, Station Casinos; and a federal
lawsuit that prompted the Interior Department to at least temporarily postpone action to take the tribe's land into trust. Still, the last time we checked, legislators and the governor were
in the business of representing the citizens of California, who should be asked for input on further expansion of gambling
in the state. Casino votes Press Democrat, Sunday, September 13, 2009 EDITOR: For anybody who thinks that Rohnert Park residents aren't
against a casino on their border, just tally the votes. In 2004, we unseated our pro-casino mayor. In 2006, we voted out a
pro-casino 17-year council member (his comment, "It was the casino"). After the election on Feb. 5, 2008, many Rohnert Park residents and others spoke before the Sonoma
County Board of Supervisors, asking for a countywide non-binding resolution showing local sentiment with regard to the expansion
of gambling in our county. The response from Supervisor Valerie Brown was that because Californians had just voted in favor
of casino expansion (Propositions 94-97), this meant that Californians wanted casino gambling. Oops. Brown must have forgotten
to check the registrar's Sonoma County Statement of Vote, which shows her district and the county as a whole voted 64 percent
against expansion and Rohnert Park voted 60 percent against expansion. To settle this, let's finally have a non-binding resolution showing countywide sentiment regarding
the taking of county (non-Indian) land into trust for the purpose of casino gambling. And, at the state level, let's support
Assemblyman Jared Huffman's ACR 56, which urges the governor to consider local sentiment (as he promised to do) when negotiating
a gaming compact. LINDA M. LONG Rohnert Park Argus-Courier
Editorial Demand an advisory
vote on R.P. casino Published: Friday,
September 4, 2009 at 3:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 2, 2009 at 5:38 p.m. There's little doubt that a majority of Sonoma County residents do not want to see a giant, Las Vegas-style
casino complex built in Rohnert Park. Sure,
city officials in Rohnert Park want it, having recklessly signed an agreement a few years ago with the Graton Rancheria tribe
and its backer, Station Casinos of Las Vegas, to get more than $100 million over a 20-year period. But what Rohnert Park's leaders won't talk about are the many enduring negative impacts that the
mega-casino would have on the region. According to county officials, the project will bring unacceptably large increases in
traffic congestion on Highway 101, crime, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and groundwater degradation - and there
would be no way to mitigate these impacts. The county would forever be scarred, with Las Vegas gambling interests being the
primary beneficiary. That's why the casino
doesn't have a lot of popular support among Sonoma County residents and why casino interests are working overtime to prevent
a countywide advisory vote of the people that could help stop this misguided project in its tracks. North Bay State Assembly-man Jared Huffman has been working hard to prevent the casino project from
moving forward. But he received a hard lesson last week on just how much casino money is influencing decision-making in Sacra-mento
when he tried to get a relatively innocuous resolution passed in the Senate that would require the governor to consider local
support before signing a gaming compact with an Indian tribe. The result: not a single member of the Senate Governmental Organization
Committee, including Santa Rosa's Pat Wiggins, would make a motion on the measure. Petaluma's State Senator, Mark Leno, was
conspicuously absent from the hearing and offered zero support for allowing his constituents an opportunity to simply voice
their opinion on the single biggest land use issue in the county's history. But Petaluma City Councilman Mike Healy was there and watched as the committee chairman literally
rolled his eyes as Healy testified on this city's legitimate concerns about the casino's impacts and the Petaluma City's Council's
unanimous support for Huffman's proposal to give some weight to such local concerns when a gaming compact is considered. But casino proponents were there in force. Rohnert Park Public
Safety Chief Brian Masterson, Susan Moore of Friends of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and numerous representatives
from other Indian tribes operating casinos all over California had traveled to Sacramento to oppose Huffman's resolution and
to tell the Senate committee how wonderful it would be to have a sprawling casino built just north of Petaluma. Interestingly, eight of the 13 members of the committee have received
campaign donations from Station Casinos, as has Senate President Darryl Steinberg, according to Stop the Casino 101 Coalition.
So, in light of the fact that a vote in favor of Huffman's sensible resolution might derail their money train, we can see
how Wiggins and her fellow committee members had difficulty mustering the courage to do the right thing. The ongoing propaganda from the tribe was no less disappointing.
Responding to an inquiry from a Press Democrat reporter, Graton tribal leader Greg Sarris falsely stated that Huffman was
"alone in his viewpoint" of wanting to give Sonoma County residents a chance to vote on the casino and that there
is "great community support" for a project that the board of supervisors and Petaluma City Council have unanimously
condemned. It's time to let Sonoma County residents
be heard on this critically important issue. Fortunately, Petaluma City Councilman Mike Healy is leading a new effort to get
a casino advisory measure placed on the June, 2010 ballot. Last year, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors missed an opportunity to place such a measure on the November
2008 general election ballot when south county supervisor Mike Kerns brought the issue to the board but could not garner enough
support among the other four members. But with
two new supervisors elected to the board last November, there could now be adequate support for an advisory measure. Shirlee
Zane signed a pledge in support of an advisory measure before the election and Efren Carrillo subsequently said he would support
it. But Kerns, who previously expressed support for a measure, developed a sudden and severe case of cold feet, citing perplexing
concerns about the relatively small cost of adding a few sentences on the ballot statement. In the face of the enormous costs
the casino would place on county government, Kerns sudden backtracking on the issue is truly mystifying. A countywide advisory measure would send a very strong message
to the governor and the state legislature who would have to recognize and take into account public sentiment before approving
any gaming agreement. Such an advisory measure would be the people's only chance to weigh in on the single largest commercial
development in the county's history which is wholly exempt from state and local environmental laws, zoning ordinances and
all other local land use regulations. Shouldn't
members of the public at least get a chance to express their opinions on this 762,300-square-foot development before it's
built? In 2006, Petaluma residents voted 79
to 21 percent to oppose any proposal to build a casino south of town. We believe residents here are no less likely to want
to see a casino north of town, especially since most traffic to the Rohnert Park casino would have to pass through this community. But convincing Supervisor Kerns to act on this important issue
is probably going to take some effort, and that means he needs to hear from lots of you. Let him know that you believe a countywide
advisory measure should be put on the ballot in June of 2010, so people can finally have a say on this massive casino project.
Before it's too late, let's demand that Kerns
do more to stop this casino development that would cause extensive, lasting and irreparable harm to Petaluma and Sonoma County.
Write Kerns at the County Administration Building, 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa 95401, e-mail him at mkerns@sonoma-county.org, call him at 778-7578 or send a fax to 565-3778. The Press Democrat, Published Friday, August 28, 2009 Casino vote EDITOR:
Kudos to Assemblyman Jared Huffman for attempting to bring public opinion into play on the casino ("Casino advisory proposal
rejected," Thursday). Shame on the "Federated Station Casinos of Graton Rancheria" for obfuscating the truth
about public support of the proposed casino in Rohnert Park. If they are so sure of their claimed support, why did they feel
the need to suppress the resolution to include public opinion in the decision-making process? I am confident that I stand
with the vast majority of my fellow Rohnert Parkians in opposition to a casino in our community. STEPHEN SMITH Rohnert
Park
A blatant conflict The Press Democrat Monday, August 3, 2009 EDITOR: Wednesday's Press Democrat carried an article regarding Station Casinos filing for Chapter 11, with an astonishing
(to me at least) reference in the 10th paragraph. It noted that (1) Station "donated at least $2.5 million to Sonoma
State University," (2) "the university used the donation to create an endowed chair of Native American studies and
offered the position to the tribe's chairman, Greg Sarris," and (3) "the endowment paid him $477,347 over a three-year
period ending in 2007." Have the moral and ethical standards
at the university sunk so low that this kind of quid pro quo deal looks OK? Am I the only one who thinks there is something
wrong in such a blatant conflict of interest? BOB CHRISTOFFERSON Mendocino
Advisory vote a good ideaThe
Argus-Courier in petaluma360, Published: Friday, April 3, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. Editor: I wanted to add a couple of thoughts
regarding a possible county-wide advisory ballot measure on the proposed Rohnert Park casino. The next regularly scheduled
election will be in June 2010, and a decision to place a measure on that ballot would need to be made around next February. First,
a ballot measure is expected to cost about $100,000. I would point out that the federal lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department
of Interior's decision to take the Rohnert Park site into trust has already delayed that action by nearly a year, with
the result that property taxes are continuing to be paid at a rate of about $1 million per year. So in a very real sense,
this cost has been more than covered. Second, California will be electing a new governor in November 2010. Nothing would
focus the attention of the candidates like an emphatic statement by Sonoma County voters against the Rohnert Park casino.
