Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

Tribes say “Thank You”…and so do I

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 26, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , | 3 Comments

On Sunday, September 22, 2013 there was a full page newspaper ad by 7 Arizona Tribes thanking members of the Arizona delegation for their bipartisan support of H.R. 1410, The Keep the Promise Act. Many no longer get the newspaper so I have taken the liberty of relaying their comments in full. As they say “Thank You” – so do I as well as the many Yucca district residents that would be directly and adversely affected.thank you

THANK YOU

An open letter to members of the Arizona House delegation and members of the U.S. House of Representatives

In 2002, the voters of Arizona approved Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming and Self-Reliance Act. The campaign to approve that measure, supported and funded by 17 Indian Tribes from all over the state, made a promise to Arizona residents. We told the voters that Indian casinos would remain restricted to traditional tribal lands and that no additional casinos would open in metropolitan Phoenix.

ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2013, THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TOOK A HUGE STEP TOWARD REAFFIRMING THAT PROMISE WHEN A BIPARTISAN SUPERMAJORITY PASSED H.R. 1410, THE KEEP THE PROMISE ACT.

Jointly sponsored by Arizona Congressional Representatives Trent Franks, Ed Pastor, Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar, David Schweikert and Matt Salmon in collaboration with Representatives Jared Huffman, John Conyers and Dan Kildee, The Keep The Promise Act was made necessary when one tribe – the Tohono O’odham – decided to contradict the promise made to voters by pursuing a tribal casino development in Glendale, near neighborhoods, schools, homes and places of worship.

We want to express our deep gratitude for the leadership shown by Reps. Franks, Pastor, Kirkpatrick, Gosar, Schweikert and Salmon on this issue. Their effort sets new precedents for bipartisan cooperation, as these representatives worked together tirelessly to hold every Arizona tribe accountable to the promises made to voters a decade ago: To keep casinos out of neighborhoods and to preserve the balance of Indian gaming that has existed for many years, to the benefit of Tribes and Arizona residents.

Now, thanks to the leadership of the members listed above, The Keep The Promise Ace will move on to the U.S. Senate, where we have every expectation of the same level of bipartisan support. That is why H.R. 1410 matters so much and why our Tribes and many other Valley cities will continue to support its immediate passage.

Respectfully,

CHAIRWOMAN SHERRY CORDOVA

Cocopah Tribe

PRESIDENT RUBEN BALDERAS

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

PRESIDENT KEENY ESCALANTI

Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe

GOV. GREGORY MENDOZA

Gila River Indian Community

CHAIRWOMAN SHERRY COUNTS

Hualapai Tribe

GOVERNOR ARLEN P. QUETAWKI, SR

Pueblo of the Zuni

PRESIDENT DIANE ENOS

Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill sponsored by U.S. Representative Trent Franks that would prohibit new casinos (including the proposed Tohono O’odham casino in Glendale) in the Phoenix Metro area until 2027. This is Franks’ second bill on the issue as the first was never taken up for a vote in the Senate. Word is that this time around there is support in the Senate for such an effort. Many thanks to Representative Franks for his continued effort to stem the Tohono O’odham’s ambitions.

This story is barely a blip on the radar screen of news coverage of the Arizona Republic for September 18, 2013 where it made maybe 2 inches of copy (less than 100 words) on page 3 of the Valley and State section. In other words, they buried it. Could it be because it doesn’t fit their agenda of support for the proposed casino? Yet the Arizona Daily Star gave the same subject far more coverage (over 500 words).

As long as the subject is, in part, media bias, take a look at the one-eighty the Republic has done on Coyotes’ coverage. During the 4 year saga of uncertainty about the team’s ownership it was hard pressed to say anything positive about the situation or the team. The only reporter that is to be commended for offering justice in Coyotes’ coverage is Sarah McLellan. Now that ownership is finalized and buying advertising space in the Republic the reporting of the team has gotten more space and become more positive. It’s the almighty dollar at work.

