Oct 14

12

Deja vu

Posted by Joyce Clark on October 12, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: California, City of Glendale, North Fork Rancheria, proposed Tohono O'odham casino, referendum | 1 Comment

From the Associated Press by Sundin Thanawala and reprinted by the Arizona Republic on October 12, 2014. This article was too relevant to ignore and so it is offered below with a few interspersed comments: The article, California tribe’s casino plan to go before voters, is from San Francisco.

“A Native American tribe’s plan for a Las Vegas-style casino in Central Valley (make that Glendale) nearly 40 miles (change that to 100 miles) from its reservation has drawn opposition from other casino-owning tribes in the state.

“The voters now will weigh in on whether the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians (insert Tohono O’odham) are ‘reservation shopping,’ as their critics contend, or taking land that was part of their historical territory, as the tribes maintains.

“A referendum on the November ballot asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the governor and passed by the state Legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria to build a casino with up to 2,000 slot machines ( change to nearly 1,100 slot machines), on a 305-acre (132 acres) plot of land along a major highway (the Loop 101 Freeway) about 30 miles (5 miles) northwest of Fresno (Phoenix).

“With a yes vote, the project would clear its last major hurdle to entering the state’s Indian gambling market, where 58 tribes (21 tribes) are currently running 59 (28) casinos, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

“Critics of the proposal say the tribes is trying to get closer to an urban market that can bring in more gamblers.”

“ ‘This move by North Fork, if it goes forward, will incentivize tribes in rural areas to move to more-lucrative locations,’ said Cheryl Schmit, director of the group Stand Up For California.

“Representatives of the 2,000-member North Fork tribe counter that their existing land is for housing and does not allow gambling and that they went through a lengthy vetting process to get approval for the new land.

“ ‘We’re getting back to the historical land that serves as a reservation for our tribes in the 1850’s,’ said Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, which is being supported by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos.

“Additionally, tribal officials say, the project would create more than 4,500 (change to 6,000) jobs and pump tens of millions of dollars into the local economy.

“Opposition to North Fork’s proposal is coming from other casino-owning tribes, including Table Mountain Rancheria (Gila River Indian Community and the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community) whose casino is about 25 miles (20 miles) from the proposed site of the North Fork facility (Tohono O’odham’s Glendale site).

“The campaign against the project is also being funded by New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, another Indian casino near the site of the proposed North Fork casino.

“Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes can build casinos on reservations that existed before Oct. 17, 1988, but not on lands taken into trust after that date (except in Arizona). The law allows the Interior secretary to make an exception in cases where the off-reservations acquisition is in the tribe’s best interest (not proven for Tohono O’odham) and does not hurt the surrounding community (which it will).”

These situations are eerily similar with one major exception. The referendum was not blocked in California and so the voters will have the final say. Not so in Glendale. Glendale has blocked the referendum petitions and the matter is now a court case and a judge will decide whether Glendale voters can determine their own fate.

2014 FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have 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, democratic, 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 Law and who 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.

Sep 14

30

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing, Part IV

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 30, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Gila River Indian Community, proposed Tohono O'odham casino, revenue earned, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, testimony | 10 Comments

September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on Senate Bill 2670 introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. I have offered the direct testimonies of the panelists, Assistant Secretary Kevin Washburn; Governor of the Gila River Indian Community Gregory Mendoza; Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers; Glendale Councilmember Gary Sherwood and Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. Each of the panelists was asked questions by Senators McCain and Tester.

I have never heard so many non-responsive answers in my life. It’s as if the questioner and the person answering were on parallel universes. Isn’t that the mark of a true politician? If so, they all passed the test. The only person to answer a question directly was the Attorney for the Gila River Indian Community, Allison Benney (my apology if I have slaughtered her name).

Sherwood, in his answers to Senators McCain and Tester, pumps out a great deal of misinformation. His reference to one 30 minute conversation between Glendale staff and the TO…wrong. His estimate of jobs created…wrong. There was one very telling revelation however. The city’s position on the referendum petitions submitted in opposition to the TO/Glendale Settlement Agreement et. al., relies exclusively on the argument that council votes were administrative not legislative. Gary Sherwood, went off script (which he does quite frequently). At the 43 minute, 46 second mark of the hearing he refers to the council votes as legislation (in a convoluted way). In his mind, he recognized that those council votes were legislative… Oh Oh. I hope the attorneys take note.

I also stand corrected on the amount of annual revenue the Tohono O’odham (TO) earn from their 3 casinos. I had used $38 million. Well, you can nearly double that. The figure that Senator McCain used was $68.2 million. No matter the number…no matter whether that is net revenue or gross revenue that is still a lot of money. Again, what have the TO been spending all of that revenue on? Too bad no one is allowed to audit their books…they are a sovereign nation, you know.

Chairman Norris downright refused to verify or disqualify the annual revenue figure Senator McCain used. He kinda, sorta answered Chairman Tester’s question. The only relevant fact he could come up with was the $5 million dollar scholarship fund before he began ranting about the use of the Border Patrol agents’ use of TO roads.

