There has been a flurry of news lately about a proposed “Carcieri Fix” that would make it easier for Indian tribes to establish urban casinos. The case Carcieri v. Salazar was adjudicated by the Supreme Court in 2009 and involved the purchase of 31 acres by the Narragansett tribe of Rhode Island as a site to build housing. The secretary of the Interior Department, the agency responsible for relations with federally recognized tribes, agreed to take the land into trust for the tribe. 
Rhode Island Gov. Donald L. Carcieri filed a legal challenge, and new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar had become the defendant by the time the decision was reached. The Supreme Court overturned the Department of the Interior decision, ruling that the government had no authority for the action because the tribe was not under federal jurisdiction in 1934, when the Indian Reorganization Act, which grants the interior secretary power to acquire and hold land for Indians, was passed. That action is the critical first step before tribes can build casinos on the land. Subsequent steps involve approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission and the negotiation of a gambling compact with the state. While the Narragansetts were granted federal recognition in 1983, the court ruled that federal recognition at the time the 1934 law was passed was the critical date, and that the law didn’t apply to tribes recognized later. 
Backers of the proposed Point Molate casino believe that the ruling in Carcieri v. Salazar appears poses no threat to the Richmond project. Like the Scotts Valley Pomos who have been pursuing a casino on the Richmond Parkway, the Guidiville Pomos appear to have been federally recognized at the time of the law’s passage. Both tribes lost their recognition after Congress passed the California Rancheria Act in 1958 during an era when the Bureau of Indian Affairs was trying to force Native Americans into cities in an effort to “mainstream” smaller tribes. During the same period, the young of larger tribes were removed to BIA boarding schools with the same goal in mind. The Guidivilles lost federal recognition in 1961, but the tribe argues it was recognized before 1934, so the decision would not apply. The Guidiville tribe was restored in 1986, and with full recognition in 1992, and the group was granted 44 acres near Ukiah. The two tribes lost all or most of their land after the loss of recognition. The Scotts Valley Pomos were restored in 1991, but without a land base, the tribe lost its rancheria status the following year. The tribe is now formally known as the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the Sugar Bowl Rancheria.
The proposed “Carcieri Fix” may have no impact on either of the two casinos proposed in or near Richmond, but the legal impact remains murky. Following is (1) a letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein opposing the “Carcieri Fix” and urban gaming in general, (2) two stories claiming that the White House supports the Carcieri Fix (and presumambly urban gaming), and finally, (3) a story about San Pablo that already has urban gaming but has the dubious claim to having the Bay Area’s lowest per capita income, lowest home values, highest unemployment rate and a general fund supported 60% by gaming. "Without the casino, we would be bankrupt," said Mayor Leonard McNeil.
Readers' Forum: Must stop reservation shopping once and for all
By Sen. Dianne Feinstein
Guest commentary
Posted: 11/27/2010 12:01:00 AM PST
Updated: 11/29/2010 09:43:38 AM PST

CALIFORNIA VOTERS settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."
The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.
But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.
This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.
The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters.
Richmond voters made it clear in an advisory vote on Nov. 2 how they feel about these things, overwhelmingly rejecting Measure U, which would have put a 4,000-slot casino at Point Molate.
Proponents tout casinos as major economic engines for depressed cities. But the voters of Richmond know the reality is far different. They know such projects threaten to turn the Bay Area into a cluster of Nevada-style mega-casinos that would burden state and local government services well beyond capacity.
I applaud the decision of Richmond's voters. I encourage local leaders across California to oppose these kinds of casinos. And I urge the U.S. Department of the Interior to reject them.
This issue may be heating up in the U.S. Senate, which may soon consider legislation that would restore the Interior Secretary's authority to take land into trust for Indian tribes, a power that was restricted by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 2009 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar.
Unfortunately, this legislation -- known as the "Carcieri fix" -- would allow reservation shopping to continue. This would be a mistake.
If the Senate takes up this bill, I plan to offer legislation to make clear, once and for all, that reservation shopping is not acceptable in California.
Specifically, it would require that tribes demonstrate substantial direct modern and ancestral connections to any land they seek for casinos.
This legislation would be designed to strengthen existing federal regulations and curb efforts to expand gaming beyond legitimate tribal lands. And it would help restore faith in the gaming-approval process, which has caused great anxiety for local tribes and communities nationwide.
As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in tough times. The temptation to support large casinos can be strong.
But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public services and increased traffic congestion.
Local communities pay this price long after the construction jobs leave town.
We need to invest in development projects that bring our communities long-term benefits -- without the social costs that come with casinos. It's time to say "enough is enough" to reservation shopping.
Dianne Feinstein represents California in the U.S. Senate.