And what’s with the team owner’s choice of KTAR as its radio partner? This station is home to Dan Bickley whose coverage of the Coyotes was oft times less than positive. The reason given for choosing KTAR was its wide audience yet its ratings are virtually identical to many other Valley radio stations including NBC Sports Radio. Why wasn’t a station like NBC Sports Radio chosen?  One of their premier shows is the Roc and Manuch Show. Roc and Manuch have a demonstrated track record of support for the Coyotes. When everyone else doubted they carried the torch for the Coyotes. One would think you would support the one who brought you to the dance but this choice is probably ruled by money as well.

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Lawwho have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

On September 11, 2013 the Glendale Republic ran an article by Caitlin McGlade entitled Glendale softens harsh casino tone. It makes me angry to see the AzRepulsive begin its not so subtle media infomercial in an effort to sway public opinion in support of the Tohono O’odham (TO) Tribe’s ambitions.  In my latest unscientific blog poll I asked the question, Is the Arizona Republic’s reporting fair and balanced? Of the 50 respondents, 40 (80%) said, “No” and 10 (20%) said, “Yes.” 4 out of 5 people no longer believe that its coverage is fair and balanced and recognize that its reporting is slanted.

I stand with Congressman Trent Franks, the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (and all of the tribes in the state supporting them). I do not support a casino in Glendale and I believe a dialogue with the TO only becomes necessary if all legal avenues are closed and the Tribe prevails. It sends the wrong message.

I am not going to repeat all of the reasons why planting a casino in Glendale should not happen. Instead, in April of 2013 I authored a 5 part blog series on the effects of a casino. If you have not read them, please take the time to go back and check them out:

  •    April 11, 2013      Casino, to be or not to be, Part 1
  •    April 15, 2013      Casino…promise made, promise broken, Part 2
  •    April 16, 2013      Casino…good, bad or indifferent?, Part 3
  •    April 22, 2013       A casino is a casino…no matter where it is, Part 4
  •    April 24, 2013      Casino…it’s lose, lose for everyone, Part 5

What truly dumbfounds me is that one of the major rationales for keeping the Coyotes hockey team at Glendale’s Jobing.com Arena is that it generates more people and therefore more sales tax to the businesses (and the city) in Westgate. Yet Councilmember Sherwood apparently believes that the casino will do no harm to Westgate and says, “There’s not enough right now to keep people here. The casino just offers another thing for folks to do if they’re in town.” Is he nuts? Even Peoria Mayor Bob Barrett who has supported the casino from the start acknowledges, “In the short term, it (the casino) will probably hurt Westgate…” Sherwood is speaking from both sides of his mouth. On the one hand keeping the hockey team is good for Westgate and on the other the casino is good for Westgate as “another thing for folks to do.” We know that the casino will siphon discretionary dollars away from Westgate. Councilmember Sherwood, you can’t have it both ways.

Vice Mayor Knaack is performing her usual wringing of hands routine and practicing “kumbaya” with her comment, “We can’t keep on and on and on with this.” She just wants everyone to get along. Whatever happened to sticking to one’s principles? Is this another example like her avowal that she supports the downtown merchants as she votes approval for a liquor license they opposed?

Councilmember Martinez gets it with, “How do casinos attract their clients? Cheap booze, cheap food and the cost of the rooms are minimal. Here (at Westgate) we have hotels and restaurants paying taxes and helping us pay off our debts to the arena and everything else and the tribe comes in with a clean hand and they don’t have to pay anything.” Bravo Councilmember Martinez. You do get it and you are sticking to your principles.

The Gila River Indian Community said, “…any dialogue between the city and the TO would have no bearing on the Gila River’s position.” Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community President Diane Enos said it best in this statement, “If the commitments to keep tribal casinos out of neighborhoods made by all 17 Arizona tribes during Prop. 202 negotiations were being kept, cities like Glendale wouldn’t find themselves in these circumstances, vulnerable to broaching risky developments like this off-reservation casino, exasperated further by the current economic climate in Glendale.” Bravo President Enos. You get it too. I wonder what the Republic’s position would be if the Tribes pulled their considerable advertising dollars?