Miss Binney, on the other hand, offered some startling testimony when she said they had hand written notes in their possession describing discussion of a possible closure of the 3 TO casinos in Southern Arizona and a move to rebuild and reopen them in the Phoenix area.

The last portion of testimony from the hearing is below:

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Chairman Norris, for your testimony. Thank you all for your testimonies. Senator McCain.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you, Chairman. Ah, Chairman Norris, would you like to, for the record, supply the, ah, the amount of money, the revenue that your casinos have gained for the tribe on an annual basis?”

Chairman Norris: “I’ll be happy to give that some consideration but I will not do that without the express umm, umm, authorization of my legislative council.”

Senator McCain: “So, what ah, tell us how impoverished you are. I will provide for the record, Mr. Chairman, hearings that Senator Inouye and I had, including that with Attorneys General, especially in states that came and testified before our committee, where their great concerns were what would happen, is happening exactly now. That was one of the reasons why we had great difficulty getting the support of Governors and Attorneys General because they said, ‘if we don’t look out we’re going to have Indian gaming operations in the middle of our towns and cities.’ So, I would be glad to provide the record of hearings and the conclusions and statements that Senator Inouye and I made at the time of the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, um, which clearly was designed to prevent a non-contiguous, middle-of-a-metropolitan area, Indian gaming operation for which the people have, ah, maybe their elected representatives have, maybe some like Mr. Sherwood who changed their mind over time. Umm, but they have not been able to make their will known as far as a very significant impact in not only Glendale but in the entire West Side. So, Mr. Sherwood, out of curiosity I think you used to be very much opposed. You even wrote articles in opposition to this. What changed your mind?

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you for the question, ah, Chair and Senator McCain. Umm, when I campaigned I had campaigned against this proposed based on information I had and I had read deal…quite a bit of information on it. Umm, the thing that was distressing to me though, that in the very beginning there was a half hour conversation when the city first found out about it in April of 2009 and that was the only conversation the previous administration had and I was, was always quite upset by the fact that we didn’t have the dialogue. We weren’t very doin’ very good in the courts. So when umm, we ah, after the new council got seated in January ’13 and we, ah, took care of the hockey situation we turned our attention to the casino issue which again, had been laboring for five years and started havin’ that informal dialogue and learned quite a bit more about the project from the fact that it could benefit us umm, in many more ways than what the gaming compact even called out for. So, those informal discussions led into, ah, formal fact finding in the November time frame which led to negotiations in March. Umm, and, and having gone through that and having voted on this a couple months ago to approve the project and to ah, equivocally set ourselves against this legislation (43:46) umm, and the benefits, certainly after talkin’ to other developers, I mean we’ve had several developers come to us uh, since this casino project was announced wanting to develop on Glendale, on land in Glendale city proper.”

Senator McCain: Well, thank you. Chairman Norris, I have before me information that, ah, I’m not sure where it came from but it alleges that your annual revenue from gaming is $68,200,000. Is that in the ballpark?”

Chairman Norris: “Chairman, Senator McCain, as I stated before without the authorization of my legislative council I’m not at this point, ah, able to disclose, to agree or disagree with your information.”

Senator McCain: “So you refuse to tell this committee who is expected to support your effort to establish a casino and you won’t even tell me whether this is a correct or incorrect number, $68,200,000?

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, the courts have already made that determination on whether or not the Nation is within its legal right to be able to establish…and our current compact also authorizes it as well.”

Senator McCain: “I asked…that’s not in response to the question I asked Mr. Chairman. You refuse to give, to authenticate or disagree with roughly $68,200,000 in revenue for a year, ah, for your Nation?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman…”

Senator McCain: “Is that correct? You do not wish to give that information? Either agree or disagree. “

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, I am not agreeing or disagreeing. What I’m saying…”

Senator McCain: “Actually what you’ve done is refuse to answer questions before this committee. I’m not sure why you came. Ah, Mr. Mendoza, is there a concern, Chairman Mendoza, President Mendoza, is there a concern that there may be other loopholes such as this exploited and using this precedent to other casinos that would be established in the Valley?”

Governor Mendoza: “Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain, uh, thank you for that question. You know, umm, I’ve been hearing about this particular bill and it would create that particular precedence and in my mind, no. The act has been very consistent with Congressional precedents and umm, if you’ll allow me, I will allow my attorney here to offer some specifics. Miss Benney.”

Miss Benney: “Yes, thank you Senator McCain. So the concern that you have is a legitimate concern in that Tohono O’odham if they’re able to build this Glendale casino can actually shut down their other three casinos in the Tucson area and move them up to the Phoenix area basically using the same legal theory. That’s why the East Valley mayors are so concerned because they think the same thing that is happening in Glendale can happen in the East Valley and I think it was Congressman Gossar last time brought it back that showed 200 county islands in other parts of the Phoenix Valley where the same thing can happen. But more importantly, in the negotiations and during litigation, umm, hand written notes have come out from Tohono O’odham’s representatives basically indicating that they would do such a thing. They’re aware that they have that legal ability if they’re successful in Glendale to shut down the other three casinos and move them up to the Phoenix area. That’s one of the biggest concerns of the East Valley mayors.”