Friday, November 26, 2010

Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks Dept. of Interior to Draft Language Keeping Gaming from Tribes Seeking Land into Trust.

California Senator Dianne Feinstein has received draft language from the Department of Interior, which will place requirements on certain lands to be used for the purposes of Indian gaming.  This will have a direct effect on some tribes gaining the self-reliance that the big gaming tribes received and implemented under Props. 1A and 5.

We have embedded communications, including a response to Rep. Tom Cole asking for information on the matter.

The money portion of the language Sen. Feinstein  is seeking:

gaming shall not be conducted on land taken into trust by the Federal Government after the date of enactment of this Act, unless the Secretary of the Interior determines when taking into trust for gaming purposes that the Indian tribe demonstrates -

      1. A substantial direct modern connection to the land taken into trust; and
      2. a substantial direct aboriginal connection to the land taken into trust.

WHO benefits from language like this?   Certainly NOT tribes who would benefit from gaming?  Only those tribes that ALREADY have gaming would benefit for the lack of competition for gaming customers.    So is that who Sen. Dianne Feinstein is doing this for?   WHY Senator, would you jump through hoops for tribes that already have gaming, instead of working to HELP tribes that do not?    IF gaming is the engine for tribal self-reliance, wouldn't we want ALL tribes to benefit from Gaming.   Really, Senator, is it more important for tribes like Pechanga, which has stolen $300 million from rightful tribal people, or the Picayune Rancheria, which has eliminated 50% of their tribe to benefit?   Shouldn't you and Senator Barbara Boxer be working on enforcing the Indian Civil Rights Act instead?   Please Sen. Feinstein, don't say you "didn't know" what tribes have done.  We sent you hundreds of letters on Pechanga's Land Transfer.

Who is lobbying for this?  IETAN?

