The Cowlitz Tribe was rebuffed Aug. 17 in Thurston County Superior Court when it attempted to insert itself into Clark County’s appeal of a ruling on the county’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the tribe.
The tribe wanted to join the case so it could move to have it dismissed, which would reinstate the MOU, a document that is a key part of its Environmental Impact Statement.
The MOU, under consideration by various courts and the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board for the past three years, was invalidated June 19 by the growth board. It determined that the county did not allow for sufficient public participation -- as required by state and county law -- before it approved the MOU with the tribe in March 2004.
The county appealed that ruling and argues that it is less interested in maintaining the MOU than in determining that the growth board, an appointed body, does not have authority to override an agreement made by the County Commission, an elected body.
Thurston Superior Court will hear Clark County’s appeal of the Hearings Board decision, likely in late September or early October.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Tribe tries to “fix” MOU situation
Now that its Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Clark County is invalid, the Cowlitz Tribe is trying to keep its contents alive by inserting them into its gaming ordinance, which originally was approved by the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) in November 2005.
The tribe has been framing this plan as a way to ensure that problems arising from its proposed casino development would be mitigated. But it is clear that this is a last-ditch attempt to maintain an agreement so the county could provide the property with services, if it is taken into trust by DOI.
A response to the proposal by the county will be key.
What is particularly alarming is that putting the contents of the MOU into the NIGC ordinance would take the enforcement of local concerns -- law enforcement, county court, fire protection, health regulations, traffic mitigation, sewer and water issues, building codes, revenue-sharing, among others -- out of local hands and place it with a federal commission, which is not set up to oversee local matters. We have urged the NIGC to deny the Cowlitz Tribe’s request to amend its gaming ordinance.
(You might recall that the NIGC was the agency that approved the tribe’s restored lands application -- potentially qualifying the land at the La Center junction for gambling -- at the same time. That decision, which broke with all precedence, came under heavy fire and is under review by the Department of the Interior (DOI).)
The tribe has been framing this plan as a way to ensure that problems arising from its proposed casino development would be mitigated. But it is clear that this is a last-ditch attempt to maintain an agreement so the county could provide the property with services, if it is taken into trust by DOI.
A response to the proposal by the county will be key.
What is particularly alarming is that putting the contents of the MOU into the NIGC ordinance would take the enforcement of local concerns -- law enforcement, county court, fire protection, health regulations, traffic mitigation, sewer and water issues, building codes, revenue-sharing, among others -- out of local hands and place it with a federal commission, which is not set up to oversee local matters. We have urged the NIGC to deny the Cowlitz Tribe’s request to amend its gaming ordinance.
(You might recall that the NIGC was the agency that approved the tribe’s restored lands application -- potentially qualifying the land at the La Center junction for gambling -- at the same time. That decision, which broke with all precedence, came under heavy fire and is under review by the Department of the Interior (DOI).)
Tribe blasts La Center in DOI memo
The Cowlitz Tribe blasted La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort in a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI).
The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from -- finally -- having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
The La Center city attorney sent a letter Aug. 23 to DOI stating the city’s strong disagreement “with the tribe’s characterization of the policy positions the City Council has taken” and its legal arguments.
“The City’s primary source of general tax revenue is the four non-tribal cardrooms that have operated for many years in La Center,” wrote City Attorney Daniel Kearns. “The City Council has made the policy choice to try to protect the non-tribal cardrooms within its boundaries, as the Council views that as the best way to protect that City revenue source.”
In May, the La Center City Council unanimously approved a resolution stating its strong opposition to the casino project, and in June, the city council voted 4-1 to turn down the tribe’s offer to extend the city’s sewer lines west to the site of the proposed casino and to pay half the cost of upgrading the city’s sewage treatment plant.
Also included in the tribe’s memorandum is a section describing its “local outreach” efforts, listing local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the tribe’s memo.
>>Read the list of local leaders.
>>Read La Center’s letter.
The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from -- finally -- having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
The La Center city attorney sent a letter Aug. 23 to DOI stating the city’s strong disagreement “with the tribe’s characterization of the policy positions the City Council has taken” and its legal arguments.