Senator McCain: “Well, Mayor Weiers, you find yourself in the minority here. Maybe you can tell us how that happened going from the majority to the minority on this issue. I’m sure it didn’t have anything to do with a $26 million dollar commitment over several years.”

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman, Senator McCain, I don’t actually know how I find myself in that position. I, you know, I’ve been ah, on one line of one thought, ah, ever since this issue came up when I was a state legislator. I know in our campaign, ah, that people have ran their campaigns, ah, stating certain views and certain beliefs and I guess I never really expected people to change their opinion but, ah, I don’t know exactly how we find ourselves here. You know the same facts, the same truths that were there two years ago are the same facts and truths today. Nothing’s changed. People’s opinions have changed and how they’ve changed their minds because of those truths and facts I don’t know. Sir, I really don’t know if that’s the question that maybe I should be asked but I’m not exactly sure how we came to that position.”

Senator McCain: “Thank you. Mr. Chairman, it bears repeating to all the witnesses in response to some of the statements. The Constitution calls for the Congress to have a special responsibility as far as Native Americans are concerned. It’s written in the Constitution. So although some may view this hearing and our action as being unwarranted interference it is a specific Constitutional responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Umm, so Mr. Chairman, this is a very busy week. We’ll be leaving tomorrow for quite awhile and you were kind enough to hold this hearing for me and I take that as a very special favor that you granted me and I wanted to express openly and repeatedly my appreciation for you doing this. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, thank you for those kind words, Senator McCain. We always appreciate your commitment to the Senate and to this committee and we thank you for your leadership on a number of issues including this one. I, um, have a few questions here. I’ll start with Governor Mendoza. Ah, Governor, when it comes to tribal gaming in Arizona being successful, could you talk about the kinda success Gila River has enjoyed, ah, because of gaming.

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you for that question, ah, Senator. You know Gila River does enjoy the benefits from our casinos. Ah, we’ve been able to fully fund for our students to go to college, any college in the world. We’ve been able to provide funding for our public safety, police, fire, umm, our emergency management program. We’ve been able to provide programs for our elders, our youth, housing, you name it. We’ve been able to do a lot for our community and again, we’re very thankful and blessed.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, I commend you on your commitment to your people and education, ah, is one of my priorities. You reference, when it comes to the expansion of gaming, you reference a commitment made by the Tribes in 2002 that there be no additional gaming facilities in the Phoenix area. In the current gaming compacts there’s specific limitation on the Tohono O’odhams from building a fourth facility in the Tucson area. If the parties thought enough to put a Tucson limitation expressly in the compact why wouldn’t the state include such a limitation around Phoenix? Any insight into that?”

Governor Mendoza: “Thank you Senator Tester. You know, Senator Tester, I’m not an attorney. I’ll allow my attorney to answer that.”

Chairman Tester: “Well Allison, I think it’s a good point that you’re not an attorney. I’m not either. So, Allison, since you are, have at it.”

Miss Binney: “So, I think there’s some, there’s a little bit of confusion. So in Arizona it’s different than in most other states. Most other states the governors can go and just negotiate a compact directly with the Tribes and enter into it. In Arizona that’s not the case. The governor had to get authority from the voters to enter into compacts and so the voters voted on a model compact that I actually have the Proposition that the voters had here. So Tohono O’odham does say here, like nowhere in the model compact or the compact does it say Tohono O’odham can’t go into Phoenix. I mean, number one there was no need to say that in the compact because no one ever thought that would happen; but two, in all the negotiations which are a key part of what this bill is trying to address Tohono O’odham specifically said their fourth casino would be in the Tucson area or in a rural area. They never once indicated that they would somehow go a hundred miles up to the Phoenix area. But I will say the Proposition that has the model compact that the voters actually saw when they voted to give the governor authority, there’s a chart in there and in the chart it shows the number of casinos that the Tribes in Arizona were authorized to build under the old compact and the number of casinos that the Tribes would be authorized to build under the new compact, the model compact that the voters were voting on. In the Phoenix area Tribes, all are shown as giving up a right to an additional facility that they had under the old compact. Tohono O’odham, because they’re not a Phoenix area Tribe, kept the same number of casinos, the right to build the same number of casinos. So Gila River is shown as giving up an additional casino, right to an additional casino. Salt River gave up the right to an additional casino. Ak Chin gave up the right to an additional casino. Fort McDowell gave up a right to an additional casino and so did Pasqua Yaqui. Tohono O’odham didn’t have to give up the right to an additional casino ‘cause they weren’t in the Phoenix area. So in our view, it is in the compact. Why else would these charts be in here showing that the Phoenix Tribes gave up rights to casinos and Tohono O’odham didn’t if it wasn’t intended that the whole goal of the compact was to limit the number of facilities in the Phoenix area?”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Umm, if you don’t mind Allison, I wanna ask you another question. Umm, since you are an attorney and since you know the law and I say this in the most friendly way. When I talk to Chairman Norris and I think was referenced in one of your testimonies. Maybe it might have been Washburn’s testimony about breaking ground on a facility already. So ground has been broken. If we are to pass this bill would there be a takings issue?”

