Tribes Must Halt All Efforts to Add Illegal Slots in California

Gee, they forgot to mention Cheryl is paid shill for the racetracks and card clubs. Not too surprising.

Gee, Victor forgot to mention he's a shill for the Pechanga Band, who violate their people's rights and don't follow their own constitution. Victor's site gets ads from Pechanga.

Does it take a shill to KNOW a shill?

Do people realize that he only posted this anti-gaming article on his site so he could call Cheryl a shill?

The main problem that I see with the compacts is that you have 4 of the wealthiest tribes that are basically just getting greedy for more money. The whole purpose of Indian Gaming was to help pull ALL of California's tribes out of poverty. The majority of the tribes in California, the ones that didn't hit the location lottery, are still poor and living in poverty. Maybe what these tribes should of done is rather than earmark the money to the state it should of went to the non-gaming tribes. There should be no expansion while there are still tribes that are poor. Prop 1A has only managed to help a small fraction of California's tribes. These compacts should be opposed because there is no need for these tribes that already pay their members thousands of dollars a week to expand, they are just greedy and trying to sucker the state into allowing it by offering some money.

Splixx hits it on the head. There are tribes in CA that have not received their approvals for Casinos. Other tribes should have had their federal recognition already. The Governator should have been pushing the Feds for recognition of the Tongva so that there could be a casino in LA.

There should be NO EXPANSION for Tribes that violate their members civil rights at ALL. Vote NO on 94. Pechanga is a shrinking tribe, with them eliminating their families from the band. Don't reward them.

Splixx is correct that four tribes out of over one hundred get the lion's share of gaming profits with the new agreements and there are still plenty of poor Indians in the state who haven't benefited from gaming.

For example, the Pechanga tribe's members already get about 30,000 dollars per month after kicking out 25 percent of their membership in the last four years.

Why do they need more when there are plenty of Indians that don't see a dime of gaming money, when is enough enough?

I didn't vote for a few Indians to have a monopoly on gaming when I voted yes a few years ago for the propostitions that legalized gaming on California reservations.

Who is anyone to say how big your business gets. Why should someone be able to say 'oh no, you are making too much money"? The fact is, the other tribes are receiving money from gaming tribes. This was negotiated in previous and current compacts. If the tribes don't increase their income, the 'poor' tribes will not increase theirs either. They do receive money that enhances their lives, but they do what they want with it. Some distribute it to their members, others spend it on Fire apparatus and other things their tribes need. As far as the disenrollments...I don't agree with what happened, but it wasn't the 'tribe' that disenrolled these families, it was the enrollment committee. The article mentions that the Federal Govt. can't approve a compact that hasn't been validly entered into under CA law. This compact was negotiated and approved by the Governor, and passed by the Assembly and the Senate. What is the point of having the Governor, Assembly, and Senate if we can't trust them to negotiate contracts? Also, since it was approved by them, which represent our state, why would it not be legal for the Federal govt. to approve the compacts? I am not being sarcastic or anything, I just am wondering about that.

Look at ALL the facts- I don't totally disagree with you about how big a business should get. However you cannot really compare indian gaming to regular business. The express purpose of allowing gaming was to pull the tribes out of poverty, while this has happend for a very small majority of tribes overall it hasn't helped the majority of tribes one bit. You talk about the money each non-gaming tribe gets, well its 1.1 million a year. Not to shabby, however when you figure that most tribes are at least 200 members or more you start to see that the money wouldn't help much. The money might be useful to do a few small projects on the reservation, but nothing that is going to significantly impact the tribe. Even if they per capita it, lets say you have a tribe with 250 members or so and they per capita 100% of the money, you get about what $4,000 a year per person. While on the same token these big gaming tribes pay each of their members that amount on what a weekely basis. Doesn't seem right to me, maybe these big gaming tribes should think about their poor neighbors and fellow tribes first rather than just trying to simply line their own pockets with even more money.

I fully support indian gaming, I just don't support this kind of expansion that will benefit so few of California's indians. The most telling fact for me and the one that is almost never mentioned is that if these 4 tribes are really out to help california and not just trying to be greedy then why are they so afraid to let californians decide. I mean if they are being true and honest then they should be embracing the fact that the very people they say they are going to help are the ones that will decide their fate. Kind of an ironic turnaround from Prop1A when they were asking Californians to decide if they can game and now they don't want those same people to decide if they should be able to expand into 4 of the "Largest" casino's in the world.

