Silly Season gets even sillier

The Aquinnah Tribe, feeling ignored by the media no doubt and longing for the limelight, announced their intentions to conduct a feasibility study for a SLOT BARN on the Vineyard.

The Vineyard for Pete's sake!

After the laughter died down, this article popped into view --

Camille Rose, Aquinnah selectman and a veteran member of the town planning board, said the prospect of a casino on the Island is just an empty threat.

Ms. Rose said much of the tribe’s undeveloped and available property is protected because it is sensitive conservation land subject to restrictions. She said construction, parking, and sewerage issues alone would be significant.

When you think of the infrastructure you would need, it’s absurd,” Ms.
Rose said.

“I think everybody on the Island understands that it would be
an impossibility, but they don’t know in Boston that it’s just not doable here, there is just no place,” she said. “There isn’t even a piece of land in town that you could buy that would be large enough.”

The Aquinnah tribe’s 1987 settlement agreement and a Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) decision in 2005 that upheld the basic tenets of that agreement have figured large in the casino discussion, and the notion that because the Aquinnah tribe has land in trust it has an advantage.

The 1983 settlement agreement that led to federal recognition of the Wampanoags, was signed by the tribe, the Gay Head Taxpayers Association (since renamed the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association Inc.), the town, and the state. It specifically provides that the settlement lands shall be subject to all federal, state, and local laws, including town zoning laws, state and federal conservation laws, and the regulations of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission.

In the winter of 2001, the Wampanoag tribe erected a small shed on the Cook property without a town building permit. The resulting legal battle reached the SJC.

In December 2004, the state’s highest court ruled that the tribe, then the only federally recognized tribe in Massachusetts, was not immune from zoning enforcement under its claim of sovereign immunity.

In other words, the Aquinnah can't even build a shed without complying with local regulations.

And then there's the drama of the Mashpee Wampanoag's land claim --

In the July 30 ruling issued by a three-member panel that included retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals supported the earlier ruling that the Binghams lack standing to bring suit on behalf of the tribe. The justices ruled that the Binghams were unable to show they suffered personal injury from the sale of land to non-Indians because they can't trace their own lineage back to specific land holders.

The Mashpee Wampanoags have an agreement with the Town of Mashpee that says, among other things, that they won't pursue their land claim that stalled property sales on the Cape.

Not one to give up, Mrs. Bingham went on to say --

"That's what we were telling the tribe all along," she said. "But tribe
leaders are too busy talking to Fall River when they should be talking about Mashpee."

In April 2008, the tribe and town reached a deal, approved separately by the tribal body and town meeting voters, that provided certain lands to the tribe, including the Old Indian Meeting House and burial ground, in exchange for the Mashpee Wampanoag waiving all future claims.
Meanwhile, the town agreed to support the tribe's efforts to put 140 acres in Mashpee in federal trust.

Amelia Bingham said she isn't likely to appeal the ruling. She said it's time for the tribe to assert its rights.

"We've opened the door part way. We have all the documents necessary," she said. "It's time for the so-called leaders of our tribe to take some action."

Mrs. Bingham, you're a very nice lady and you seem sincere in your intent. You were right about Glenn Marshall who is now in federal prison for making 'bribes' to gain Tribal recognition. If you violate the terms of the agreement with Mashpee, what will the already tarnished image of the Tribe be? Or doesn't it matter as long as you enrich yourself by exploiting others?

As if Carcieri v Salazar and the Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs decisions weren't enough, here's another to consider --

Oneida Nation dispossessed of right to reclaim land or compensation

which includes (worth reading in its entirety) --

The appeals panel also said the state has sovereign immunity and cannot be sued.

“With this decision, the majority forecloses (the Oneida Nation) from
bringing any claims seeking any remedy for their treatment at the hands of the
state,” Gershon wrote.

...that tribal sovereignty is a waning concept, a
historical relic that has outlived its usefulness, and has little, if any, legal force.

Stay tuned for the next chapter.

Meanwhile, check out the current information on United to Stop Slots in Massachusetts and add your name to the email list if you haven't done so already.