|
American government still screwing the American Indians
Debate on West Valley casino reaches Congress Franks seeks to stop tribe, cites state pact by Erin Kelly - Oct. 5, 2011 12:00 AM Republic Washington Bureau WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Trent Franks urged a key House panel on Tuesday to support his bill to bar the Tohono O'odham Nation from building a casino near Glendale. But the tribal chairman and the mayor of Peoria said the proposed casino and resort could bring more than 9,000 jobs to the West Valley and should not be blocked by Congress. The controversy is pitting Arizona tribes, local officials and members of the congressional delegation against one another. At the heart of the dispute is whether construction of a casino by the Tohono O'odham tribe would destroy a carefully crafted compact agreed to in 2002 by Arizona's 17 tribes, the state, and Arizona voters. That compact limits the number of casinos allowed in the Valley to seven - the current number in operation. The Tohono O'odham's proposed casino would bring that number to eight. The tribe now operates three gaming facilities in Arizona: two in the Tucson area and one in the Why area. "My opposition stems from the very common-sense and, indeed, vital rule of law that says when you enter into a contract, you are expected to abide by that contract," Franks testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Franks' bill is co-sponsored by fellow Arizona Republican Reps. Jeff Flake, Paul Gosar, Ben Quayle and David Schweikert and has the support of Gov. Jan Brewer, the city of Glendale and a dozen Arizona tribes. But the 30,000-member tribe has the backing of the Obama administration's Interior Department officials, who told members of Congress that the Tohono O'odham have the legal right to pursue a casino on the land under an agreement it made with the federal government 25 years ago. In 1960, the Army Corps of Engineers built the Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River. That dam resulted in the continuous flooding of nearly 9,880 acres of tribal land, destroying a 750-acre farm that had generated revenue for the tribe. Congress, at the urging of Arizona lawmakers, passed a bill in 1986 to give the tribe $30 million to purchase up to 9,880 acres of new reservation land in Pima, Pinal or Maricopa counties to replace the property lost to flooding. One of the parcels the tribe bought was about 54 acres in Maricopa County between Peoria and Glendale. The tribe cannot build the casino unless the Interior Department determines that the land is eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Interior officials have not yet issued a ruling. Franks' bill would contradict the 1986 law, which says any replacement lands purchased by the Tohono O'odham Nation "shall be deemed to be a federal Indian reservation for all purposes," which include gaming, said Paula Hart, director of the Office of Indian Gaming in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Interior Department. "(Franks' bill) would impose additional restrictions beyond those agreed upon by the United States and the Tohono O'odham Nation 25 years ago," Hart said. The legislation would mean another broken promise to Indian tribes by the U.S. government, said Ned Norris Jr., chairman of the Tohono O'odham Nation. "With all due respect, is the breaking of commitments made in long-established Indian land and water-rights settlements really going to be the 112th Congress' legacy to Indian Country?" Norris said. Rep. Raśl Grijalva, D-Ariz., agrees and opposes Franks' bill. But representatives of other Arizona tribes told the House panel that the proposed casino would come at their expense by giving one tribe the ability to opt out of the restrictions on Phoenix-area casinos agreed to in the state gaming compact. The committee took no action on the bill Tuesday. "We cannot simply stand by and watch someone, albeit another Arizona tribe, threaten our gaming rights and unravel the comprehensive and interconnected gaming structure in Arizona," said Diane Enos, president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. If the state compact falls apart, rural, non-gaming tribes that now get a share of the gaming proceeds under the agreement would lose badly needed revenue, said Arlen Quetawki, governor of the Pueblo of Zuni. "The (compact) works because it supports everyone, including my tribe," he said. "If appropriate steps are not taken to maintain this stability, ultimately my tribe and all tribes in Arizona will lose." However, Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett said all West Valley residents would benefit from the creation of 6,000 construction jobs and 3,000 permanent jobs resulting from development of the casino. He urged the committee to conduct a field hearing in the West Valley before deciding whether to support what he called Franks' "job-killing" bill. "Come out and see for yourselves how our communities are suffering during these recessionary times," he said.