Miss Binney: “No and I thought it was interesting that Assistant Secretary Washburn didn’t address this issue at all. Because he was aware of it and Senator McCain asked him about it last time. And the fundamental reason why is because this bill just provides a temporary restriction on gaming activities on certain lands. That’s what IGRA does. The Indian Regulatory Gaming Act was passed to restrict gaming on Tribal lands. So, if this bill is a taking so is the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act and that’s been around for 25 years and that’s been upheld again and again and again.”

Chairman Tester: “So, in one point you’re talking about policy that prevents gaming activities to happen with IGRA. This is an actual, physical construction. You don’t see that there’s any difference there? And I ask this because I don’t know.”

Miss Binney: “Yeah, no. We, actually, when it came up in the last hearing, Senator McCain asked it, we actually went and did a thorough analysis because I will say, last Congress there was some legitimate concerns raised by Tohono O’odham and we addressed them in this new bill. But we looked at it and the other reason it’s not a takings is ‘cause Congress does these types of bills fairly frequently actually restricting gaming on lands and they can build a resort; they can build a new sports stadium. They can do economic activity…”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you. That’s fine. Thank you, Allison. Uh, Chairman Norris, ah, you’ve got a similar question that I just asked Governor Mendoza. You’ve got gaming facilities, umm, can you discuss what benefits you’ve got from these gaming facilities and while you’re in that vein could you also discuss unmet needs that are still out there by your Tribe?”

Chairman Norris: “Mr. Chairman, ah, I, too, am not an attorney. I am the elected chairman of my Nation and have an obligation to speak for my people.”

Chairman Tester: “Yes.”

Chairman Norris: “So I will do so. There are still third world conditions that exist in my tribal community and many tribal communities nationwide. The Nation has had an enormous amount of benefit in comparison to where we were at prior to gaming. We have been able to construct different facilities that were only dreams facilities, that we were needing within our communities to be able to provide the necessary services. We have been able to create a government of employees that are, that are able to provide the necessary services that many of our Nation’s members require. We have been able to provide scholarships to our, to our members. Prior to gaming we had probably less than 300 members that acquired masters, associates and doctors degrees and some law degrees. Today we have graduated more Tohono O’odham with those types of degrees this many years later and my council continues to allocate some $5 million dollars towards scholarship programs to our Nation. So we have had an enormous amount of benefit from the results of gaming but we still have those third world conditions that continue to exist. As far as unmet needs, Mr. Chairman, we know today that we have 500 families that are homeless on the Nation. We know today that there are many people within our communities that do need housing. We know today that much of the roads that are within our Tribal communities are being used and misused by the U.S. Border Patrol because of the influx of Border agents on our Nation, have really done wear and tear on our roads, and primarily BIA are on our roads. And so there’s a need for us to work hand in hand with the Department of Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs to try and address the roads conditions that are so needing to be addressed, to be able to deliver the services, to be able to enter and to exit our Tribal communities nationwide. We have a reservation that is 2.1 million acres square. We have some 2.9 million acres in size. We have some 80 villages within that geographical area. The reservation is vast. The villages are remote. We’ve got homes that do not have running water. We’ve got homes that do not have electricity. So there’s a serious amount of unmet needs on my Tribal community.”

Chairman Tester: “Ah, thank you, Chairman. Mayor Weiers, umm, you’re a former state legislator. You’ve worked with city government as mayor and I think you understand the actual text of laws and contracts and the weight that carries with the weight that carries with those contracts and that text. In this case there was a specific limitation, correct me if I’m wrong, on TO developments around Tucson but not Phoenix. Umm, with that said, if this limitation on gaming around the Phoenix area was important, why was it not included in the contract or Prop 202?

Mayor Weiers: “Chairman Tester, all I can tell you is, is, is the knowledge that I have of talking to one of the authors, Senator McCain, and he had told me, point blank, that, uh, there was never, ever any intention in their mind that this would ever be an issue. And I don’t believe personally, quite honestly, that the average person, a non attorney person, would ever thought something like this. You know, uh, I guess that’s why we have attorneys to sit around and think of ways to get around stuff. But ah, I don’t believe anybody ever believed that this was going to be an issue and, and it is an issue. And, and quite honestly all this bill is trying to is just, let’s do what everybody said and thought we were gonna do and then when that compact’s over, renegotiate. Chances are we’ll probably end up with more casinos in the Valley. Most certainly.”