Bear in mind that the governor is responsible for negotiating the necessary gaming compact with the tribe. And unless the
federal lawsuit concludes quickly, this will be the next governor's task. Although federal law requires the governor
to negotiate in good faith, the governor is not required to allow a particular number of slot machines. The Graton Rancheria
hasn't publicly said how many slot machines it wants, but an educated guess is 5,000 or 6,000. The governor would be well
within his or her rights to limit the number of slot machines, and the size of the casino, to a level where the traffic impacts
on Highway 101, as well as other adverse impacts, could actually be mitigated. Once a gaming compact is negotiated,
it has to be ratified by the California Legislature. The federal government can't force this step in the process. A strong
result on an advisory ballot measure could be very helpful in defeating the compact in the Legislature. For all of these
reasons, an advisory ballot measure continues to be a good idea. Mike Healy, Petaluma
Argus-Courier EditorialCasino ballot advisory measure still worth a shotPublished: Thursday, April 2, 2009 at 9:27 a.m.
Last August, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors passed up a golden opportunity to place an advisory measure regarding
a proposed mega-casino in Rohnert Park on the November 2008 general election ballot that would have given voters a chance
to weigh in on the controversial proposal. South county supervisor Mike Kerns had brought the issue to the board a second
time but, unfortunately, could not garner enough support among the other four members to put the issue to voters. Consequently,
the board blew a chance to give local residents a chance to state clearly how they feel about the casino. An advisory measure
would send a very strong message to the governor, who has vowed to take into account public sentiment before approving a gaming
agreement. More importantly, legislation proposed by North Bay Assemblyman Jared Huffman would make an advisory vote an even
more powerful weapon in terms of stopping what many believe is one of the most ill-conceived development projects in the county's
history. Now, with two new supervisors elected to the board in the November election, there appears to be adequate
support for a casino advisory measure. Shirlee Zane signed a pledge in support of an advisory measure before the election
and Efren Carrillo now says he would support it. But Kerns, who previously expressed support for a measure, has apparently
backed off, citing concerns about its cost and effectiveness. First, let's look at the cost. Since there is no regular
election scheduled this year, the cost of a special election for the measure in November would be between $632,500 and $885,500
- clearly an expense the county cannot afford in these tight economic times. But if the county were to put the measure on
the June 2010 primary ballot, it would cost a more palatable $63,000 to $126,500. Then there are the questions of timing
and effectiveness. While it would have been better had the supervisors put the measure on the ballot last November, it still
makes sense to put it on the June 2010 ballot. A lawsuit by opponents of the casino will likely delay the project until well
after that election date. And if Huffman's legislation is approved by the Legislature later this year, it would give the
advisory measure some teeth. Huffman's legislation would require Indian casino promoters to win either local voter
approval or get an agreement between the tribe and local government agencies before a casino could be built. It is sound legislation
that gives local communities at least some say in development that could have huge and potentially devastating consequences.
The law would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 2008, making the planned Rohnert Park casino subject to its provisions. Kerns
did say that if Huffman's legislation passes, he would consider voting to put an advisory measure on the June 2010 ballot
because it would carry some weight. We agree that it doesn't make fiscal sense at this time for the county to foot
the astronomical bill for a special election. But a June 2010 ballot measure would be less costly and would still send a very
powerful message from voters that could stop the project. Even if Huffman's legislation does not pass, an advisory
vote would give federal officials, who have the final say on the land trust, and state officials, who must work out an agreement
with the tribe for a gaming compact, a clear understanding of how local residents feel about the plan. According to
county officials, the casino development will wreak lasting negative impacts, including unacceptably large increases in traffic
congestion, crime, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and groundwater degradation - and there is no way to mitigate these
impacts. The county would forever be scarred, with Las Vegas gambling interests being the primary beneficiary. Huffman's
legislation deserves widespread public support, and that includes Petaluma's state senator, Mark Leno, D-San Francisco,
along with Governor Schwarzenegger. If you don't want to see a giant casino built in Rohnert Park, contact your
elected officials and demand they do all they can to stop this development that would cause extensive and irreparable harm
to Sonoma County for years to come. Let Supervisor Mike Kerns know that you believe a countywide advisory measure should be put on the ballot in June of 2010, so people can finally have a
say on the county's largest-ever development project.
From the Press Democrat, Published: Saturday, February
28, 2009 No water, no casino EDITOR:
I read about how we’re being asked to voluntarily reduce our water use and how mandatory restrictions are probably coming
(“SR declares water shortage,” Wednesday). Then I look up the page and see an article about the 300-room hotel
resort the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria still want to build (“Final casino EIR released”). I hope
the environmental impact report included the fact that Sonoma County doesn’t have enough water as things presently are.
No new water hook-ups should be allowed at present, especially for this scale of construction. I repeat, just say no.
From the San Francisco Chronicle, Published
Monday December 8, 2008California casinos feel the pain
The
gambling industry may not line up with carmakers or banks at the edge of the financial cliff. But California's casino-operating
tribes are feeling the pain as expansion plans are shelved and layoffs announced. The state's huge gambling boom
has clearly slowed. It's evident from Sonoma county, where a Geyserville casino has shelved a $600 million hotel and spa,
to Southern California, where the state's biggest tribal operators are pulling back on mega-sized casinos with 5,000 slot
machines and laying off hundreds of card dealers and pit bosses. Elsewhere in the Bay Area, other projects may be put on hold
while lenders gauge the success of a new casino opening in Shingle Springs near Sacramento. California's government
- and in particular Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a gambling proponent - are also losers. Four Schwarzenegger-endorsed gambling
agreements, supported by voters in February, were predicted to bring in $9 billion in state payments by 2030. First higher
gas costs and now a recession have killed initial chances to get to this goal as customers stay away and new facilities are
scrubbed. The tribes aren't alone. State lottery sales have dropped by 10 percent this year compared to last, casting
a shadow across the governor's plan to lease it out for a quick infusion of cash. Also, the slowdown has hit Las Vegas,
where big operators there are reporting losses, empty hotel rooms and a decline in visitors. In this state, expanded
gambling was peddled as an easy, pain-free supplement to the state's economy. It dangled promises of self-sufficiency
for tribes, jobs for others and taxes for government. But it hasn't turned out that way as the nation's - and California's
- infatuation with casinos faded. Sacramento should look in other directions to plan California's future. Wagering
on gambling is a lousy bet. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/12/08/ED8P14IR1K.DTL This
article appeared on page B - 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle
From the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, published Wednesday November 5, 2008 Hot spot EDITOR:
In the flurry of stories surrounding the recent nationwide prostitution sting, many may have missed a small but important
detail: As reported by news organizations nationwide, for the sting, the authorities focused on "hot spots" for
prostitution, which included casinos. Boosters for the proposed Graton Rancheria casino may want to hide their heads
in the sand when it comes to the effect of casinos on crime in the host community, but the authorities know that casinos create
crime, including prostitution. There are other ways than a casino for our community's Native Americans to advance
themselves. Those alternatives need to be honestly explored, not just given lip service. None of us, Native Americans
included, wants to see our sons and daughters exposed to, much less engaging in, prostitution at the Rohnert Park casino.