“The City’s primary source of general tax revenue is the four non-tribal cardrooms that have operated for many years in La Center,” wrote City Attorney Daniel Kearns. “The City Council has made the policy choice to try to protect the non-tribal cardrooms within its boundaries, as the Council views that as the best way to protect that City revenue source.”
In May, the La Center City Council unanimously approved a resolution stating its strong opposition to the casino project, and in June, the city council voted 4-1 to turn down the tribe’s offer to extend the city’s sewer lines west to the site of the proposed casino and to pay half the cost of upgrading the city’s sewage treatment plant.
Also included in the tribe’s memorandum is a section describing its “local outreach” efforts, listing local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the tribe’s memo.
>>Read the list of local leaders.
>>Read La Center’s letter.
Tribe tries to attach itself to area
The Cowlitz Tribe continues its quest to appear as if it has had a significant presence in Clark County “since time immemorial.” Most recently it has employed a Clark County Fair booth (“Cowlitz Indian Tribe. Clark County. Our Past. Our Future.”) and a piece written by Cowlitz Tribe Chairman John Barnett in the Aug. 22 Reflector (“Cowlitz Tribe’s history shows residency in Clark County”).
CARS disputes the tribe’s inaccurate historic claims to Clark County because it is using them in an attempt to fulfill Department of the Interior (DOI) criteria. To take land into trust for gambling, newly recognized tribes must first qualify for an exception to a federal prohibition. The Cowlitz Tribe has applied for two exceptions: an initial reservation and restored lands.
In 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, George Skibine (then an acting deputy assistant secretary at DOI) testified that to qualify for an initial reservation or restored lands, DOI requires a tribe to have historical and geographical ties to the land.
The historic record -- including findings published by DOI -- shows that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland was well to the north, primarily along the Cowlitz River. In July, the chairman of the Chinook Indian Nation added his tribe’s concerns to the discussion in a letter to The Reflector that said, “Recorded and oral history is very clear in that the indigenous peoples of the La Center, Ridgefield and Vancouver areas were Chinookan. The principle indigenous lands of the Cowlitz People were not in the present-day area of Clark County.”
For all its efforts, the Cowlitz Tribe only began attaching itself to Clark County a few years ago. Its July 20 memorandum (the one attacking La Center’s opposition) states on page 2, “Soon after the Tribe filed its fee-to-trust application in 2002 it began to reach out to the City of La Center.” (By this time, Cowlitz developer David Barnett had already purchased land and options at the La Center junction; and in 2002 the tribe asked the state to begin negotiating a gaming compact.) Had the Cowlitz Tribe truly been in Clark County to any degree, it already would have had strong ties to local communities.
Moreover, it surely would have had some presence in local media. A CARS analysis of 1994-2001 news coverage in The Columbian shows few stories related to the Cowlitz Tribe before 1999. That year, its eight stories were primarily about the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition—and its reaction to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe’s interest in placing a casino in Clark County.
CARS disputes the tribe’s inaccurate historic claims to Clark County because it is using them in an attempt to fulfill Department of the Interior (DOI) criteria. To take land into trust for gambling, newly recognized tribes must first qualify for an exception to a federal prohibition. The Cowlitz Tribe has applied for two exceptions: an initial reservation and restored lands.
In 2005 testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, George Skibine (then an acting deputy assistant secretary at DOI) testified that to qualify for an initial reservation or restored lands, DOI requires a tribe to have historical and geographical ties to the land.
The historic record -- including findings published by DOI -- shows that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland was well to the north, primarily along the Cowlitz River. In July, the chairman of the Chinook Indian Nation added his tribe’s concerns to the discussion in a letter to The Reflector that said, “Recorded and oral history is very clear in that the indigenous peoples of the La Center, Ridgefield and Vancouver areas were Chinookan. The principle indigenous lands of the Cowlitz People were not in the present-day area of Clark County.”
For all its efforts, the Cowlitz Tribe only began attaching itself to Clark County a few years ago. Its July 20 memorandum (the one attacking La Center’s opposition) states on page 2, “Soon after the Tribe filed its fee-to-trust application in 2002 it began to reach out to the City of La Center.” (By this time, Cowlitz developer David Barnett had already purchased land and options at the La Center junction; and in 2002 the tribe asked the state to begin negotiating a gaming compact.) Had the Cowlitz Tribe truly been in Clark County to any degree, it already would have had strong ties to local communities.