As far as the federal government thing, I found it interesting that the state sent the compacts off to the DOI even though they knew that they were going to be up for a referedum. The government really did have their hands tied, they had 45 days to either approve or deny, if they did nothing they would of automatically been approved. Seems that the state government tried to get around the voters as well.

In the end each one of us has to decide on whether or not we support indian gaming and whether they should be allowed to expand beyond what they need. I do feel bad for the tribal members that were disenrolled from their tribes, however to me that is not a reason to fight the compacts. That is a reason I would never enter a tribal casino that violates the rights of its own members, but to me its not why I am against the expansion. If you oppose the expansion because of the violation of civil rights of tribal members then I am right there with you on the line fighting as well. We all have our reasons to fight, and fight we shall.

Look at all the facts:

You ask who is to say how big a business gets? The ANSWER: The PEOPLE of California. The same people that vote whether or not a WAL-MART comes into town.

In the Propositions, the special mitigation fund that Pechanga currently pays $28 Million into, will GO AWAY. That means that localities WILL NOT be getting as much to fund police and fire.

It wasn't the tribe it was the enrollment committee? LOL. Please, it was the tribal council that overruled the will of the people.

YOU ASK: What is the point of having the Governor, Assembly, and Senate if we can't trust them to negotiate contracts? Isn't Don Perata being investigate for corruption? Didn't the Governor make this deal in the back room? Isn't the Assembly telling you that this will fix the budget? WHAT good ARE they? Not Very.

http://originalpechanga.blogspot.com

Oh, and I AM for expanded gaming. There are MANY reservations that should get their casinos approved NOW, before the Big 4 can expand.

"Look At All The Facts," You are wrong, the Pechanga tribe did disenroll in us in March 2006 by allowing the tribal council to not follow its own duly passed law outlawing disenrollment that was passed in July 2005 by the general membership.

Because how could the membership allow the enrollment committee to proceed with our disenrollment that clearly violated Pechanga law?

How people protested the tribal council's illegal ruling that allowed the enrollment committee to act against us?

I would like to think someone did but sadly this might not be the case.

Here are the facts as I know them to be based upon my own careful and detailed examination of the actual terms of each of the pending amended compacts, devoid of campaign rhetoric or intra-tribal politics (disclosure: I have relationships with two of the tribes with pending amendments, but have not allowed that relationship to color my analysis):

1. "Unfair?" How. The 2004 amended compacts that the Governor negotiated and the Legislature approved by 2/3 vote in both houses allowed five tribes, including Pala and Auburn, to operate an unlimited number of machines. Two other tribes also got the right to operate an unlimited number of machines. The four amended compacts headed for the February ballot limit the number of machines that those tribes can add. Last time I looked, infinity was a bigger number than any finite number. I guess that would make the 2004 amended compacts the largest expansion of gambling in the State's history -- but Ms. Schmidt never would call it that, because she is allied with two of those tribes in this campaign.

2. The 2006 amended compacts have virtually the same environmental, regulatory, building and safety and other requirements as do the 2004 amended compacts, which Ms. Schmidt praised at the time as models for other tribes and states. Indeed, the 2006 amended compacts are essentially identical to San Manuel's amended compact, which was endorsed by organized labor. The differences? a) five of the 2004 amended compacts used a fixed annual fee per additional machine, and two of the 2004 amended compacts used a sliding scale of percentages of net win, while the 2006 amended compacts charge the tribes a tiered percentage of net win on additional machines. According to the former CEO at Viejas, one of the 5 tribes that can operate unlimited machines under its 2004 amendment, there is no real dollar difference to the State between the two; b) the 2004 amended compacts allow unlimited machines, while the 2006 amendments cap machines at either 7,500 or 5,000; and c) three of the five 2004 amendments required that the tribes amend their Tribal Labor Relations Ordinances to require that if a union agrees not to strike (even if it actually hasn't been authorized to represent any employees), the
Tribe must accept card-check recognition, stay neutral during an organizing campaign and agree to binding interest arbitration of issues unresolved through collective bargaining. If, as the tribes that Ms. Schmidt supports claim, every tribe has the right to negotiate its own agreement, and if, as happened with these compacts, there was lengthy negotiation between the Governor and the Tribes and the Tribes basically agreed to almost all of the Governor's demands, why shouldn't these tribes be allowed to have their own agreements, rather than being shoe-horned into other tribes' agreements?

3. California's Secretary of State sent the amended compacts to the Department of the Interior ("DOI") on or about September 5, 2007, without having been requested to do so by anyone.

4. 45 days came and went after submission of the amended compacts, without affirmative disapproval by DOI, meaning that under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, the amended compacts were deemed approved on or about October 22, 2007.