More battles still to come over plans for casino near Glendale Glendale isn't throwing in towel on casino fight Oct. 27, 2011 10:08 AM The Arizona Republic Glendale leaders responded to this week's high-court ruling against the city by saying there are more legal battles to fight with the Tohono O'odham Nation. The tribe wants to create a reservation near 95th and Northern avenues and build a casino and resort. The city is staunchly opposed. Multiple lawsuits have been filed in the two-year struggle. At least one was settled this week when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Glendale's request to hear an appeal related to whether the tribal-owned land was part of the city. Tohono O'odham Chairman Ned Norris Jr. said it's time for the two sides to sit down and "resolve our differences so that we can move forward together to create opportunity for the West Valley." City Attorney Craig Tindall and other city leaders, in their remarks, are not ceding the fight. Tindall said the case appealed to the state Supreme Court did not address larger state and federal issues being addressed in other pending cases. Views divided Opinions on both sides were aired at Tuesday's Glendale City Council meeting, which came just hours after the state Supreme Court decision was issued. Mayor Elaine Scruggs emphasized that the state attorney general has sided with Glendale and that the city would be unable to collect sales tax from any development on a reservation. "This will be a foreign nation coming to our city that the city will have no control over," Councilman Manny Martinez said. He said the project would unfairly compete with nearby restaurants and hotels at Westgate City Center. Councilman Phil Lieberman, who is in the council minority in support of the tribal project, said a casino would benefit the area by bringing in visitors. Andrew Marwick, a Phoenix resident at the meeting, said he is unclear why the city is fighting the project. "The Coyotes are not bringing in that much traffic. Westgate could be sustained by a casino," he said. Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett, who was not at the council meeting but has been a vocal supporter of the project that falls on the Glendale-Peoria border, told The Republic that Glendale officials clearly believe the casino is detrimental to their interests. But he disagrees. "I'm not an attorney, but if you lose a court case and are asked to pay attorney's fees on top of that, obviously that's the court's way to tell you you're way off on the issue," Barrett said. "Take the hint." Causes for angst Opposition runs beyond debate over whether the project would help or hurt Glendale. State Attorney General Tom Horne and others filed a lawsuit earlier this year saying the proposed casino would crack the state gaming compact with tribes. Nearly a decade ago, Arizona voters approved a ballot measure that set the rules for gaming on tribal reservations. The gaming compact came after delicate negotiations with the state's 17 tribes. The understanding was that the measure would limit gaming in the Phoenix metro area. The year after the measure passed, the Tohono O'odham Nation quietly purchased the land on the Glendale-Peoria border. In 2009, the Tohono O'odham leaders unveiled their plans. The tribe aims to designate the land a reservation based on a congressional settlement to replace tribal land that had been damaged by flooding after the federal government built a dam. A dozen Arizona tribes have come out against the Tohono O'odham plans, saying opening a casino in the Valley violates the spirit of the compact negotiations. In the courts The U.S. Department of Interior in 2010 agreed to take a portion of the tribe's land into the reservation. Glendale, the Gila River Indian Community and state leaders challenged that but lost last spring when the U.S. District Court upheld the Interior's decision. The city and others have appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. Horne's case, which asks a judge to rule that gaming could not be allowed on the tribe's land, also must be decided. This week's state Supreme Court decision dealt with a more narrow issue. The city had claimed the city had annexed a portion of the tribe's land in 2001. The tribe took the city to court, arguing that annexation was never finalized because the then-owner changed his mind. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge had ruled in Glendale's favor, which reduced the area the tribe could take into a reservation. The tribe won on appeal. Glendale request to appeal the case to the Arizona Supreme Court was denied on Tuesday. What remains in the courts? Numerous lawsuits followed the Tohono O'odham Nation's 2009 announcement that it intended to take land near 95th and Northern avenues into the reservation for a casino and resort. Here's a look at three key cases that are pending, along with a bill proposed by a U.S. congressman from Peoria. CAN THE LAND BECOME A RESERVATION? The U.S. Department of Interior in 2010 agreed to take a portion of the tribe's land into the reservation. Glendale, the Gila River Indian Community and state leaders challenged that but lost last spring when the U.S. District Court upheld the Interior's decision. The city and others have appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. No ruling has been issued. EFFORT TO PROHIBIT GAMING ON THE LAND Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community have asked a judge to prohibit gaming on the tribe's land near Glendale. The case has not been heard in U.S. District Court. CHALLENGING A NEW LAW The Tohono O'odham Nation in February sued Arizona over House Bill 2534, a new law that would have allowed Glendale to annex the tribe's land without its permission. A U.S. District Court judge ruled the city couldn't use the new law in this particular case, although he did not strike down the entire law. The state, Glendale and the Tohono O'odham have appealed the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. POLITICAL ACTION In addition to the legal fights, Congressman Trent Franks introduced a bill in Congress last month that would amend the tribe's congressional settlement and prohibit gaming on the land. Lisa Halverstadt contributed to this report.
Check out previous articles on this. |