Let’s at least acknowledge that the TO and its supporters are preying on Glendale’s weakened financial position and using it as leverage to further their cause. Before its indebtedness became a cause célèbre leaders in Glendale stood on principle. How much gold are our elected officials willing to sell out for? Glendale must stay the course.

PS: In the September 12, 2013 edition of the Arizona Republic the story ran again. Only this time the comments from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and the Gila River Indian Community are omitted while keeping the TO’s comments intact. Way to go Arizona Republic!

©Joyce Clark, 2013

FAIR USE NOTICE
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Lawwho have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

casino 1Since California voters approved Las Vegas-style gambling on Indian lands more than a dozen years ago, it has grown to a $6.9 billion industry, with about 70 tribes operating casinos. Some of the Tribes in California operate in the same fashion as the Tohono O’odham have in Arizona.

In the early 1900s the federal government authorized the purchase of lands called “Rancherias” throughout the state of California. In 1958 Congress terminated the federal trust status of some of the California Rancherias – Graton Rancheria. In the 1970s after a series of lawsuits by terminated Tribes, the federal government reversed itself by settling these lawsuits with a series of stipulations. One of those stipulations required the Secretary of the Interior to recognize the seventeen California Tribes that had been terminated. However since Graton Rancheria had not participated in any of the lawsuits it was not entitled to removal of its termination status. In 1999 federal legislation was passed to restore federal recognition to this Tribe. Subsequent to that action California voters approved gambling on Indian lands just prior to Arizona’s similar action of 2002.

SanManuel1 house adjacent

Residence adjacent to San Manuel
Tribal casino. Note the wrought iron
protection.

Sonoma County, California is facing an unprecedented situation:  the prospect of five to six tribal casinos stretching along the 101 corridor, all of them in or adjacent to Sonoma County cities. How does Sonoma County compare to Maricopa County? Sonoma County (1,768 sq.mi.) is about 1/5 the size of Maricopa County (9,224 sq.mi.). Its population (488,116) is about 10% of Maricopa County (3.88 million). Yet this county, 1/5 the size of Maricopa County is facing the prospect of 6 Tribal casinos. The entire allocation for Maricopa County per the state Gaming Act is 7, all of which must be outside incorporated cities and on reservation land. If, as a result of the Tohono O’odham’s successful attempt to site a casino within Glendale and the destruction of the 2002 Arizona Gaming Act, the floodgates will open and just as in Sonoma County, we could see a rash of casinos springing up within cities throughout Maricopa County.

Here is a link to a July 17, 2013 article that fleshes out Sonoma County’s problems: http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2013/07/19/Casino-Row-Sonoma-COunty-Facing-Multiple-Tribal-Casinos-All-in-Cities_201307199800.html. The Graton Rancheria casino, under construction, in Phase I will be 450,000 S.F. and have 3,000 slot machines and 200 table games. In comparison the proposed TO casino will be 150,000 S.F. and have 1,089 slot machines and 75 table games.

What about the scads of construction jobs promised by the TO? The TO, in an effort to sell its proposed casino promises 6,000 construction jobs.  Yet the number of construction jobs generated by even larger casino projects nationally averages about 2,000 construction workers. While seeking permission to move forward with their proposed casino, the Graton Rancheria promised Sonoma County union workers that they would be first in line for construction jobs. Since that empty promise, out-of-area workers are being brought in. Workers are being brought in from “Nevada and the L.A. area” and even as far away as Alabama to work on the Graton Rancheria casino/hotel project. So much for reducing Sonoma County’s 6.5% unemployment rate. You can learn more about the casino situation in California by using these links: www.stopthecasino101.com and  http://www.pechanga.net/category/issue-tag/graton-rancheria.