It's now five years and counting since we were first told the Rohnert Park casino was a "done deal" and that
its construction was imminent. This casino can be stopped. We can save our community. Let's all work together to
create a better vision for everyone in the community. MARILEE MONTGOMERY Santa Rosa
From the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, published Saturday
August 30, 2008 Age issue EDITOR: Sonoma State University President Ruben Armiñana
appears to favor lowering the legal drinking age below 21. Let's suppose it becomes 18. Does this mean that 18-year-old
SSU students will be allowed to enter the Rohnert Park casino and order drinks? Then, will it also be OK for these 18-year-olds
to gamble at the casino at the same time? It seems this would possibly cause great anguish for the students' parents,
who might be helping them pay tuition, fees and living expenses. Think about those consequences in Armiñana's university.
Not so good to contemplate, I think. CSU and Santa Rosa Junior College administrators have a sensible opposition to the bad
idea being floated. Does the fact that Station Casinos of Nevada has made donations through the Graton Tribe to SSU
have anything to do with this loose attitude? Also, if the under-21 students are now using fake IDs, what will we think if
16-year-old high school students produce fake IDs to bluff their way in? Does anyone think we are headed down the wrong road? ROBERT
AHERNE Rohnert Park
From the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, Published Wednesday
August 20, 2008 Casino Suit
Editor: Susan Moore's Close to Home
column ("Tribe made historic deal with North bay", Aug.9) seems to have missed the point of Marilee Montgomery's
Close to Home column ("Tribe gives up little, but gains much" Aug. 2). Montgomery discussed the legality of a federal agency removing land from California's sovereign
control and the fact hat we are a nation of laws. We are ruled by laws that are supposed to be applied equally to all,
regardless of race or ethnic origin. Is Moore suggesting that
there should be sepaate laws for sepaate races? We've already tried that in this country, inclduing laws aimed against
Native Americans. it didn't work then, and it won't work now. The
federal government's land claim for the Graton Rancheria is in the courts where it belongs. ELIZABETH LANDSBERG Rohnert Park
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
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.
Whether this troubling
statewide trend can be stopped or slowed before it wreaks havoc on southern Sonoma County is unknown, but it’s worth
fighting to prevent this beautiful piece of the North Bay from being transformed into a traffic-choked gambling Mecca.
Well-intentioned efforts
by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey helped open the door to this prospective debacle seven years ago. Woolsey was coaxed into authoring
legislation that would restore tribal status to a handful of Coast Miwok Indian descendants, providing federal funds to help
these Native American constituents qualify for health, education and housing benefits through the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
The “no-gaming” clause originally included in Woolsey’s draft legislation, which would have prevented a
casino operation, was later scrapped in order to gain full congressional approval in 2000.
That same year, state
voters approved Proposition 1A, allowing Indian tribes the right to operate Las Vegas-style gambling casinos in California,
and the floodgates were opened for the subsequent invasion into California by Nevada gaming interests.
The Federated Indians
of Graton Rancheria and their tribal leader, Greg Sarris, saw a golden opportunity to make a small mountain of cash by partnering
with gambling kingpin Lorenzo Fertitta, president of Station Casinos Inc., a billion-dollar gambling enterprise that operates
several casinos in and around Las Vegas.
Sarris and his well-heeled
partners have since hired a host of powerful lobbyists who are walking the hallways in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., quietly
greasing the skids for what would become the single largest development in Sonoma County history. They have also cultivated
the support of many powerful business and community leaders here in Sonoma County, who have formed a separate non-profit organization
to lobby for the casino development. Several of these folks became supporters of the casino development once the tribe and
Station Casinos started throwing money around in the form of donations. Example: Dan Schurman, executive director of the Laguna
de Santa Rosa Foundation, a wetlands preservation group, decided to say nothing about the massive environmental degradation
the development will cause after the tribe handed him a check for $100,000 to fund wetlands education efforts.
On Monday, June 4, the
public comment period will close on an environmental report under review by the Indian Gaming Commission that is supposed
to study the environmental impacts of the project before approving it. If approved at the federal level, the tribe would then
be allowed to put the land into federal trust, after which it would seek a California state gaming compact.
Both the city of Petaluma
and county of Sonoma have weighed in with letters of opposition citing a huge array of highly negative and permanent impacts
that would forever change this area for the worse.
The 760,000-square- foot
complex is expected to dump an additional 18,000 daily car trips onto Highway 101, most of them through Petaluma. In addition
to the massive traffic jams and increased accidents on that already severely congested roadway, the casino development would
significantly worsen Petaluma’s shortage of affordable housing; suck up to a quarter-million gallons of water daily
from already strained underground aquifers; increase crime and air pollution; and heighten demand for mutual aid from Petaluma’s
fire and police departments.
Nearly 80 percent of Petalumans
voted last year to oppose another casino project proposed by a competing Indian tribe for property just south of town. While
that project is still in limbo, the Graton Rancheria casino project is rapidly moving toward final approval.
To add your comments to
the report under review, e-mail graton_eis@nigc.gov, or mail National Indian Gaming Commission, attn: Brad Mehaffy, 1441 L
St., NW, Suite 9100, Washington, D.C., 20005.
Last changed: May 29,
2007 © Argus Courier 2007
STC101 Note: Two clarifications on this
excellent editorial: First, the current NEPA review is required in for the approval by the NIGC of the management
contract between Station Casinos, Inc. and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. It is not related to the land-into-trust
process. That is a separate process. The approval of the management contract will not result in the construction
of the casino. The land must first be taken into trust, and a gambling compact must be obtained from the Governor.
Second, while we must remain vigilant in our opposition to this completely unsuitable project, if
the NIGC is so rash as to rubber-stamp this project's completely insufficient Draft Environmental Impact Statement, it will
find itself the subject of litigation that will take years, not months, to resolve, and the consensus of legal consultants
is that the casino will be stopped in litigation.
The Press Democrat, Wed. May 16, 2007
Casino commentsEDITOR: Several misconceptions regarding the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria's (FIGR) casino
project need to be clarified. The environmental review currently under way is not voluntary by the FIGR. It is mandatory,
required for the approval of the FIGR's management contract with Station Casinos by the National Indian Gaming Commission,
which is the source of this information. The casino site is not owned by the FIGR but by SC Sonoma Development, LLC,
a California LLC formed by Station Casinos for this project. The property will only be transferred to the FIGR if and
when the site is taken into trust by the secretary of the interior for gaming purposes. In an off-reservation trust
application such as this is, even with FIGR's special privilege, the property may be taken into trust but not be approved
for gaming purposes. This environmental review process will take years, not months, if it is even successful at all. The
National Indian Gaming Commission has given a blanket extension for comments on the Graton draft environemntal impact statement
until June 4. Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight on June 4. Every citizen has equal standing to make comments,
and those comments should not be ignored Information on how to comment and where to send your comments can be found
at www.stopthecasino101.com. THE REV. CHIP WORTHINGTON Rohnert Park
Earth Day
EDITOR: So today is Earth Day. Shall we give thought to global warming, possible drought,
decreasing ground-water levels, protecting the Laguna de Santa Rosa, problems of wastewater disposal and the negative impact
that the planned mega-casino will have on all of those issues?
That the city of Rohnert Park can still be giving any
consideration to this fiasco is unconscionable.
I hope I'm not around in 10 or 20 years when our children and grandchildren
ask, "What were they thinking?"
