Editorial -- 1/6/04

Time to say no to more casinos

Brett Fromson, author of "Hitting the Jackpot," a book about the rise of Indian casinos in Connecticut, told I-T reporter Tami Casias last week that "Voters are correct to intuitively understand that if they created the problem, they can undo it."

This is the most important message that Californians can receive from the resident of a state where casinos have had time to show their ugly side.

Fromson points out, as have others studying the Indian gaming movement, that there is a high social cost to gambling that often exceeds the additional dollars brought into government through taxes and revenue sharing agreements.

The reality that Proposition 1A, passed by California voters several years ago, makes it possible for a tribe to acquire land just about anywhere and open a casino struck home here in Sonoma Valley when the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria proposed buying land at the entrance of our community and building a casino resort there.

The assumption of most people who voted for Prop. 1A was that they were voting to allow tribes who already offered bingo in their reservation casinos to have "Nevada-style" gaming, including slot machines. They didn't realize it also made Indian gambling a huge new market for out-of-state gaming corporations. Using small tribes as their shills, these non-Indian companies can now set up shop in our communities, without concern for local zoning, local planning and most state and local environmental laws.

Gambling does not create wealth, except for the companies and their shills. It is harmful to the local economy, drains away enterprise, and victimizes some of the most vulnerable members of our society.

The argument that it helps tribes achieve some kind of economic independence is only partially true. Some members of some tribes will get very rich, but as more casinos proliferate, those in less desirable locations will be abandoned by their corporate godfathers and will wither away.

If there is a debt owed to the ancestors of Native Americans, then the repayment cannot be at the price of damage to our society as a whole. Its form cannot be something that exists in the middle of an organized society with rules, regulations, planning, zoning and environmental controls, and not conform to them.

With the possible exception of our governor, our state leaders have shown themselves to be perfectly willing to be bought off by the gambling corporations and their tribal shills. The amount of money and influence they have in government is huge. That is why there will probably have to be a grass-roots initiative process to undo what previous voter action has done.

We are now in an election year, and voters should make it a point to see where our local representatives get their campaign funds. Those who accept large donations from tribes cannot be counted on to represent local citizens in any issues involving casino proposals or in other issues where tribes seek special favors and status from state government. It is time to look for candidates who will say "no" to the tribes and "no" to more casinos in our communities and in our state. -- Bill Lynch, Editor

Letters -- 1/16/04

Clarifies gaming laws

Editor, Index-Tribune: The statement in your recent editorial about tribal casinos that Proposition 1A made it possible for tribes to acquire land just about anywhere and open casinos is incorrect. Tribal land acquisition is controlled by federal law, not Proposition 1A, which said and did nothing about tribal land acquisition. All Proposition 1A did was to authorize the governor to negotiate, and the legislature to ratify, "Class III" gaming compacts with recognized tribal governments exercising jurisdiction over Indian lands. Those compacts may authorize specific forms of gaming (gaming devices, banked and percentage card games and any game or device permitted under state law to the California lottery), and provide for regulation of those gaming activities.

The Graton Rancheria's ability to have land taken into trust as a restoration of the Rancheria that was improperly terminated back in the 1960s is conferred in the Act of Congress that restored the tribe's federal recognition. Proposition 1A has nothing to do with whether or where the tribe may have land taken into federal trust status, or whether, as a matter of federal law, gaming may be conducted on that land.

Before you get too cranked up at Congress, bear in mind that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) was passed as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1987 decision in California v. Cabazon, which held that the state has no jurisdiction to regulate gaming in Indian country if the state's public policy is to regulate, rather than prohibit, gambling. In that case, the court also held that California's public policy is to regulate, rather than prohibit, gambling. Thus, while IGRA assured tribal governments of the same right to conduct gaming for governmental purposes as state governments enjoy, it also limited the exercise of those rights and gave the states an opportunity to participate in the regulation of certain gaming activities that the states otherwise would not have.