DoI Response to Rep. Cole 11-18-2010 and Sen. Feinstein 11-03-2010.[1]
White house confirms support of ‘clean Carcieri fix’
Interior distances itself from Feinstein’s ‘off reservation’ amendment By Gale Courey Toensing, Indian Country Today staff Story Published: Nov 26, 2010
WASHINGTON – The White House has reiterated its support for a “Carcieri fix” – legislation confirming the federal government’s authority to take Indian land into trust for general purposes, while the Interior Department has distanced itself from a senator’s proposal that would virtually eliminate off reservation trust land for gaming.
“I think everyone in the administration that’s talked about it has made it very clear that we support the clean Carcieri fix,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Indian Country Today Nov. 23. “The president has said that, the Secretary (of Interior) has said that, we’ve said that in all our letters and testimony to Congress. Is there some confusion out there about our position?”
If there is confusion, it’s due to a controversy that’s blurring the distinction between two major pieces of Indian law – the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which provides land into trust for general purposes other than gaming, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a section of which deals with gaming on “newly acquired land” – that is, land acquired after IGRA was enacted in October 1988.
The controversy flared up recently when tribal leaders learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working with the Interior Department on drafting an IGRA amendment that would curtail gaming on newly acquired off reservation trust land, and planned to attach it to a must-pass appropriations bill during the lame duck session. The leaders raised an outcry about the proposal being developed behind the scenes and without the standard process of consultation, hearings and comments.
Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Feinstein requested assistance on her proposal.
“Sen. Feinstein’s staff initiated contact with the department requesting a ‘drafting service’ – input on legislative language her staff was considering.
“It is not unusual for members of Congress to make such a request, and the department responded – per our Department Manual – as it routinely does in such circumstances. We have been clear that the language does not represent the position of the administration.”
Barkoff said the Interior does not consult on legislative actions.
“The department is committed to consultation on its executive actions as outlined in the president’s 2009 memorandum,” she said, referring to the presidential order for departments to draw up and implement tribal consultation plans.
The legislation Obama supports would repair a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the IRA that said the Interior secretary has no authority to take land into trust for tribes that were not “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. The ruling has frozen trust applications at the Interior Department for the past two years.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., proposed the legislation that’s now being called the “clean Carcieri fix.” The proposed bill and its House companion amend the IRA to say that Interior can take land into trust for all tribes before and since 1934. The bills have been heard and approved in both the House and Senate. The “fix” is named after the Rhode Island governor who brought a land trust case against the Narragansett Indians to the high court.
The Carcieri fix would not in itself provide gaming land, but a tribe could ask Interior to take off reservation land it has acquired under the IRA into trust for gaming under IGRA’s Section 20, Two Part Determination – a process with such rigorous criteria that fewer than half a dozen off reservation gaming applications have been approved in the 22 years since IGRA was passed.
Feinstein’s primary interest in proposing the IGRA amendment is to stop the expansion of off reservation gaming in the Bay Area of San Francisco that she represents, but the amendment would affect all tribes – another aspect of the proposal that outraged tribal leaders.
The outcry over Feinstein’s work with Interior spilled over at the National Congress of American Indians annual conference and the Global Gaming Expo (G2E), which overlapped the week of Nov. 15 – 19, when Interior Department officials finally released Feinstein’s proposal.
The most forbidding part of the proposed amendment sets the nearly impossible standard that tribes would have to demonstrate both a “substantial” modern connection and a direct aboriginal connection to the off reservation lands they want for gaming.
Although the Interior Department said the Feinstein proposal “does not represent the position of the administration,” Barkoff also said, “The administration has not taken a policy position on the draft language.”
“No legislation has been introduced or otherwise put forward. Sen. Feinstein may choose to ignore or modify the department’s drafting service and is under no obligation to share a final proposal with the department. The administration has not taken a policy position on the draft language.”
Joe Valandra, Rosebud Sioux, a gaming consultant and former National Indian Gaming Commission chief of staff, said the information that has come under the spotlight has created a transparency that may ultimately benefit everyone.
“I think what it signifies is once the information about the secret negotiations that were apparently going on between Sen. Feinstein and Interior was exposed, things changed rather rapidly in that the administration came out and said they would support a clean Carcieri fix.
“I understand other senior senators said the senator’s proposal is not the way to amend IGRA and if it’s going to be amended at all, it will be with lots of consultations and airing of the language and not something done behind the scenes, so they wouldn’t support it. Which I think effectively made it very difficult for Sen. Feinstein to do anything and caused her to reevaluate what she’s doing.”
The issue is complicated beyond measure, Valandra said, who attended the Global Gaming Expo where the Carcieri and IGRA proposals were discussed at length.
“This is just my perspective of what I saw happen and that is that people within the BIA and DOI were just sort of fed up with whatever they were seeing happen and also they had great potential to be blamed for it, and rather than stand in those shoes or look like they were doing something wrong, they passed out the language at G2E and slowly backed away from association with what was happening with Feinstein,” Valandra said.
“This is just my opinion. I’m hopeful that’s what happened. I’m not positive, but that seems to be the result.”
 White house confirms support of ‘clean Carcieri fix’
Interior distances itself from Feinstein’s ‘off reservation’ amendment
By Gale Courey Toensing, Today staff
Story Published: Nov 26, 2010
Story Updated: Nov 24, 2010
WASHINGTON – The White House has reiterated its support for a “Carcieri fix” – legislation confirming the federal government’s authority to take Indian land into trust for general purposes, while the Interior Department has distanced itself from a senator’s proposal that would virtually eliminate off reservation trust land for gaming.

“I think everyone in the administration that’s talked about it has made it very clear that we support the clean Carcieri fix,” White House spokesman Shin Inouye told Indian Country Today Nov. 23. “The president has said that, the Secretary (of Interior) has said that, we’ve said that in all our letters and testimony to Congress. Is there some confusion out there about our position?”

If there is confusion, it’s due to a controversy that’s blurring the distinction between two major pieces of Indian law – the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act, which provides land into trust for general purposes other than gaming, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a section of which deals with gaming on “newly acquired land” – that is, land acquired after IGRA was enacted in October 1988.

The controversy flared up recently when tribal leaders learned that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has been working with the Interior Department on drafting an IGRA amendment that would curtail gaming on newly acquired off reservation trust land, and planned to attach it to a must-pass appropriations bill during the lame duck session. The leaders raised an outcry about the proposal being developed behind the scenes and without the standard process of consultation, hearings and comments.