Chairman Tester: “Thanks, Mayor. Ah, Councilman Sherwood, ah, your testimony discusses the impacts that the agreement with TO would have on the city of Glendale. Ah, positive impacts. Umm, could you talk about those benefits of this development and while you’re on that, if there’s downside that comes to mind, could you talk about that too?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “Ah, thank you, Chair. Well, right off the bat, I can’t see of any downside in the negotiations, ah, in the settlement agreement that we concluded with the Tohono O’odhams in August. Ah, they’re covering existing infrastructure, new infrastructure, umm, water, umm, it’s not costin’ the city a penny. I mean, how often do you get a development where you don’t have to give in to anything? Umm, in terms of the development, we were hurt pretty hard with the down turn of our sports and entertainment. There was 8 funded projects that were to occur, south of the University of Phoenix Stadium where our Arizona Cardinals play. Umm, one of ‘em, umm, was Mr. Bidwill’s, ah, CB 101 Project before he started building. Those either went into litigation afterwards or the developers pulled back. Those are slowly comin’ back but not nearly the pace that was expected. So, our sports and entertainment area which has two professional sports teams, large entertainment area along with some retail, umm, was hurt vastly by that. And so when we have the mega events, like when we have the Super Bowl next February, umm, we don’t have anything to keep people in the area. So they go off into Scottsdale and Phoenix. Umm, a project like this resort will, umm, entice other development. In fact within, within weeks of us signing that agreement we had two major developers; one that had done a large scale project in Phoenix come through and they were only interested in us now because of this project and they were lookin’ at land within the city of Glendale to develop that would, ah, be real close to the sports and entertainment area. So, yes, we’re lookin’ at a lot of, ah, development activity that will directly benefit our city coffers and then again, on the deal that was referenced earlier about the $26 million or so, umm, that we get directly into the General Fund from the Tohono O’odhams. In fact we’ve already received a check for $500,000, ten days after the agreement was signed. Umm, that helps the city that has struggled as has been widely reported, umm, because of our past deals with some of the sporting facilities we have. It’s sorely helped our community.”

Chairman Tester: “Okay. Talk about jobs. How many jobs?”

Councilmember Sherwood: “The jobs, in terms of the operations, you’re gonna see 3,000 jobs, 1,500 of ‘em probably indirect. Ah, 15 direct in terms of construction jobs. It’s right now scheduled for three phases, the casino and then the attached resort and then probably year later, another resort based on how things are movin’ along. So you’re talkin’ thousands of construction jobs, ah, over this project that’s gonna take place over the next four years. But in terms of actual jobs, umm, in the West Valley, I’d say about 3,000.”

Chairman Tester: “Well, once again, I want to thank all of you for, ah, makin’ the trek to Washington, D.C. I know it’s not easy and some of you made it twice and I thank you for that. And I mean that. This is obviously an emotional issue it’s ah, it’s ah, an important issue. Umm, note that the hearing will remain open for two weeks and I encourage all stakeholders to submit written statements for the record. I’m gonna’ say that again. Ah, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks and, ah, if you’re a stakeholder on this issue I would encourage you to write written statements, ah, for the record. With that thank you all and this hearing is closed.”

FAIR USE NOTICE

Sep 14

25

Senate Committe on Indian Affairs hearing, Part II

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 25, 2014
Posted in Casino • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Gila River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community • Glendale zoning issues • Salt River Indian Community | Tagged With: City of Glendale, Gila River Indian Community, Governor Mendoza, Mayor Jerry Weiers, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Senate Committe on Indian Affairs, Senator Flake, Senator McCain, Tohono O'odham | No Comments yet, please leave one

On September 17, 2014 the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs took testimony on S. 2670, a bill introduced by Senators McCain and Flake. It is designed to prevent the Tohono O’odham from building a casino in Glendale until 2027 when the current state-Indian gaming compact expires.

Because there is a lot of testimony I have broken it into segments. This portion is the testimony of Governor Gregory Mendoza, Chairman of the Gila River Indian Community and Mayor of Glendale Jerry Weiers. It is evident from Mendoza’s testimony that the 16 other tribes that are part of the gaming compact feel betrayed and are very bitter about the actions of the Tohono O’odham (TO). The reason that Governor Mendoza of the Gila River Indian Community and President Diane Enos of the Salt River-Pima-Maricopa Indian Community have taken the lead in opposing the TO’s project is that these two tribes have the resources to do so. They have the support of the other Arizona tribes.

Mayor Jerry Weiers highlighted Proposition 202, the Arizona Gaming Compact, and distributed to members of the committee copies of the original publicity pamphlet distributed to voters in 2002. What is ironical is that the pamphlet used, that promised no new casinos in the Phoenix Metropolitan area was paid for by the Tohono O’odham.

Both men spoke of possible consequences should the TO prevail. Governor Mendoza spoke of the harm that will befall rural tribes and Mayor Weiers spoke of action that could be taken by the Arizona legislature to open up the entire state to non-Indian gaming.

The actions of the Tohono O’odham stink on so many levels:

They don’t care that they have destroyed the deep-seated, long-term trust they enjoyed with their sister Arizona tribes.
They don’t care that they broke their word and their commitment to keep new casinos out of the Phoenix Metropolitan area.
They don’t care if they destroy, single-handedly, the voter approved state gaming compact.
They don’t care if their casino is across the street from a high school and becomes a magnet for curious teenagers.
They don’t care if they destroy the fabric of neighborhoods with greater 24/7 traffic and spill over crime.
They don’t care if the state legislature opens the state up to non-Indian gaming.
They don’t care if rural Indian tribes suffer.