5. The amended compacts have environmental mitigation requirements that are even more detailed than those in the 2004 amended compacts, and no tribe can do any sort of Class III gaming-related development on any lands without going through an exhaustive process that mirrors CEQA and culminates with the negotiation of binding and enforceable agreements with local governments to mitigate environmental impacts and compensate for impacts on local government services. If a tribe wants to develop a casino on lands that are adjacent to its existing Reservation but are not yet in federal trust status, the tribe must go through the full trust-acquisition process, including environmental reviews, and still must negotiate a binding and enforceable mitigation agreement with local government(s). These local agreements will result in direct payments to local governments that equal or exceed what the Legislature allows to trickle down from the current Special Distribution Fund, and each of the four tribes will increase its payments directly into the Revenue Sharing Trust Fund for tribes with small or no casinos.

6. These four amended compacts will produce more General Fund revenue than any compacts in the State's history, because these four tribes, plus San Manuel, have markets that will enable them to earn the revenues necessary to support their payments to the State. The audit and oversight requirements prevent any sort of manipulation of numbers or machines, and because the State's income is tied to the Tribes', they have every incentive to maximize revenue, rather than to try to play easily-discovered games.

7. These tribes are not seeking to move hundreds of miles from their existing Reservations in order to establish casinos, they are not responsible for other tribes' locations, and federal law would not allow the State to impose that responsibility on them, any more than the State imposed that responsibility on the seven tribes that have been allowed to operate unlimited numbers of machines. That a tribe may have internal membership issues is no reason to reject either that tribe's compact amendment or the compact amendments of other tribes that have no such issues; indeed, some of the tribes with 2004 amendments have serious internal membership issues of their own.

8. $9 billion is "chump change" only if you're spending someone else's money. Even in a state with as large a population and budget as California, $9 billion in general fund revenue is a lot of money that can solve a lot of problems for a lot of people. How many people would support an increase in their own taxes in that amount?

In summary, buzz-words and slogans are easy to say, but no matter how often one says them, they don't change the facts. Take a look at the amended compacts, and decide for yourself what the facts are.

Why not give some prime land to the Indians who didn't "win the location lottery" back in the late 1800's so they can build their own businesses.
Please remember that none of the "Big 4" tribes or the rest of the 104 tribes, won anything remotely resembling a location lottery when their reservations were created. Even though a few tribes happened to be in the path of urban sprawl this has only happened within the last 10-15 years. Before that they were all in the booneys!

Why not give some prime land to the Indians who didn't "win the location lottery" back in the late 1800's so they can build their own businesses.
Please remember that none of the "Big 4" tribes or the rest of the 104 tribes, won anything remotely resembling a location lottery when their reservations were created. Even though a few tribes happened to be in the path of urban sprawl this has only happened within the last 10-15 years. Before that they were all in the booneys!

In response to GEORGE:

1. Just because the first two compacts were/may be also unfair, does not make the 'big four' compacts FAIR. They can be equally unfair.
2. The money is going to the general fund rather than the mitigation fund. Localities will LOSE, especially if "balancing the budget" is the goal.
3. Really, you don't think the Governor sent a note?
4. So what, the referenda were placed on the ballot and it's for the PEOPLE to decide.
5. Why should the tribes get more land into trust and take it off the tax rolls? Pechanga already said they wouldn't develop the Great Oak property, yet there is HEAVY EQUIPMENT surrounding it.
6. You can hear me laughing about the oversight comment. Pechanga has cheated THEIR OWN PEOPLE. They WILL cheat the state of California.
7. George: That a tribe may have internal membership issues is no reason to reject either that tribe's compact amendment or the compact amendments of other tribes that have no such issues; indeed, some of the tribes with 2004 amendments have serious internal membership issues of their own.
WTF?: YES it is. It's NOT an internal membership issue,it's DENIAL of members civil rights, voting rights. It's ELDER ABUSE, it's THEFT on the grandest scale. It's not because some members forgot to pay the dues at the country club.

8. It's $9 Billion dollars if you believe that each machine added will generate the same amount as the machines earn at the peak periods, 24/7. That is NOT going to happen. You can find empty machines mid-week in all casinos, empty tables. You have to believe that people aren't going to spend at other places because Pechanga or Morongo have 5,000 more machines.

VOTE NO on 94.

If I am not mistaken while previous compacts allowed more slots it used a different scale to calculate how much it would cost the tribe in order to expand. The reasoning behind this was to limit rapid expansion as it would cost the tribe more money for more machines that might not make money. The new compacts don't do that.