SHIRLEY GOODIN
Rohnert Park
From the Press Democrat, Saturday, April 21, 2007
Too many people
EDITOR: Steve Klausner's April 14 commentary on a casino train clearly stated that the three significant environmental
impacts of the casino are water, sewage and traffic. What is amazing is how quickly he dismisses water and sewage as impacts,
while he lobbies in favor of increasing traffic.
Whether more people are brought in by bus, train or on foot, the impact of more people is
simply, in plain words, too much.
Sonoma County has reached and exceeded its limits to support more people, whether
they come in on a train or not. The overdrafted aquifer in Rohnert Park, which is down more than 150 feet cannot be improved
by adding more people, even if they are only here for the evening.
The overdrafted aquifer is being shared by more
than just Rohnert Park, Sonoma State University, Cotati and Canon Manor. It is also being used by Santa Rosa and all of those
folks who live around Rohnert Park and are on private wells.
Even if they could include a tank car of water on every
train that brought in people to gamble, where would they get the water? Certainly not from Marin County, or the East Bay.
There is simply not enough water.
And similarly, if they could fill tank cars with the sewage waste, where will it
be dumped? There are simply too many people.
PAUL STUTRUD
Rohnert Park
From the Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Wed. April 18, 2007
Casino train
EDITOR: The idea of gamblers at the Rohnert Park casino using SMART to travel back and forth to the casino isn't so smart
(Close to Home, Saturday). The target market for the Rohnert Park casino will be San Francisco and the East Bay.
even for short trips, for two reasons:
First, it would be a multi-stage commute just
to get from San Francisco or the East Bay to the nearest SMART station in Marin County. A car or a casino bus from a nearby
shopping center will be the vehicle of choice.
Second, gamblers using public transport would quickly become a target
for savvy criminals. Case in point, not too long ago, a woman who had been gambling at the San Pablo casino was apparently
followed by a thief from the casino to a nearby bank where she was going to deposit her winnings after a night of gambling.
She was robbed of her money and injured in the process. Police believe she had been observed winning by the thief, then followed
from the casino to the ATM.
Scary, huh?
Would you risk public transportation, even for short trip, with your
winnings in your pocket?
PETER JACKSON
Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Fri. April 13, 2007
Insane proposal
EDITOR: A recent editorial in The Press Democrat referred to the "perfect drought" conditions in Southern California.
It stated that someday the perfect drought will come to Northern California; therefore, we in Sonoma County must aggressively
pursue ways to reuse wastewater and to conserve fresh water. Right on. Could not agree more. Now follow my advice, editor,
and vigorously use your good offices to oppose the insane proposal to construct a Las Vegas-type casino complex in the heart
of Sonoma County. It is not a done deal.
JOE PERRY
Rohnert Park
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Mon. April 9, 2007
Turn to education
EDITOR: Greg Sarris, the chairman of the Graton tribe, was quoted in Thursday's paper as saying the casino is "the only
viable way to raise the standard of living for the 1,076 members of the tribe."
How ridiculous is that?
Higher
education in the correct field of study translates to better jobs, more money and secure futures. I would rather see someone
raise their standard of living through education, not gambling.
JILL JOHNS
Santa Rosa
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Sat. April 7, 2007
Go to school
EDITOR: One can take exception with Greg Sarris, chairman of the Graton tribe, that the Rohnert Park casino is the only
viable way to raise the standard of living for the members of the tribe. There is another way: Go to school, get an education,
learn a trade and then go out and get a job and work for a living.
PAUL R. MILLER
Healdsburg
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Fri. April 6, 2007
Try cooperation
EDITOR: First of all, I am not a bigot. The only people I don’t like are mean, selfish, greedy snobs and criminals.
The
reason I voted to allow Indian gaming compacts is because I felt sorry about the way Indians were treated by Andrew Jackson
and after the Civil War.
I am not one of those who thinks that “we” should have never come here. If the
United States didn’t exist at the beginning of the 20th century, you can imagine what kind of tyranny the world would
be living under today.
I think Indians should be free to make it in the modern world however they can, but it is kind
of sad that they have resolved themselves to believe that the only way they can make it is to partner with the gambling industry.
Anyway,
why can’t they just propose a smaller casino for Rohnert Park, or find someplace farther out in the country to build
a resort?
Why not try to cooperate with the citizens of Rohnert Park instead of stirring up friction?
DAVE LANATTI
Petaluma
The Press Democrat, Letters to the Editor, Thurs. April 5, 2007
Casino concerns
EDITOR: When the casino in Rohnert Park was first discussed, my main concerns were related to the potential crime and
traffic. After reading the Monday article in The Press Democrat discussing the environmental report, I am even more concerned
than ever about those two items and also wonder about the following:
I wonder how “plans for a casino on Highway
37 near Sears Point fell through.” Wish we would have followed their lead.
I wonder if “$200 million over
20 years for the city of Rohnert Park” vs. annual revenues estimated at $533 million still sounds like a good deal for
the city of Rohnert Park? I don’t think so.
I wonder why the fact that “two 600-foot deep wells would deplete
water levels in the neighboring wells” is not more of a concern for our county Board of Supervisors? Oh yeah, I remember.
They’ll be charging for that well water.
“(Tribal Chairman Greg) Sarris did not return calls seeking comment
on the report and the upcoming hearings.” Is anyone surprised?
I live out of the city limits in Santa Rosa just
a couple miles from Rohnert Park. Therefore, I have doctors and dentists in Rohnert Park where I also shop, buy gas, etc.
I’m sure I am not alone in saying that will stop the minute the construction begins, if not before.
LOUISE STEFFENS
Santa
Rosa
The Press Democrat - Article published March 18, 2007
Casino offerEDITOR: It’s fitting that the Graton Rancheria has offered to bail out Sutter Hospital, because
if the tribe’s casino is built, the county will need the extra emergency room facilities.
The tribe’s own
environmental impact report states that if the casino is built, we can expect an almost immediate increase in car thefts,
followed by an increase in violent crime. And of course, they’ll be lots more drunk drivers on county roads coming from
the tens of thousands of cars traveling daily to and from this 24/7 casino with multiple bars, and drinks served on the gaming
floor. No wonder some county officials would like to see a drunk-driving checkpoint at the casino.
Just what every
community needs — more car thefts, drunk drivers and violent crime. Thanks, Chairman Greg Sarris. Keeping the emergency
room open at Sutter seems like the least you can do.
MARILEE MONTGOMERY
Santa Rosa
Article published - Mar 12, 2007
Casino impacts aren't just environmental
By CHRIS COURSEY
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
For the most part, the draft environmental report for the proposed Indian casino in
Rohnert Park is a good cure for insomnia.
But there are a few eye-opening paragraphs buried in the thing.
First, of course, is its sheer size. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
and their Las Vegas partners, Station Casinos, propose a casino-hotel-spa complex of more than three-quarters of a million
square feet that will employ 2,400 people. It will cost $450 million to build and will rake in an estimated $500 million in
annual receipts.
Significant impacts? Let me count the ways: Air, water, traffic, plants and animals,
police and fire services.
Not to mention turning central Sonoma County into the Bay Area's gambling hub.
How do you measure the impact of that?
In its dry, bureaucratic language, the report assesses each of the meas- urable
impacts and either dismisses them as less than significant or lists mitigation measures meant to ease their pain. For example,
casino operators will keep down the dust during construction, keep down the noise during operation and police the grounds
to ensure litter doesn't migrate off the property.
But how will they mitigate the estimated 18,000 daily vehicle trips in and out
of the casino, most of which will wind up on Highway 101?