If the TO prevails is this Arizona’s future? Will we see casinos everywhere once the state Gaming Compact is destroyed? Will we see construction jobs promised but not delivered as out-of-state workers and tribal workers (a percentage of the jobs must go to tribal members) are used? Are we prepared to suffer job displacement and the loss of local businesses unable to compete for disposable income? In previous blogs I outlined the social and economic impacts of casinos and they are not healthy. In the name of “enhancing revenue streams” are we willing to accept further degradation of our societal values? I am not. I hope you are not, as well.

Fair Use and Copyright

newsOn August 1, 2013 The Glendale Star’s editor, Carolyn Dryer, delivered a commentary entitled Stop the waste; let Nation build resort/casino. As commentary obviously this is her position as well as that of the Glendale Star. One would expect no other position by the Glendale Star and Ms. Dryer considering that she has advocated for the position of Councilmember Alvarez (an avid supporter of the Tohono O’odham [TO]). Ms. Dryer even attended a meeting on the subject (along with other supporters) hosted by Alvarez at her home. That same meeting had as an attendee a Tohono O’odham hired consultant. I’m not sure why Ms. Dryer simply didn’t let TO Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. write her commentary – after all it is the TO party line almost word for word. She questions the motives of the plaintiffs — the City of Glendale, the State of Arizona and the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community (supported by the way, by virtually every other Indian Nation in the state).  She implies that all of these parties are motivated by greed. Oh really? The City of Glendale seeks to maintain local control of its land (a county island within its municipal boundaries); the State seeks to maintain the integrity of states’ rights within its own borders; and the Indian tribes seek to protect the 2002 state-wide, voter approved State Gaming Act. Blatant greed falls on the shoulders of the Tohono O’odham. Their many deceptions give testimony to their willingness to sacrifice the Gaming Act to satisfy their desire for more revenue. gambling 3She then dismisses the risk to Indian gaming in this state if the Tohono O’odham prevails. It has been acknowledged by many over the years that if the TO succeed it destroys a carefully crafted state gaming compact and opens the flood gates for gaming to be sited anywhere — perhaps even near your neighborhood. Ms. Dryer then delivers what she believes is her coup de grace…job creation. Again, this is the TO party line. The Tohono O’odham have said repeatedly there will be 6,000 construction jobs. The Maryland Live! Casino is a 332,500 square foot facility (twice the size of the proposed TO casino) and anticipates creating 2,750 construction-related jobs (half that number would be approximately 1,400 jobs and reflects a much more realistic number for a TO facility much smaller). In an effort to “sell” the benefits of the TO casino the numbers have been inflated. It is a subtle form of deception, no doubt, but not unexpected. Problems throughout the country related to casino construction have surfaced. There is no guarantee by the TO that only local construction companies or workers will be used. Here is an example that demonstrates the out-of-state use of construction workers – a Press Release from a coalition of unions in California issued on January 15, 2013, “ROHNERT PARK, CA: Graton Rancheria’s (my note: a coalition of Indian tribes) promises to Sonoma County union workers have been dashed by lay-offs of local union members as out-of-area workers are being brought in to take their places. Sonoma County union construction workers report that workers are being brought in from “Nevada and the L.A. area” and even as far away as Alabama to work on the Graton Rancheria casino/hotel project in Rohnert Park. It is amazing that the supporters of the casino still don’t get it. In their lust for job creation they are willing to accept a host of problems that are the baggage that a casino brings to a community, especially one with 10,000 homes and apartments adjacent to it. The sacrifice of our community is not worth the promises made.

Fair Use and Copyright

A casino in Phoenix?