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Feinstein requested assistance on her proposal.

“Sen. Feinstein’s staff initiated contact with the department requesting a ‘drafting service’ – input on legislative language her staff was considering.

“It is not unusual for members of Congress to make such a request, and the department responded – per our Department Manual – as it routinely does in such circumstances. We have been clear that the language does not represent the position of the administration.”

Barkoff said the Interior does not consult on legislative actions.

“The department is committed to consultation on its executive actions as outlined in the president’s 2009 memorandum,” she said, referring to the presidential order for departments to draw up and implement tribal consultation plans.

The legislation Obama supports would repair a 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision on the IRA that said the Interior secretary has no authority to take land into trust for tribes that were not “under federal jurisdiction” in 1934. The ruling has frozen trust applications at the Interior Department for the past two years.

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., proposed the legislation that’s now being called the “clean Carcieri fix.” The proposed bill and its House companion amend the IRA to say that Interior can take land into trust for all tribes before and since 1934. The bills have been heard and approved in both the House and Senate. The “fix” is named after the Rhode Island governor who brought a land trust case against the Narragansett Indians to the high court.

The Carcieri fix would not in itself provide gaming land, but a tribe could ask Interior to take off reservation land it has acquired under the IRA into trust for gaming under IGRA’s Section 20, Two Part Determination – a process with such rigorous criteria that fewer than half a dozen off reservation gaming applications have been approved in the 22 years since IGRA was passed.

Feinstein’s primary interest in proposing the IGRA amendment is to stop the expansion of off reservation gaming in the Bay Area of San Francisco that she represents, but the amendment would affect all tribes – another aspect of the proposal that outraged tribal leaders.

The outcry over Feinstein’s work with Interior spilled over at the National Congress of American Indians annual conference and the Global Gaming Expo (G2E), which overlapped the week of Nov. 15 – 19, when Interior Department officials finally released Feinstein’s proposal.

The most forbidding part of the proposed amendment sets the nearly impossible standard that tribes would have to demonstrate both a “substantial” modern connection and a direct aboriginal connection to the off reservation lands they want for gaming.

Although the Interior Department said the Feinstein proposal “does not represent the position of the administration,” Barkoff also said, “The administration has not taken a policy position on the draft language.”

“No legislation has been introduced or otherwise put forward. Sen. Feinstein may choose to ignore or modify the department’s drafting service and is under no obligation to share a final proposal with the department. The administration has not taken a policy position on the draft language.”

Joe Valandra, Rosebud Sioux, a gaming consultant and former National Indian Gaming Commission chief of staff, said the information that has come under the spotlight has created a transparency that may ultimately benefit everyone.

“I think what it signifies is once the information about the secret negotiations that were apparently going on between Sen. Feinstein and Interior was exposed, things changed rather rapidly in that the administration came out and said they would support a clean Carcieri fix.

“I understand other senior senators said the senator’s proposal is not the way to amend IGRA and if it’s going to be amended at all, it will be with lots of consultations and airing of the language and not something done behind the scenes, so they wouldn’t support it. Which I think effectively made it very difficult for Sen. Feinstein to do anything and caused her to reevaluate what she’s doing.”

The issue is complicated beyond measure, Valandra said, who attended the Global Gaming Expo where the Carcieri and IGRA proposals were discussed at length.

“This is just my perspective of what I saw happen and that is that people within the BIA and DOI were just sort of fed up with whatever they were seeing happen and also they had great potential to be blamed for it, and rather than stand in those shoes or look like they were doing something wrong, they passed out the language at G2E and slowly backed away from association with what was happening with Feinstein,” Valandra said.