Well, 101 can handle it, the report says - or at least 101 will be able to handle
it with the millions of dollars in freeway work expected over the next several years. As for the busy intersections of northern
Rohnert Park and the country roads in the vicinity of the proposed casino, the Graton tribe says it will pay to improve them
(or at least help local governments pay for the job).
It all sounds tidy and simple - until you start thinking about
all that isn't included in this voluminous report.
How, for example, will a Rohnert Park casino affect the county's only existing
tribal gambling hall - River Rock Casino in Alexander Valley? That question became
important to citizens of Petaluma last week when they learned that the Dry Creek
Band of Pomo Indians, which operates River Rock, has asked city and county leaders to extend sewer and water services to 277
acres that tribe owns south of Petaluma.
The general suspicion is that if the Graton tribe can open a casino in Rohnert
Park, then the Dry Creek tribe might decide to "leapfrog" their competition with a Petaluma casino.
Leaders of the Dry Creek Band told Mayor Pamela Torliatt and county Supervisor
Mike Kerns that they don't plan to build a casino on that land, according to a story about the meeting in the Petaluma Argus
Courier. But the tribe also at one point said it wasn't building a parking garage at River Rock, and now that seven-story
structure can be seen from miles away.
Torliatt and Kerns said they told the tribe that municipal services are unlikely
to be extended beyond Petaluma's urban boundaries, the newspaper said. They also reminded tribal leaders that Petaluma voters
have made their opposition to a casino loud and clear at the polls.
But the Dry Creek Pomos have shown time and again they aren't swayed by public
opposition, and the Graton tribe indicates in its environ- mental report that it doesn't need municipal services for a megacasino
outside of Rohnert Park. The tribe will drill wells for its water and will build an on-site plant to treat its sewage, if
necessary.
These are sovereign governments, after all, and they're backed up by multibillion-dollar
gambling corpor- ations. They don't need Petaluma's permission - or Rohnert Park's, or Sonoma County's - for anything.
They do, however, need clearance from the federal government. The National
Indian Gaming Commis- sion will hold hearings on the Graton tribe's environmental report on April 4 and 5. The report is at
www.gratoneis.com.
The Press Democrat Published: Saturday, Mar 10, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Many negatives
EDITOR: Regarding Casino Rohnert Park, it is unconscionable that Caltrans in its environmental
report stated there is no negative declaration to the Wilfred Avenue/Golf Course Drive/101 interchange project. It did not
consider traffic 24/7 from a possible casino. If a Las Vegas style casino is developed, Rohnert Park as we know it today will
be history.
Economist and Professor Earl Grinols wrote an objective book, “Gambling
in America,” published by Cambridge University Press. He goes into detail and gives statistics as to results and negative
impacts, such as the players, government, jobs and economic development, major-league losers, jobs, social service costs,
abused dollars, suicide, crime etc.
Why did the National Indian Gaming Commission schedule public meetings for citizen
comment during the week of Passover, Holy Week and spring vacations? Citizens should be given six months to respond to the
three-year project of the draft EIS.
In 1963 Martin Luther King said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.” This is as true today as in 1963.
EUNICE EDGINGTON
Rohnert
Park
The Press Democrat Editorial Article published - Mar 5, 2007
Resort report
Something
for everyone in RP casino study
There are two things that can
be said with certainty about the massive draft environmental impact study of a proposed casino in Rohnert Park:
1. Casino
advocates will use the voluminous information to highlight the benefits of their project.
2. Opponents will use the information
to point out the flaws of the proposal.
Case in point: The Rev. Chip Worthington, a leader in the fight against the casino,
said on the day the 600-plus page study was released, "This report borders on inadequate, if not silly. Our lawyers are going
to be thrilled with this."
The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, however, could point out the fact that the study
highlights the economic benefits of the resort complex, which with 2,400 workers, would become the county's fourth-largest
private employer.
Whatever side people take on this debate, now is the time to make views known.
The release of the
draft by the National Indian Gaming Commission has opened the window for comment - a window which closes on May 14. Two public
hearings will be held, on April 4 and 5. The document is available online at www.gratoneis.com.
For people who care about
a casino in Rohnert Park, it's time to start reading.
Article
published - Mar 5, 2007
Resort report
Something for everyone in RP casino
study
There are two things that can be said with certainty
about the massive draft environmental impact study of a proposed casino in Rohnert Park:
1. Casino advocates will use the
voluminous information to highlight the benefits of their project.
2. Opponents will use the information to point out the
flaws of the proposal.
Case in point: The Rev. Chip Worthington, a leader in the fight against the casino, said on the
day the 600-plus page study was released, "This report borders on inadequate, if not silly. Our lawyers are going to be thrilled
with this."
The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, however, could point out the fact that the study highlights the
economic benefits of the resort complex, which with 2,400 workers, would become the county's fourth-largest private employer.
Whatever
side people take on this debate, now is the time to make views known.
The release of the draft by the National Indian Gaming
Commission has opened the window for comment - a window which closes on May 14. Two public hearings will be held, on April
4 and 5. The document is available online at www.gratoneis.com.
For people who care about a casino in Rohnert Park, it's
time to start reading.
Letters to the Editor
Tribal misunderstanding
Graton Chairman Greg Sarris' letter to the Editor (January 26) is long on pathos, but short on facts. To state that Graton
Rancheria was federal trust land is simply untrue.
I have acquired the original deed for the purchase of the Graton
Rancheria by the federal government in 1920. The United States took the title to the land in fee and not in trust for the
benefit of any Indian tribe. There is a big difference between trust land, which is what Indian reservations are, and fee
land, which is how we all own our land. Graton Rancheria was never trust land, never a reservation.
In an September,
2006 email to me, renowned expert on West Coast Indians Dr. Stephen Beckham of Lewis and Clark College, wrote:
"There
appears to be widespread misunderstanding in California about rancherias. They were federal fee lands (not reservations) where
homeless Indians (and others) lived without paying taxes. The Rancheria Termination Act ended the non-taxed status and distributed
the land and assets to residents. It is possible to argue that "restoration" of the rancherias was nothing more than restoring
the non-tax status of the former federal fee lands."
The 1920 Graton deed proves Dr. Beckham's point. Rancherias were very different from reservations. They were not under
the authority of the Indian agent and the usual chain of command, nor was control of land distribution under the control of
a tribal council. Residents were not considered "wards" of the government as were reservation Indians and they were not supervised
by the agent.
Graton Rancheria had no inhabitants for the first 16 years after it was purchased. At the time of the
Termination Act, there were three men living on Graton. Two were Pomo one was 1/4 Shasta Indian and 3/4 white. One of the
Pomo men had a Coast Miwok wife and a young child. It was these three men who provided information to the Indian agent about
who lived on Graton. All three men voted not only to terminate the rancheria, but also to have that land transferred into
their possession.
There was no tribe on Graton at any time; thus, no tribe was terminated at Graton. Even the Office
of Tribal Services refused to support Graton's restoration stating, "We would generally support a tribe requesting restoration
of Federal recognition when there is documentation to show that the group is significantly tied to the terminated tribe. We
have not seen any such evidence in regards to the Graton Rancheria and therefore we cannot recommend support of this bill
(Graton Restoration Act) at this time." (Memoranda from Director, Office of Tribal Services, Bureau of Indian Affairs, September
8, 1998)
This sentiment was repeated in a 1999 memo on the Graton Restoration Act. Only Barbara Boxer's intervention
in a last minute Hail Mary got this Act passed.
There is extensive documentation at www.stopthecasino101.com, including
the deed to Graton, letters and documents from the National Archives going back 73 years, the memos from the Office of Tribal
Services, and much more. Click on "The Real History of the Graton Rancheria" in the Navigation Bar.
