Now, two casino proposals could open the door to a
new
era of Indian gaming in the state. Two tribes located on difficult-to-reach
reservations have received federal approval to operate hotels and casinos on
land miles away, which would make these the state's first Indian casinos located
off existing reservations. The North
Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians wants to build along a freeway outside
Madera, and the Enterprise Rancheria of Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe would place its
casino near Marysville. Now it's up to Gov. Jerry Brown
to decide the matter, which he must do by the end of the month.
This represents a bad precedent for gambling growth in the state. Brown should reject both proposals and hold a firm line on tribes' efforts to build off their reservations, especially when such casinos would be located in or near more populated areas. And changes in federal law are warranted to deter this from happening again.
California voters have made their views on gambling
clear. In 2000, they approved Proposition 1A to allow tribes to set up Las
Vegas-style gambling on "Indian land." Four years later, despite a $60-million
campaign funded by gambling interests, voters rejected two initiatives to expand
gaming in the state. One would have allowed slot machines in urban card casinos
and at racetracks; the other would have lifted some restrictions on Indian
casinos. In other words, voters liked gambling but preferred
that it be contained. They wanted to empower tribal governments to lift their
people out of poverty and make key decisions on their sovereign lands, which
tend to be remotely located, but did not want to see the state's cities and
suburbs subjected to Las Vegas-style creep. At this point, there are more than
65 casinos among the state's 109 recognized tribes. Many tribes have no casinos,
but a handful have more than one.
Under the 1988 federal law that allowed Indian
gaming, construction of a casino off the original reservation can happen through
a two-part process. First, the Interior
Department must be willing to take the land in trust and determine that the
casino is in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the
surrounding community; then the governor of the state must concur. TheGeorge W.
Bushadministration set up tough rules for federal approval, including a
requirement that the new land be within commuting distance of the reservation.
The Obama administration, unfortunately, loosened the restrictions.
Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-California) has introduced legislation to tighten the rules. S 771 would require
tribes to have both a modern and a historic connection to land where they want
to build casinos, and would clearly define those connections. In addition, a
bill by Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) would clarify the standards for these "two-part"
applications. Both should be approved by Congress; as more tribes seek a share
of gambling wealth, decisions about where casinos should be located should not
depend on changes in philosophy from one presidential administration to another
or one governor to the next. But there also should be some flexibility for
tribes that are left in poverty because their reservations happen to be in
particularly hard-to-reach locations. That could include allowing a small number
of off-reservation casinos that are not close to urbanized areas. The state also
could try to increase the number of revenue-sharing agreements between
tribes.
There's also a valid question about how much
potential for growth remains for the state's Indian casinos. Although revenue
from gambling in other states has increased in recent years, an analysis this
year found that it has dropped
in California. That might simply be a result of the slow economy, but some
farsighted tribes in the state are using casino profits to diversify into new,
non-gambling ventures.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-casinos-indian-northern-california-20120819%2C0%2C770034.story