Their actions are nothing short of Machiavellian, “the ends justify the means.” Their only concern appears to be enriching themselves at the expense of all around them. They have 3 casinos in the Tucson area estimated to earn $36 million annually. I guess that’s just not enough for them. If they succeed in building the casino the unintended consequences will be felt for many years to come. But that’s OK – as long as they get what they want.

Below is the verbatim transcript of the testimonies of Governor Mendoza and Mayor Weiers:

Governor Mendoza: “Good afternoon Chairman Tester, members of the committee. Thank you for holding this hearing and inviting me to speak in support of the Keep the Promise Act. I want to start by saying that it pains me to advocate against a sister tribe. But this is not a dispute with the Tohono O’odham people, only with the leadership of the Tohono O’odham Nation whose actions jeopardize every tribe in Arizona. Contrary to what Tohono O’odham claims, this is not a fight about market share. It’s about preventing fraud upon tribes, local governments and voters. Tohono O’odham likes to talk about the promises made between their tribe and the federal government in 1986 but this bill is about protecting the promise made to my community and to other tribal governments.

“Our tribes relied upon the actions of Tohono O’odham when we gave up our rights in 2002. While we agreed the Tohono O’odham should get replacement lands under the 1986 law we also strongly believed that Tohono O’odham must abide by the promise and commitments they made to us. In 2002 Arizona tribes had to get approval for our compact from the voters. In order to get this approval we promised the voters that the number of casinos in the Phoenix metro area would not increase until 2027.

“At the same time that Tohono O’odham helped us to win voter approval they also were secretly plotting to build a casino in Phoenix. That casino will be located right across the street from a high school and it’s near homes and churches. This is exactly what we promised the voters would not happen. Tribes like mine gave up rights to build additional casinos. We also agreed to limit on the number of gaming machines allocated to us. We did this in order to get voter approval and to preserve the tribal monopoly on gaming in Arizona and assure that rural tribes benefit from gaming.

“Tohono O’odham doesn’t deny making promises nor do they deny knowing that their sister tribes gave up rights in order to limit the number of casinos in Phoenix. They don’t deny that the compact negotiations would have been vastly different if everyone knew of their plans. Instead they say they’re winning in the courts. There remains a dispute because they refuse to waive their sovereign immunity for claims of fraud. We do not want to attack another tribe’s immunity. That is why the bill merely provides for a temporary restriction on additional casinos in the Phoenix area until the end of the existing compacts. At that point all parties can come together at the table and bargain in good faith. Hopefully my community will be able to regain the rights we gave away.

“The Gila River Indian Community will weather the storm but most tribes in Arizona are not as fortunate. Rural tribes will suffer the most from Tohono O’odham’s fraud. There are six rural tribes that utilize gaming compacts to lease gaming machines to urban tribes. Leasing these machines allows them to benefit from gaming even though their markets can’t support a casino. Each year these tribes receive more than $30 million dollars to provide basic services to their members and the structure of the gaming compacts create markets for a few rural tribes to operate small casinos.

“If gaming happens in Glendale the state legislature will likely eliminate that tribal monopoly. If this happens urban tribes will have no reason to lease gaming machines from rural tribes. Patrons will stop traveling to reservations for gaming and instead visit non-tribal casinos in cities. We have come to Congress because you’re the only entity that can provide swift action to preserve the promises made in 2002. Interior indicates it cannot resolve this matter because Congress through the 1986 law mandates that they take the land into trust for the Tohono O’odham.

“This bill does not set bad precedent. It is common for Congress to pass bills that limit tribal gaming. In this Congress alone, two bills have been enacted placing land into trust for a tribe but prohibiting gaming on those lands. The bill narrowly restricts gaming on the land until 2027 but does not eliminate the uses of the land and there are a number of non-gaming activities that Tohono O’odham could conduct. For all of these reasons I ask that you pass this bill. Thank you.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you, Governor. Uh, Welcome Mayor Weiers and I would ask you to try to keep it to five minutes because the Senator has another meeting to get to and I want to get to him for questions.”

Mayor Weiers: “I’ll do the best that I can, Sir. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Brasher and members of the Committee. My name is Jerry Weiers. I am the Mayor of Glendale, a city of 232,000 and the 72^nd largest city in the country.

“Before becoming mayor I served eight years in the Arizona legislature. I am here today to discuss my personal views on a casino proposed to be built in my city. I am required to state that my views today do not represent the majority of the body of the council and my views are not the official position of the council.

“Like Senator McCain I supported Arizona Proposition 202, the ballot initiative which gave tribes the exclusive right to conduct gaming. One key aspect of that campaign was the clear promise, repeatedly made to voters by tribes and state officials, that there would be no additional casinos in the Phoenix metro area. When Governor Hull concluded compact negotiations in 2002 with the seventeen tribes she publicly announced that under the compact that there would be, and I quote, ‘no additional casinos in the metropolitan Phoenix area.’ Now here’s a voter pamphlet from the 2002 initiative campaign. It was widely distributed by the seventeen tribes. The pamphlet told voters that under the compact and I quote, ‘There will be no facilities in Phoenix.’ If you look at page six, which I’ve got highlighted here, ah, major funding for this pamphlet was provided by the Tohono O’odham Nation, that I will respectfully refer to as the TO.