Marilee Montgomery
Santa
Rosa
Stop the Casino 101 Coalition
From the Press Democrat:
Published January 29, 2007
Lawmakers should calculate the real costs of gambling
By MARILEE MONTGOMERY
In 2006, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger negotiated new gambling compacts that would add between
3,000 and 5,500 new slot machines each for five Southern California tribes: The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, the
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians and the Sycuan
Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.
According to a recent news article, these compacts, which have not yet been ratified by the
state Legislature, are expected to generate $509 million annually for the state. In reality, the increase in casino gambling
would result in a net loss for California that would most likely be in the billions of dollars.
Earl Grinols is a professor
of economics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and a former senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan.
He is considered to be a worldwide expert in the economics of gambling. In his book, "Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,"
Grinols examines the economic impact of casino gambling.
He concluded that casino gambling causes up to $289 in social
costs for every $46 of economic benefit. If one considers only the $509 million in anticipated revenue for the state, the
cost for these new gambling compacts could be in excess of $3 billion.
Experts have determined that most of the social
costs associated with gambling are the result of problem and pathological gamblers.
The social costs of gambling such
as increased crime including embezzlement, domestic violence, lost work time, suicide, bankruptcies and financial hardships
faced by the families of gambling addicts, and increased cost in the criminal justice system have already reached epidemic
proportions.
Grinols concluded that nationwide, the costs from gambling addiction are now the equivalent of one-half
of the total cost of drug addiction in this country.
According to former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer's
May 31, 2006, report, "Gambling in the Golden State 1998 Forward," there are now almost one million problem and pathological
gamblers in the state.
This report puts the current annual cost of adult pathological and problem gamblers to the state
at nearly $1 billion. The huge increase in casino expansion as would be allowed by the governor's 2006 compacts would only
exacerbate the problem.
Furthermore, as indicated in the attorney general's report, tribal casinos are "the predominant
venue for problem gamblers in California." California's problem and pathological gamblers generate over 80 percent of tribal
casino gambling revenue.
In real numbers, this means that more than $404 million of the anticipated $506 million increase
in revenue would be made on the backs of some of the most unfortunate members of our society - the gambling addicts.
Aside
from the suffering of the families of those addicted to gambling, these sobering figures only underscores the need for a thorough
analysis of the costs and benefits of new compacts before they are ratified. Anything else would be reckless, having the potential
to destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of Californians, including innocent children.
In North America, we are
in a period of widespread gambling expansion. The costs to society have already begun to make themselves known. In Canada,
gambling debt-related suicides are rising sharply, as are missed work and lower productivity from Canadian employees. Here
in America, gambling debt is on the rise as a cause of bankruptcy, and gambling addiction is up by double-digits among our
youth.
Three and a half years ago, I did a Yahoo search for "anti-casino organizations" that produced virtually no
results. Today that same search produces thousands of results from all over the country.
Casino expansion is being
driven only by special interests. There is no groundswell movement to expand gambling in this country, but there is certainly
a growing groundswell movement to end gambling expansion. We can only hope that Sacramento will listen and lead.
From the Sac Bee:
Published January 29, 2007
Editorial: Don't ratify compacts
Deals lack protections for workers, state-
Note to Legislators: don't get snookered. Specifically, don't ratify ill-conceived deals with Indian gambling
tribes just because the state is in the red and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is waving promises of big money for state coffers
under your nose.
Instead, question the governor's numbers. He claims the five new compacts will generate an additional $506 million in the
coming fiscal year. Don't believe it. Even his budget advisers concede that can happen only if the Legislature ratifies the
compacts by a two-thirds vote by early May, which would allow them to go into effect immediately -- when and if the secretary
of the interior approves them.
The governor's rosy estimate also assumes tribes will add 10,500 slots this year and that the slots will generate enough
profit to produce the predicted revenues. That's a lot of ifs.
The Legislature's budget analyst says the governor has overestimated revenues likely to come from the new compacts by a
whopping $300 million. The governor has made similar mistakes before. Schwarzenegger predicted the state would rake in $150
million to $200 million a year in new slot machine revenues from compacts he signed in 2004. Those deals have produced about
$27 million a year.
Beyond doubt about revenue estimates, lawmakers should ask the governor tough questions about why he changed the way new
gambling revenue is calculated. In previous compacts that Schwarzenegger signed, each new slot machine added to a casino entitled
the state to a flat fee of $11,000 to $25,000 per machine, depending on how many total slots a tribe had. By contrast, state
gambling revenues in the new compacts are based on a percentage of the "average net win" per machine. That's a much more complicated
calculation.
The state is depending on the chronically ineffective and underfunded California Gambling Control Commission to ensure
it gets its rightful share. Currently, the commission has only nine auditors to keep track of some $7 billion taken in annually
by 56 Indian casinos across the state. Those auditors need access to casinos and their financial records to do their jobs.
Under the compacts negotiated, auditors have limited access to casinos and their financial records.
The state won't be able to count on much help from federal regulators either. A few months ago, an appeals court ruled
that the National Indian Gaming Commission has no authority to regulate slots at tribal casinos. That means the NIGC can no
longer set or enforce minimal internal controls -- things like how money is transferred from slot machines to cash boxes,
how counting rooms operate, who has keys to the counting room. These are among the minimum standards necessary to prevent
theft, skimming and fraud.
In a rare show of independence, Democrats who control the California Legislature said "no" last year to rich and politically
powerful gambling tribes. They refused to ratify the compacts Schwarzenegger negotiated because they lacked sufficient protections
for labor unions, a key Democrat constituency.
The latest compacts have the same problems and plenty of others. They expand gambling in this state far beyond what voters
anticipated. They will overwhelm the state's feeble capacity to regulate gambling.
Members of the Assembly and Senate can best serve the public by once again locating their backbones and saying "no" to
the governor and the tribes this year, too.
From the Press Democrat:
Published 12/3/2006
High stakes
What's at risk if tribe gains ownership of Lake Sonoma land
The same people who built a seven-story parking garage and a casino overlooking one of Sonoma County's most scenic valleys
are now proposing to become owners of land surrounding Lake Sonoma, a primary source of water.
The Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians has sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
saying the tribe wants the return of 17,000 acres of publicly owned land bordering the lake. The 1,000 members of the tribe
want to build housing, schools and medical and cultural facilities on the property.
In addition, the tribe has expressed
interest in running the lake concessions and other recreation facilities in partnership with the corps.
It's true that
Lake Sonoma is the site of the historic home of the tribe, which was pushed out of the area by an unfair system of laws and
practices. The deep injustices that were committed a century ago are a shameful stain on this county's history.
What
is also true is that Lake Sonoma now supplies drinking water for more than 570,000 people in Sonoma and Marin counties. The
lake was created with the construction of a $350 million dam that property taxpayers are still paying off.
The issue
facing the corps task force considering the tribe's request is whether tribal ownership of the watershed is compatible with
the needs of more than a half million people. In determining the answer, the task force should consider the following:
What
impact would 1,000 new residents and the buildings and infrastructure they require, have on the watershed?
How would
this plan affect release of water in the lake and the possible need to build a water treatment facility at the dam in order
to bypass Dry Creek and the Russian River?
What would this plan mean to public access to the lake and the surrounding
properties, which are currently used by 500,000 people annually?
The task force should also look at recent history:
The Alexander Valley casino is not a testament to good environmental or community stewardship. There is a reason why local
officials are skeptical about the tribe's newest proposal.
The Pomos can acquire land the usual way
By CHRIS SMITH
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
It's a head-scratcher, this request by the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians for the federal government to relinquish to the
tribe some 17,000 acres of land around Lake Sonoma.
It has the feel of a diversionary tactic, given that the tribe that's making millions at its casino near Geyserville also
has purchased land in Petaluma that might be suitable for a second casino.