Oh well despite what George tries to say, these tribes are trying to keep the very people who they say will benefit from having a say. Seems to me that something must be up. If they were so all fired sure that it would be so beneficial and that everyone would approve I don't think they would be so scared to put it to the people.

I guess when the CA tribes were poor and uneducated, it was ok to kill them, exploit them, or ignore them- and no one cared. Now that some of the tribes have lots of money, and are able to take care of their own, a lot of non-tribal people are screaming they're greedy and want more money...interesting how things change, eh? =)

http://video.knbc.com/player/?id=64156

Take a look at how the poor and uneducated Pechanga Tribal Council treated their membership when they got rich and greedy and no one cared.

They denied their OWN people their civil rights and abused their elders. THAT's why you should vote on on 94.

Native Californian- You obviously have no clue what this issue is about. However your post was accurate when you said "Some of the tribes have money", that is true a small percent have money and the rest are still living in poverty. So you have 4 of the richest tribes that pay each of their members $20,000+ per month, not year but month, and they are trying to get richer while the rest of the tribes keep getting poorer. Now if Prop 1A had been fought for on the part of the tribes a bit differently I might feel different on the subject. However when the tribes were campaigning for gambling it was all about helping all the tribes become self sufficient and to pull all of them out of poverty, not to benefit 4 of them. Prop 1A has accomplished its goal with these 4 tribes, now before we let them expand lets get the rest of the tribes out of poverty then we can talk about expansion.

So Original Pechanga, Splixx, are you going to pick up that poor homeless lady down on the corner and the man with one leg sitting in the median of the street and take them home? Are you going to take them to the hotel and pay for thier room and clothing and supply thier income while they clean themselves up and after they get a job still care for them? Or are you going turn your face away and pretend you don't see them leaving it to the State take care of them and clean them up? $1.1 million is still a large sum of money to give to tribes added to the federal grants that they also have the opportunity to apply for. I know Pechanga and the other tribes did just that before they had a significant opportunity to changes thire lives. You seem to let your personal feelings drive you to talk trash against certain people and look away from the help they do provide. No matter what anyone says to support these tribes, you just won't hear it due to your anger and desire to make people pay for what you believe they did wrong. Some tribes do have money. And some tribes have land, which can become even more valuable. How big is Pechanga's landbase compared to Pala or other large reservations?

im and my family is voting no no no no on all of them

Native Californian 2- You are just showing that you have no clue what these compacts are all about. You don't even provide arguements for your way of thinking yet try to throw some abstract things out to make it sound convincing. The bottom line is this, these tribes have accomplished what was supposed to happen from Prop 1A. They now want to expand their gaming operations for no other reason than a base greed for more money. If you want proof of this lets look at the per capita that Pechanga distributes; over $20,000 a month, some say more some say less. Even if you are off by half you are still talking a significant amount. Since they implemented gaming they have been kicking members out of the tribe, why? Well because the less members you have the more each member gets. As for your ridiculous statement about the government grants, ummm you do realize that most of the gaming tribes still apply for and receive grants from the federal government. So not only are they getting richer and greedier they are still getting money that you the taxpayer are paying for. Do you hear that? Thats the sound of the people that understand what this is all about laughing at you. If these tribes truly thought it would be so beneficial to the state they would embrace the chance to have a vote just like they did when they wanted slots the first time, "Join Us" what a joke.

Oh and just so ya know, I never said that these greedy tribes didn't do good or help out.

I wonder how other American citizens would react if they were put on trial to decide if they can continue to be citizens and they are not allowed to have attorneys come with them to their hearings, they are not allowed to even bring pens or pencils to take notes or to have transcripts of what was said at those same hearings.

Or what if in the Record of Decision saying they are no longer American Citizens there were documents that they never saw that they were not allowed to respond to?

Also, what if the government in the Record of Decision that said they were no longer citizens of the United States if the government ignored any evidence that supported their citizenship and the government didn't give reasons to refute evidence that supported their citizenship?

Well that is what happened to us when Pechanga kicked us out of the tribe.

We were not kicked out of some country club we lost our citizenship in the Pechanga nation when we were disenrolled.

By allowing their expansion the tribe is rewarded for violating our rights.

Well if Pechanga doesn't get their expansion, current tribal members would still be getting 30,000 dollars a month and Pechanga would still have a casino as big or bigger than Las Vegas casinos.

Pechanga would not be losing a thing and even if they do get it, the state would still have to find a way to live within a budget as these compacts will not solve the budget problems.

The new compacts would give the politicians a modest amount (compared to how big the budget is) of more money for them to waste.

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.