“This is just my opinion. I’m hopeful that’s what happened. I’m not positive, but that seems to be the result.”
San Pablo development lifts mood amid recession
Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer San Francisco Chronicle November 29, 2010
 In the poorest neighborhood in the Bay Area's poorest city, the mood is brighter than a casino at midnight.
"We're happy here. I've been here 40 years, and the people have not changed. Our spirits are great," said Cheryl Odom, owner of Cafe Kennedi, a soul food and Cajun restaurant in San Pablo's Old Town. "We know how to take care of each other."
As the recession steamrolls through cities everywhere, none have been quite so flattened as San Pablo. And none have been quite as hopeful, either.
Home prices, incomes, education levels, school test scores and voter-turnout rates are among the lowest in the Bay Area.
Unemployment is almost twice the state average. It's not unusual for three families to share a two-bedroom apartment. And the city's economic lifeblood is a casino.
But major retail developments are under way, schools are being renovated and, at Cafe Kennedi, anyway, the crowd is decidedly upbeat.
In fact, you'd think residents were describing Piedmont, not a town where the average per capita yearly income is $14,000.
"It's quiet here, family oriented. Everyone knows everyone," said Odom, who grew up four blocks from her restaurant. "The people here - we're just happy."
Little change
San Pablo has changed little over the decades. For 150 years, it's been a bastion for immigrants, a mecca for gambling and a small town teeming with kids.
"It's always been the kind of place where people work hard and do the best they can, no matter how poor they are," said Councilman Leonard McNeil, who grew up in San Pablo. "I didn't grow up on filet mignon, but I wasn't hungry, either. I ate rice and beans, and I still like rice and beans. That's San Pablo."
San Pablo began as a stopover along the stage coach route - present-day San Pablo Avenue and Interstate 80 - from Oakland to Sacramento in the Gold Rush era. Over the years, farms and ranches sprouted nearby, attracting immigrant laborers from China, Portugal, Germany, Chile and elsewhere.
Neighboring Richmond banned gambling halls and other dens of iniquity, so San Pablo became a regional hub for partying and nightlife. Race tracks, bars, nightclubs, pool halls and other venues filled the town, which remained unincorporated and somewhat lawless until after World War II.
Richmond, meanwhile, crept up around San Pablo and now surrounds the 3-square-mile town on all sides. Like Richmond, San Pablo quickly filled with workforce housing during and after World War II as thousands flooded the area to work at the shipyards.
Also like Richmond, San Pablo now struggles with a high crime rate, poverty and low-performing schools. Violent crime in both cities is nearly three times the county average.
But San Pablo lacks industry, such as the Chevron refinery and factories that Richmond has. And it lacks a downtown or historic center. Most of San Pablo is residential, a conglomeration of small postwar homes and apartment buildings, built quickly and with few adornments.
But it also boasts a community college and a hospital. And, most important, it has a casino.
The casino
Casino San Pablo, run by the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians, is the largest casino in the Bay Area, with 1,100 slot machines, card tables and restaurants, all open 24 hours a day. About 7 percent of the casino's profits go to city coffers every year, making up about 60 percent of the city's general fund budget.
"Without the casino, we would be bankrupt," McNeil said. "I'd like San Pablo to be known for something besides gambling, but the tribe has been a good neighbor."
The tribe is now looking at other investments in San Pablo, including a housing and retail complex at the site of a former mobile home park, McNeil said.
Most in San Pablo are grateful for the jobs and money it brings to the city, regardless of their personal views on gambling.
"For people who live here, it's great to have a job you can walk to," said Kathy Chao Rothberg, a San Pablo resident and director of the Lao Family Community Development Corp., which helps low-income, mostly immigrant families in San Pablo and Richmond.
More than 60 percent of her group's 15,000 clients have no car, so public transit and nearby employment is critical, she said.
But despite the challenges, San Pablo is still a welcoming place for immigrants, thanks largely to its plethora of cheap housing and tight-knit community groups, Rothberg said.
"It's a city that has always embraced diversity," she said. "I love this community. Me and my family are definitely committed to staying here."
Facts about San Pablo
 
-- Average yearly per capita income: $14,303, lowest in the Bay Area
-- Median home sale price in October: $151,600, lowest in the Bay Area. Median home price in January 2006: $475,000.
-- Number of liquor stores: 8
-- Number of churches: 22
-- Unemployment rate: 22 percent, highest in the Bay Area
-- Percentage of homes headed by single mothers: 30 percent
-- Percentage of residents who have a high school diploma or less: 60 percent
-- Percentage of residents who were born in another country: 40 percent
-- Voter turnout in the Nov. 2 election: 23 percent
-- Percentage of residents who are undocumented: 17 percent
-- Percentage of profits from Casino San Pablo that go to the city: 7 percent
-- Percentage of the city's general fund that comes from the casino: 60 percent, or $12 million to $14 million a year.

Sources: Data Quick, Trulia, 2000 and 2005 U.S. census data, city and state documents