If tribal members are serious about wanting
to acquire an enormous tract of land for a new community for themselves, it's obvious where they should turn. There are five
pages of real estate agents in the Yellow Pages.
From Rohnert Park/Cotati "Community Voice":
Friday December 1, 2006
Who wants to second it?
Jud Snyder's recent column regarding his suggestions of local candidates for the "Spinmeister Hall of Fame", left out
what I consider to be one of the best candidates: The Judster himself! Who pays this guy's rent? All of us locals have a stake
in whether or not the casino gets built in our neighborhood. What is the Judster's stake in his own "spin" of the facts surrounding
this proposed cancer in our community?
To read what this "unbiased reporter" writes, you'd think that there would be
nothing a group of people could do to stop Greg Sarris' runaway ego train. Ah, but our little Judster fails to note: If it's
been done before (it has), it can be done again (it will).
People, remember this: "The only thing necessary for the
triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing" -Edmund Burke
And with that, I'd like to nominate Jud Snyder to the
Spinmeister Hall of Fame. Anyone care to second the nomination?
Pamela Miller
Rohnert Park
Jud's the spinmeister
Jud Snyder's column on November 24 accuses my father, Chip Worthington, of being a candidate for the "Spinmeister Hall
of Fame." If Jud is looking for a prime candidate, he should look no further than himself. While he accuses the Stop the Casino
101 Coalition's press release of omitting certain facts, Jud himself is guilty of this in his column. Jud failed to mention,
for instance, that:
Since the casino was announced, only one pro-casino candidate has been re-elected in general elections;
Breeze won in an election where at least she or Flores was guaranteed a win; All other pro-casino candidates (Nordin, Hubley
and Flores) were defeated despite huge budgets and endorsements from public employee unions; The "only disstenter" (Jud's
words) to the casino received the most votes in 2004; Mayor Tim Smith won in 2004 as an anti-casino candidate with a shoestring
budget; Two anti-casino candidates won big in 2004 less than 3 months after the failed recall; Money supporting the pro-casino
candidates as well as opposing the recall largely has come from out of county sources; Measure H in Petaluma passed by a huge
majority, indicating significant opposition to casinos in Sonoma County; Both Breeze and Flores did their best to distance
themselves as supporters of the casino in this last election.
Jud is factually incorrect when he says that the Feds
and state collect tax revenue from tribal casinos. These casinos do not pay taxes; that's a major part of their profitability.
Tribes pay into a fund that gets divided to all Indian tribes nationwide. These funds do not get used to help state governments
balance their books.
When this casino was proposed in 2003, many supporters, Jud included, said that we couldn't stop
it. Yet here we are close to 2007 and all the tribe has done is applied to take the land into trust. Our local efforts have
indeed slowed this casino's progress to a crawl. Fighting this thing has paid off, and Greg Sarris' refusal to talk to the
press is an indication of his frustration with this fact.
If there's any spin, it's coming from Jud, who's spinning like an LP set at 78.
Chris Worthington
Rohnert Park
Time will tell
With regard to Jud Snyder's column "A local entry surfaces for the Spinmeister Hall of Fame", wow, talk about sour grapes!
But if Jud doesn't want "spin", well, here are the facts:
Even Armando Flores admitted his defeat to Pam Stafford was
the result of "Lingering ill feelings over the casino" (Press Democrat). Unlike Mr. Flores, Amie Breeze never took a strongly
vocal and public position on the casino issue. Mr. Flores, on the other hand, was quoted in the news many times over, and
became more like a spokesman for the casino and less like an elected official. The people remembered this and, just like Greg
Nordin, Mr. Flores was out. That's a fact.
I think Jud forgets that the 2004 Referendum was an attempt to have a public
vote on any agreement between the City and the casino developers. In contrast to Petaluma's councilman Mike Healy, who wrote
a ballot measure so that their citizens could have a voice, the City of Rohnert Park went to court to quash any public vote.
Of
course, Jud doesn't keep up with the tribal casino issue like I do. If he did, he would know that on the national stage, for
example, there's the promise of real Indian gaming reform, that, if passed, would stop the Rohnert Park casino in its tracks.
There's also a two-year moratorium on new casinos in the works.
In Sacramento, Casino San Pablo's shiny-new compact with the Governor still has not been approved by our legislature, and
state elected such as Loni Hancock are working overtime to stop the spread of all urban casinos - including Rohnert Park.
Jud
forgets that virtually everything that Stop the Casino 101 Coalition has said about this casino has proved over time to be
true. In fact, STC101 has become a trusted source of information for elected officials. Meanwhile, STC101 will continue to
send out the press releases that have made Rohnert Park known nationwide, and we will continue to work with local, state and
federal elected and with the public to build our consensus, while Jud is left scratching his head and wondering what went
wrong.
Marilee Montgomery
Santa Rosa
From the Press Democrat:
Sunday, November 26, 2006
For sale?
EDITOR: The Nov. 19 Press Democrat had a really interesting full-page advertisement from the Federated Indians of the
Graton Rancheria, showing how they’ve donated $8.6 million to various groups in Sonoma County. It makes me wonder, if
they have this much money to toss around, why do they need a casino? It seems they’re already financially well off.
The reason why people voted for Proposition 1A in 2000 was to help impoverished people seek independence. With this kind of
money to dispense, can’t it be argued that this tribe doesn’t need a casino?
I’m sure some would
argue that the funds for these “donations” didn’t come from the tribe but rather their sponsors. What kind
of sponsors could loan this kind of money to the tribe? More importantly, what would they want in return?
I suggest
a new theme for future ads from the tribe: “Buying Sonoma County, one group at a time.”
CHRIS WORTHINGTON
Rohnert
Park
From Rohnert Park/Cotati "Community Voice":
And then there were 2...
Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:47 AM PST
And then there were two left of those politicians in Rohnert Park who forced the city into the casino mess without consulting
their electorate.
The first to go were Greg Nordin and Carl Leivo - Nordin voted out and Leivo fired by a majority of the city council. Next
was Armando Flores, the entrenched politician with so many connections who placed last in the three-candidate race for two
seats.
His defeat can largely be attributed to his and protege Amie Breeze's secret negotiations with the Federated Indians
of Graton Rancheria for the notorious Memorandum of Understanding that was signed on the city's behalf without the knowledge
and consent of the other council members or indeed the voters of Rohnert Park. The remaining two, Jake Mackenzie, the person
who floated the idea in the first place that the casino be built in Rohnert Park and Amie Breeze whose mentor, Mr. Flores
has, as mentioned, been voted out by the voters, must be looking behind their backs and wondering when their time will come
to join the defeated.
Each of these five politicians has had one common trait: the failure to understand that the people they represented really
do not want a casino inside their city. If the remaining two are still not convinced that the casino issue has caused the
demise of their former colleagues, put the issue on the ballot and you will find out what the citizens have said all along
- it is not a done deal.
Joe Perry
Rohnert Park
Amusing Breeze
Thursday, November 16, 2006 11:47AM PST
I was amused by a statement that Amie Breeze made regarding the election of Pam Stafford to the Rohnert Park city council
instead of Armando Flores. Breeze suggested that the Memorandum of Understanding (fancy talk for "bribe") with FIGR is endangered
with Stafford on the council.
Breeze was quoted as saying Pam "could be the third vote to either cancel the MOU or
put it to a vote of the people." Wow! How horrible that would be to actually put it to a vote of the people! We certainly
don't want that, do we!
Abraham Lincoln must have been talking about some place else when he mentioned something about
"a government of the people, by the people, for the people." Amie sure doesn't want that here! That's why Pam Stafford got
so many votes.
I bet that if there were another person besides Pam Stafford running against Breeze and Flores, the
fourth person to favor putting it to a vote of the people would have been on the council.