Posted by Joyce Clark on July 23, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , , , | 3 Comments

There is a story in the Arizona Republic of July 23, 2013 entitled Feds might retake prime parcel written by Eugene Scott. There is a 15 acre parcel of land that the federal government, in a very complicated land deal, sold to Barron Collier Development. It is located on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Indian School Road. Barron Collier has stopped making $60 million in payments to the feds for that parcel. Ownership may revert back to the federal government.

casino 1Justin Johnson, a candidate for Phoenix City Council and the son of former Mayor Paul Johnson, recently said, “My concern is that if the federal government takes over, that they can develop something without public input and it won’t go through local control, and it won’t fit inside the city’s general plan.” He also offered the worst case scenario for that parcel, “We don’t have to look any further than what is going on in Glendale to see the nightmare scenario which could transpire. A potential casino in downtown Phoenix is not a compatible use in this urban area near neighborhoods and schools.”

As has been repeatedly pointed out, if the Tohono O’odham Tribe legally prevails in its quest to place a casino on a county island within an incorporated city, as it is attempting to do in Glendale,the state gaming compact is destroyed. It becomes null and void. As you can see, now one of the Phoenix council candidates has voiced concern with regard to this 15 acre parcel that will end up in federal ownership. Since it would once again become federal land Phoenix would have absolutely no control over what is developed and how it looks.

 It would be ironic if a Tribe created a secret shell company and bought the parcel, waited a few years, and then announced that they were building a casino on the site – shades of Glendale. This is a lesson for all Valley communities. Watch out if you have a county island within your city.  If the Tohono O’odham are successful in Glendale you could be next as casino development warfare erupts.

copyright

Breaking from NBC News and the East Valley Tribune. Here is the link:

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/51944465/ns/local_news-phoenix_az/#.UZqf-cpv-tMhttp://

gavelFinally a legal ruling that recognizes what I and others have been saying for years. This proposed casino is within Glendale’s boundaries. It will impact nearly 10,000 Glendale residents who live within a mile or less of the site.

West Valley casino opponents receive favorable court ruling

East Valley Tribune, from NBC News

updated 1 hour 37 minutes ago

A federal appeals court gave foes of a new Glendale casino new hope it could be legally blocked.

In a new ruling today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it may very well be that the site owned by the Tohono O’odham Nation, while in unincorporated area, is technically “within the corporate limits of any city or town.” That’s because the parcel is surrounded by land within Glendale.

So the judges sent the case back to the secretary of the Department of Interior to take another look at the question.

What the secretary decides — and whether that’s upheld by the courts — is crucial. The 1986 law that permits the tribe to buy the land requires it to be outside the corporate limits of any city.

More to the point, even if the tribe can own the property, it cannot become part of the reservation if it is “within” Glendale’s corporate limits. And without reservation status, there cannot be the casino the tribe has planned.

While two of the judges said the question is unresolved, a third judge on the panel disagreed. He said the land is definitely within Glendale’s limits, precluding a casino.

copyright

In the May 13, 2013 edition of the Arizona Republic there is an Opinion piece written by Doug Maceachern. He doesn’t pull any punches in characterizing Ned Norris Jr.’s actions regarding putting a casino in Glendale. I find it fascinating that the Arizona Republic, whose bias is clearly in favor of the Tohono O’odham, allowed his opinion piece to see the printed light-of day.

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Chairman Ned Norris Jr.

DianeEnos Pres Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

Diane Enos
Chairperson Salt River Pima
Maricopa Community

Maceachern states what many have thought or said quietly among themselves and that is Ned Norris Jr., Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, deceived and cheated his sister Tribes. Only recently have the Gila River Community and the Salt River-Maricopa-Pima Community been willing to state the very same thing publicly.

No matter what way this is sliced, Norris, as the spokesperson for the TO, spoke publicly and often in favor of the Gaming Compact proposition approved by voters in 2002. All the while, he and a select few TO were secretly planning to acquire land in the Phoenix area. In fact, their secret notes from 2002 indicate that their consultant advised them a site in Buckeye was too far away (Buckeye dodged the bullet). Norris and crew must have been rejoicing (secretly).