“Understandably the public was blind sided when the TO announced in January of 2009 that it was going to open a Las Vegas style casino on a 54 acre parcel within our city. At that time I was serving in the Arizona legislature and I met with TO Chairman Norris and I expressed my grave concerns with gambling within our city. The council immediately passed a resolution opposing the casino because it would harm our residents and our way of life.

“Recently the city council voted 4 to 3 repeal the 2009 resolution opposing that casino. But this was done only after the Interior Department had already decided to grant a casino reservation on that parcel. We had no real choice. We could continue to fight and hope for action from this body or give up. It’s frustrating to be a city of our size and have no voice on gambling pushed by a tribal government that’s more than a hundred miles away. The public has no right to object to gambling because of the narrow exception in the 1988 Indian Regulatory Gaming Act the TO is using, and gives Interior absolutely no authority to stop gambling even if it knows the adverse impact to nearby neighborhoods, churches and a public school across the street.

“Since the Interior has no authority to stop gambling it has no reason to ask the public for comments or investigate adverse impacts. This is the polar opposite to the two part exception in IGRA which is typically used for off reservation casinos. It requires that the Interior prepare for an environmental impact statement and investigate in great detail adverse impacts that a casino may cause. What’s more, for gambling to be allowed, the Secretary must determine on the record, and I quote, ‘would not be detrimental to the surrounding community.’ And most importantly, the state’s governor has the right to veto any casino project regardless of the Secretary’s decision.

“But in our case, the public has no say. The state legislature has no say. Our governor has no say and the Interior has no authority to stop it. For us this means the largest tribal casino in the history of the state may operate on a 54 acre island in the middle of the Phoenix metro area without anyone investigating and addressing the adverse environmental and social impacts it will cause and without any federal, state or local official deciding that it can safely operate in the public’s interest.

“What’s more, my city may not be the last. Our sister cities realize that unless Congress acts, they may be next. Under the 1986 Gila Bend Act, TO claims that it can create new reservation land on more than 6,000 acres. They also claim the right to operate a total of four new casinos in the Phoenix metro area. If Congress does not act the entire Phoenix metropolitan area must be prepared for more off reservation casinos. That is why many mayors and city councilmembers have signed a letter asking the Congress to enact the Keep the Promise Act.

“As a former state legislator I know that if gambling happens in Glendale there will be a strong effort in the state legislature to authorize non-Indian gaming in all of Arizona and that will have a devastating effect on all the tribes. I urge this committee to move the Keep the Promise Act. The bill is about preserving the promises made by tribes to voters protecting Phoenix metro cities from having unwanted gambling within their borders. Thank you, Mr. Tester. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.”

Chairman Tester: “Thank you Mayor Weiers.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Sep 14

12

The fat lady hasn’t sung…yet

Posted by Joyce Clark on September 12, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: casino, City of Glendale, council votes, referendum petitions, settlement, Tohono O'odham | 2 Comments

Today, Friday, September 12, 2014 at 1 PM two Political Action Committees (PACs), NO MORE BAD DEALS FOR GLENDALE and RESPECT THE PROMISE, chaired by local resident Gary Hirsch, will turn in to the Glendale City Clerk approximately 15,000 signatures in opposition to the Glendale City Council’s recent votes regarding the Tohono O’odham (TO) casino. The minimum number of signatures required by law on each measure is 6,956 and the PACs have far surpassed that number by almost double. Expect the city to fight them with every fiber of its being by declaring the council votes to be “administrative actions” not subject to referral to the voters. Expect after that to see the issue wind up in the courts. On August 12, 2014 at its regular city council meeting the council approved two actions related to the Tohono O’odham. Agenda item 36 by council’s majority vote (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) approved a settlement (read contract) with the TO. The settlement terms are embarrassing. The deal is so bad it’s as if the council had accepted a dollar from the TO and called it good. One of the petitions being submitted this afternoon is for the purpose of bringing the settlement before Glendale voters to accept or reject. In agenda item 37 the city council voted in the affirmative to support the creation of an Indian reservation. This action is the cherry on top of the cake for the TO. They need Glendale’s support desperately to show the Feds that the host city within which the reservation is located is in favor of their action. The second petition seeks to bring before the Glendale voters the majority vote of council (Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira) that supports a reservation within Glendale’s boundaries. All of these council votes are for the benefit of a Tribe that:

Violated a 2000 agreement signed by 16 state Tribal leaders, including the Tohono O’odham, vowing “to strive for a good-faith cooperative relationship between and among themselves.”
Created a corporation in 2000 chartered by the TO actively seeking land in the Phoenix Metro area for the “possibility of doing a casino” prior to the 2002 statewide vote on the Gaming Compact.
Looked it sister Tribal leaders in the face and lied to them.
Actively promoted and financially contributed to the campaign in support of Proposition 202, the Tribal Gaming Compact, promising voters that there would be no new casinos in the Phoenix Metro area.
Actively participated in the election campaigns of sitting councilmembers who voted for these agenda items through the TO’s independent expenditures for campaign mailers in support of these council persons. Expect them to do the same in this election cycle. These four elected officials owe the TO and they know it.