John Hall
Rohnert Park
From the Press Democrat:
November 3, 2006
Fresh vision
EDITOR: We attended a candidates’ night for the Cloverdale City Council. We were particularly impressed with the
presentations of the two new candidates, Carol Russell and Joe Palla. Both of these people have a wealth of experience, Russell
from the business world and Palla from law enforcement. They expressed themselves with vigor and intelligence on subjects
that are of concern to many of us in Cloverdale, such as fire protection, water, zoning, etc. They are both strongly in favor
of an urban growth boundary and against a casino being built here. Cloverdale is a growing city and needs strong leadership
and a fresh vision. We are convinced that Carol Russell and Joe Palla have the skills to make our city a vibrant and desirable
place to live.
DONNA and WALT ARNSTEIN
Cloverdale
From the Marin Independent Journal Sunday
Readers' Forum
September 24, 2006
|
| Woolsey ducking big casino
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, has never been a "vocal critic" of the 690,000-square-foot casino proposed
for Rohnert Park. In fact, she has been conspicuously missing in action.
Six of Sonoma County's nine cities and the county itself have passed resolutions opposing the casino, yet
she has done nothing. She has failed, despite her repeated promises in writing and on videotape, to take any definitive action,
such as she took with the Sears Point casino proposal and the River Rock land buy in Petaluma.
All we have asked of our congresswoman is that she meet with the people of this area and take action. She
came to the aid of Marin and Petaluma immediately and publicly. She has not done so here.
We feel she doesn't care about the people of Sonoma County. We're still waiting for her to be a "vocal critic"
of the tribal casino planned for our town.
Peter Z. Jackson, Santa Rosa |
From the Sunday, August 13, 2006 edition of the Press Democrat:
Selfish agendas
EDITOR: Columnist Pete Golis is getting close to the real truth and that is the double-dealing of the Northern California
environmental groups who wield far more power than they should. One example I have witnessed firsthand: During the scoping
hearing in Rohnert Park some months ago regarding the casino, a Marin Conservation League man got up and praised Greg Sarris
for moving the casino location from the Marin wetlands and saving all the wildlife, etc. So much for people here, right? By
happenstance, when I left the hearing and went to my car in the Spreckels theater parking lot, his car was parked next to
mine and it was a Ford Explorer. These folks are hypocritical elitists and are hardly ever called out by the media for how
they operate to their own selfish agendas that affect everyone other that themselves.
 ROBERT AHERNE
Rohnert Park
Casino environmental reportPrinted
in The Community Voice, Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:39 AM PDT
In the July 18 column, Jud wrote, "...when the FIGR's federal environmental impact report is made public,
probably in the next week or two." It wasn't released last week and my guess is that it won't be out this week, either. In
fact, they haven't met any of their release dates for that study. This is the fourth or fifth missed date. They are in trouble
with that site. Why else would it take 2 1/2 years to do an EIS?
Jud also wrote, "The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
(FIGR) and Station Casinos of Las Vegas have outlined a plan for Green building practices."
Have you seen these plans?
To my knowledge, no one has seen any blueprints at all.
"Their potable water will have to come via wells or some form
of tapping the county's water supply," was also written. This casino will bring in so many people each day that it will be
the equivalent of a small city. The tribe's wells could cause Rohnert Park's wells (one of them is only a few hundred yards
from the site) to go dry. Also, there is no "county water supply" in the casino site area. Locals there rely on wells.
If
Petaluma, Novato (and other Marin cities, as Marin relies on water from Sonoma County) are experiencing critical water shortages,
why would the water agency put another "city" online when it can't provide for its current customers?
Word to the wise:
don't believe anything the casino people tell you; they have a bad track record for giving the actual facts, and they haven't
been right yet. They've missed every single deadline they have given.
Paul Muncie, Rohnert Park
ILLOGICAL SUPPORT
Published on July 10, 2006
© 2006- The Press Democrat PAGE: B6
COLUMN: LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK
EDITOR: I found the story regarding the ``powerful friends'' of the Federated Indians
of Graton Rancheria most enlightening, but not surprising, for the seemingly illogical ``support'' that the proposed casino
project has with our elected officials in Rohnert Park. It's too bad that the voices that are heard in Rohnert Park don't
apparently include the citizens that elected our officials. It is a bit of a misrepresentation to use the past tense in suggesting
that the ``project faced strong local opposition.'' None of the opponents of this ``project'' that I am aware of, have dropped
their opposition to a casino in Rohnert Park.
A more factual representation is that our elected representatives rammed this project
down our throats; going to court to deny its own citizens the right to vote on the referendum to the Memorandum of Understanding
that FIGR paid our city officials off with, as a token of their appreciation.
The ``misinformation'' these ``power brokers'' and ``political elite'' referred to
in your story are our voices: The residents of this community who get to live with the decisions our elected officials supposedly
make on our behalf.
JOHN MONAGHAN
Rohnert Park
Article published - Jul 8, 2006
Letters to the
Editor
Promising money
EDITOR:
In response to your Wednesday article, I hope you soon have an article about all
of the "powerful people" opposed to the proposed casino for more noble reasons than self-interest or conflict of interest,
hiding under the cloak of altruism. If the "impoverished" tribe is granting and promising money for so many good causes, might
the money really be coming from the mentioned Las Vegas gaming interests?
I would suggest a further article about the good work of Gamblers Anonymous
in attempting to help people caught up in compulsive and problem gambling. With an estimated three percent of our total population
being either problem or compulsive gamblers, Sonoma County statistically has about 1,500 problem gamblers.
I find it ironic that the obviously "good people" backing the casino would
so strongly endorse an activity that for centuries has caused so much human suffering, especially among women and children.
The social and economic costs associated with gambling are huge and have been well documented in many studies. Do we really
want to bring more of the ugliness -- marital discord, neglected children, bankruptcy, suicide, crime, greed -- associated
with gambling, legal or illegal, to our beautiful area?
HERBERT ZIEMER
Sebastopol
CASINO
INITIATIVE
Published on June 30, 2006
© 2006- The Press Democrat
COLUMN:
LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK
EDITOR:
We rednecks and hayseeds in unincorporated Petaluma (that is, county
residents) would like to vote if the casino initiative is on the November ballot. Folks might be surprised to hear what we
have to say and to discover the proposed casino site in south Petaluma is in an unincorporated, or county, area.
SUSAN KIRKS and BILL BENNETT
Petaluma
WHAT TO EXPECT
Published on June 26, 2006
© 2006- The Press Democrat
BYLINE: STEPHEN M. GALLENSON, Santa Rosa
COLUMN: LET THE PUBLIC SPEAK
EDITOR:
Daniel Lanahan writes that we should give credit to the Federated Indians of Graton
Rancheria for the wonderful contributions they have made. He calls the Rohnert Park casino project a ``real benefit to our
area.''
A recent comprehensive report published by the Office of the Attorney General states
that casinos bring to a community an 8 percent increase in property crimes and a 10 percent increase in violent crimes such
as murder, rape and assault. The report also suggests we can expect about 13,000 more problem and pathological gamblers in
our county, the social and economic costs of which will be borne by the community. These costs derive from social and personal
problems including crime, unpaid debt, mental illness, substance abuse, unemployment and public assistance.
The report estimates that the statewide cost from problem and pathological gamblers
has reached almost $1 billion annually. We can also expect a significant increase in traffic along the Highway 101 corridor,
which is already severely impacted. Some estimates suggest that daily we will see an additional 10,000 cars on the road. So
let's give credit where credit is due.
Thank you, Graton Rancheria for these wonderful contributions to Sonoma County.
STEPHEN M. GALLENSON
Santa Rosa
|
THE RESULTS ARE IN!