There’s an old saying that goes something like, “white man speak with fork-ed tongue.” This time the tables are turned. Norris and the Tohono O’odham spoke with fork-ed tongue—not only to the white men but even worse, to their brothers and sisters of all of the Arizona Tribes. Before the proposed compact ever was presented to the voters all of the tribes negotiated among themselves for several years. Not once did Norris or the TO reps bring this issue forward to the sister Tribes. Not once when Norris spoke publicly did he disagree with the proposed compact or clarify what this proposal meant to the TO. Not once did Norris say we reserve the right to buy land, place it in trust and build a casino on it in the Phoenix metro area.

Never, ever again will the Tribes trust what Norris and the TO say. Their bond of trust is broken irrevocably. Why should Glendale or any other Valley community trust them? They shouldn’t. What happens when the TO buys more land in the Valley – in Phoenix, or Gilbert, or Paradise Valley – and turns it into more trust land for the purposes of putting a casino in their communities??? It could happen.

Here is the article in its entirety:

Arizona Republic, May 19, 2013

Opinions

Tohono leader’s victim act bit much by Doug Maceachern

Like egoists throughout eternity, Ned Norris Jr., chairman of southern Arizona’s Tohono O’odham Nation, wants things both ways.

In fact, if there were three ways to have it, Norris would want it three ways. Or four.

It looks likely that Norris will get his casino near Glendale, And Norris is gloating.  And playing victim.

It’s a real juggling act. And Norris is an adept juggler, especially of words. That fellow who gave us “It depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is” has nothing on Ned Norris.

On May 7, U.S. District Judge David Campbell became the latest in a long line of federal judges to rule in the Tohono O’odham’s favor.

The gaming compacts signed in 2002 and 2003 – the ones promoted prior to the November 2002 elections as line-in-the-sand assurances that gaming in the Phoenix area would be limited to existing casinos on existing tribal lands — simply do not say anything about forbidding the constructions of an eighth tribal casino. Or a ninth. Or more.

It has been observed many times since Norris’ astonishing announcement a few years ago of his well-laid plans to build a casino palace in Glendale. Who knew?

Who knew in 2002 that the tribal compacts said zip about limiting the number of casinos in the Valley?

As Campbell wrote: “Written agreements matter.”

“Parties who reach an accord, particularly on a matter as important and complicated as tribal gaming, carefully document their agreement in writing.”

If that sounded like an insult to the compact authors, it shouldn’t be. As noted, who knew?

Who knew tribal leaders whose land extends to the Mexican border would suddenly announce that (A) they secretly owned land near Glendale; (B) they were in negotiations with the Interior Department to have the land magically transformed into trust land; and (C) there wasn’t a damned thing anyone could do to stop them from building a compact-approved new Tohono O’odham casino on their own trust land.

It comes down to this. The writers of the compacts simply did not anticipate new tribal trust land popping up out of thin air in the middle of the urban metropolis.

State compact negotiators focused on limiting the number of casinos by limiting the number of casinos allocated to each tribe. It seemed rational. The Phoenix-area tribes already had maxed out on the number of casinos they could operate. Ipso facto, no new casinos, at least for the 20-year life span of the compacts. Right?

Wrong. The Tohono O’odhams had not maxed out on their allocation. They will be able to put at least one casino, and possibly more, wherever the tribe has trust land. And recent history tells us that can be anywhere.

It’s a clever thing Ned Norris has pulled off. Even his most bitter opponents in their intertribal struggle over gambling-market share have acknowledged the infuriating cleverness of it all.

But now, Norris is pouring salt in the wounds of his opponents, playing the sensitive, unfairly attacked, wounded soul. It’s a bit much.

Norris is bent out of shape over the name of a bill sponsored in Congress by U.S. Rep. Trent Franks that is designed to block construction of his new casino. It’s called the “Keep the Promise Act of 2013,” a clear reference to the “no-new-casinos promise” made repeatedly during the 2002 campaign to give then-Gov. Jane Dee Hull authority to negotiate compacts.