Moreover, it surely would have had some presence in local media. A CARS analysis of 1994-2001 news coverage in The Columbian shows few stories related to the Cowlitz Tribe before 1999. That year, its eight stories were primarily about the tribe’s efforts to gain federal recognition—and its reaction to the Shoalwater Bay Tribe’s interest in placing a casino in Clark County.
DOI unresponsive to Baird request
The Department of the Interior (DOI) has not yet responded to Rep. Brian Baird’s May request that the agency release the Business Plan included in the Cowlitz Tribe’s preliminary Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a 30-day public comment period.
The casino project’s Business Plan and attached “Unmet Needs Report,” a required element of the fee-to-trust application (which the tribe filed incompletely in 2006), appears to have been held back until the preliminary Final EIS was released to cooperating agencies last spring, so it could be used -- without public scrutiny -- to provide a rationale for not considering a site in the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The preliminary Final EIS argues that a northern site would not make enough money to satisfy the tribe’s needs.
The Plan and Report contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. Among what the tribe calls its “unmet needs” -- which add up to $113.6 million a year -- are a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually), two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually) and a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).
The casino project’s Business Plan and attached “Unmet Needs Report,” a required element of the fee-to-trust application (which the tribe filed incompletely in 2006), appears to have been held back until the preliminary Final EIS was released to cooperating agencies last spring, so it could be used -- without public scrutiny -- to provide a rationale for not considering a site in the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland. The preliminary Final EIS argues that a northern site would not make enough money to satisfy the tribe’s needs.
The Plan and Report contain highly controversial needs and numbers, and are being used by the regional Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in an attempt to justify its dismissal of a site for the proposed Cowlitz casino in the tribe’s aboriginal homeland. Among what the tribe calls its “unmet needs” -- which add up to $113.6 million a year -- are a horse program (cost: $22.6 million initially and $655,125 annually), two medical facilities plus wellness centers (cost: $41.1 million initially and $30.2 million annually) and a library (cost: $1 million to acquire core holdings and $500,000 in acquisitions annually).
Reservation requests on hold?
An article in the Boston Globe raises questions about whether the Cowlitz Tribe could even get land taken into trust until the next President is in office.
In a story about what could become Massachusetts’ first casino, the Boston Globe reported, “No action is expected by the Interior Department during the next 18 months, because President Bush’s administration has said it will not approve applications by federally recognized tribes to create reservation land.”
The reporter later said that he had received the information from the Massachusetts tribe working on the casino proposal.
In a story about what could become Massachusetts’ first casino, the Boston Globe reported, “No action is expected by the Interior Department during the next 18 months, because President Bush’s administration has said it will not approve applications by federally recognized tribes to create reservation land.”
The reporter later said that he had received the information from the Massachusetts tribe working on the casino proposal.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tribe complains about La Center to DOI
In a July 20 memorandum to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), the Cowlitz Tribe blasts La Center’s opposition to the tribe’s proposed mega-casino and resort. The 19-page diatribe accuses La Center of maneuvering to preserve the city’s “private gaming monopoly” (four privately owned cardrooms) and keeping the tribe “from—finally—having a reservation of its own.” (It does not address the fact that very few Cowlitz Tribe members live in the area or that the Cowlitz Tribe’s aboriginal homeland is located to the north, along the Cowlitz River.)
According to a July 27 article in The Columbian,
The memorandum includes a section describing the tribe’s “local outreach” efforts and lists local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the memo.
According to a July 27 article in The Columbian,
The article includes a reaction from La Center city attorney Dan Kearns: “This is the definitive slamming of the door, on negotiations for mitigation and negotiations for sewer service.”City Councilman Troy Van Dinter disputed (Cowlitz Tribe attorney Heather) Sibbison’s depiction of a city council in cahoots with the four nontribal cardrooms.
“That’s just completely wrong,” he said. “We’re just trying to keep the city intact and protect the citizens we have, as well as the tax base we have.”
The memorandum includes a section describing the tribe’s “local outreach” efforts and lists local leaders with whom it has met. The text and 41 names are juxtaposed in such a way as to make it appear that all in the list support or do not oppose the proposed casino, although some are casino opponents.
>>Read the memo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