“The title of this legislation suggests that I and my people are liars and cheats,” said Norris, who added that he found it “deeply offensive.”

Well. Cheeky.

Cheeky, first and foremost, to drag his people into the debate. Notes unearthed during the course of a lawsuit filed by Phoenix-area tribes against Ned’s Gambit clearly depict tribal leaders going to great lengths to keep the scheme hush-hush from all but a small circle.

But cheeky, too, to pretend to be “deeply offended.”

Norris is acting in the role of a predatory CEO out to take market share from his competitors. He is Gordon Gekko made real.

In the process, Norris has stigmatized the Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community — his chief competitors in the market-share fight – as “wealthy interest in the Phoenix area.”

In olden days, before the lure of Sun City West matrons running slots in a Norris-built casino, those “wealthy interests” would be his brothers and sisters. How money does change it all.

copyright

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Ned Norris Jr.

I thought it would be an interesting exercise to list most, but certainly not all, of the reasons why a casino in Glendale is not a good idea. Last week Councilmember Alvarez had a meeting with 20 of her most avid supporters. She invited the Tohono O’odham’s Ned Norris Jr. to present another pitch in support of a casino in Glendale. The attendees heard nothing new and it was an opportunity for Norris to reiterate the TO’s position.

Norma Alvarez

Norma Alvarez

I am disturbed by her action. As a Councilmember one of the duties expected is that once a City Council position on an issue is adopted, one’s responsibility is to advocate FOR the city’s position. If a councilmember disagrees with that position, it must be revealed with the disclaimer that it is one’s personal position and not that of the city’s. It is also not allowable to use city resources in support of one’s personal position. If her Council Assistant was in attendance or if her Council Assistant used city time to order and/or pick up the refreshments it would be an express violation of city policy. To use one’s office and position to invite residents to a meeting to advocate against an adopted city position is morally and ethically reprehensible. There is also the propriety of advocacy for an opponent’s position when the city remains in active litigation.

 65 percent of businesses are hurt by the proximity of gambling. Decreases meals and room taxes away from other, traditional sources (shifts tax revenue away from hotels and restaurants in Westgate)

Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would be spent on other local goods and services

Shifts workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry. Takes workers from other industries and moves them into the casino industry

Social costs increase related to increased crime and pathological gambling

Most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases.

Traffic impacts experienced at all times of day. Casino traffic is not seasonal because the number of trips to and from casinos is relatively consistent from month to month. Casinos operate 24 hours per day; there is no peak travel period to and from casinos

Five years after a casino opens, robbery in the community goes up 136 percent, aggravated assault is up 91 percent, auto theft is up 78 percent, burglary is up 50 percent, larceny is up 38 percent, rape is up 21 percent and murder is up 12 percent, compared to neighboring communities.  Crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time, costing the average adult $75 per year

Each slot machine costs the surrounding community one job per year

Business and personal bankruptcies increase between 18 and 42 percent, while ‘impulse’ business transactions in the area decline by 65 percent.”

Every slot machine takes $60,000 out of the local, consumer economy

Gamblers spend 10 percent less on food; 25 percent less on clothing and 35 percent less on savings

For every one job that the casino creates, one is lost in the 35-mile feeder market

The Tohono O’odham ignored their promise to their fellow Tribal leaders to keep another casino out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area

It destroys the state-wide voter approved gaming compact and will cause casinos to be built in many other Arizona cities

All of these issues will directly and severely impact the 10,000 Glendale residents living the closest to the proposed casino

All of these reasons have been cited and attributed to the original researchers on the subject in my previous posts about the casino.

greed 1Opponents have said the Tribes that oppose this casino in Glendale are doing so purely out of greed, to protect their market share. Yet the Tohono O’odham wants to site this casino in Glendale for exactly the same reason, pure greed, for it would open a very lucrative market far, far away from their Tribal lands in southern Arizona.

copyright