These majority council votes by Alvarez, Sherwood, Hugh and Chavira stink to high heaven. Were these four elected officials acting in the best interests of Glendale? You can decide for yourselves but I think not. If and when these council votes come before you, the voter, you will have an opportunity to reject these council votes and send a strong message to these councilmembers that “back door” deals will not be tolerated. There are still actions that have not been settled…legal decisions not yet rendered and legislation introduced by Senators McCain and Flake awaiting a full Senate vote up or down. The Tohono O’odham are making a million dollar bet that nothing will stop them. They could end up losing that bet. Remember, it’s not over until the fat lady sings and she hasn’t sung…yet. © Joyce Clark, 2014 FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have 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, democratic, 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 Law and who 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.

Aug 14

28

Chutzpah

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 28, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: casino, City of Glendale, ground breaking, Tohono O'odham | 4 Comments

On August 28, 2014 the Tohono O’odham broke ground for their casino WITHIN Glendale. I love the way some people not only rewrite history but change geographical boundaries. All of the expected players were there…members of the Nation, Tohono O’odham vendors and contractors (and wanna bes) on the project, a few West Valley elected officials, and of course the infamous 4 Glendale Councilmember supporters – Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira. There was a by-invitation-only gathering at the Renaissance Hotel prior to the ground breaking and only the most ardent were invited.

Norma was positively giddy during the entire event and proudly strutted around with her ceremonial walking stick. Sherwood was there acting in his capacity as pseudo-mayor of Glendale. Hugh and Chavira were…just there. From reports of a few who attended, it was a sight to behold.

But…hold on a minute. Isn’t there still legal action not yet decided? Doesn’t the Tohono O’odham still have to get gaming permits from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior? Isn’t there a bill introduced by Senators McCain and Flake yet to be approved or denied by the Senate? Yes…to all.

Even Councilmember Martinez’ reading of a letter at the last council meeting in opposition to the casino penned by former Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs held no sway with anyone…then or now.

The Tohono O’odham are making a bet that nothing stands in their way to stop their project. What more could one expect from a casino operator who relies on your losing bets every single day? That’s chutzpah.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Aug 14

14

So much for transparency

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 14, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: approved agreement, City of Glendale, costs to Glendale, finances, Glendale City Council, proposed casino, Tohono O'odham | 15 Comments

During my last four years on city council, from the time the Tohono O’odham publicly announced their intent to build a casino within Glendale, I would take notes from presentations and comments of staff regarding the casino’s impact on Glendale. While they retain the essence of the statements made, I did not have the time or opportunity to write the comments verbatim. The other day I was cleaning out some old folder files and I ran across the file where I had been keeping these notes. The following was represented to me and the rest of city council by staff from 2009 to 2012.

This was said with regard to the Nation’s gaming application— However, the issue of “first impression” within Arizona is a major one. It means that this action if granted would be precedent setting in that it would establish an Indian reservation where one did not previously exist. It may be the first attempt to do so in the nation. It is the first step to create a free for all system that establishes “off-reservation” gaming, not just in Arizona but in the nation.

Glendale staff in meeting with the Tohono O’odham attempted to ascertain more specific information. The Nation would not offer anything beyond conceptuals. Staff, after meeting with the Nation, offered the scope of the project as it was presented to them:

134 acres of land
1.2 million square foot complex
Cost of construction approx. $550 million
6,000 construction jobs
3,000 permanent jobs

Gaming portion:

150,000 square feet
1,089 machines
50 tables
25 poker tables
1,000 seat bingo hall

Spa/Hotel portion:

480 rooms
120 suites
180,000 square foot convention center
40,000 square foot event center

Amenities/Services:

30,000 square feet of retail
5 restaurants
1 food court
2 buffets
1 coffee shop
2 bars
1 nightclub

Issues identified by staff during the years of 2009 to 2012 included:

City’s General Plan has area designated as Corporate Commerce Center with less density and impact.
Sales tax revenue anticipated to be lost is $2 million a year or $40 million over 20 years as city cannot collect sales tax from federal land and that removes the land from producing sales tax for the city with other non-Indian uses.
There are revenues that flow to the state from gaming. However 88% percent goes directly to the state. The other 12% is distributed to all cities and counties with no larger share or preference to the host city or county.
The project will generate jobs but nearly all will be minimum wage employment.
Gaming revenues siphon off discretionary income that could have been spent elsewhere in the City
Staff projects water demand to be 600,000 gallons per day gpd (gallons per day). Projected wastewater demand to be 400,000 gpd. If they use the on-site well that is available to them it would impact our groundwater table.
Estimated Impact fees loss is $299,500.
Police estimate an additional 8,500 calls for service necessitating an additional 11 officers at a cost of $950,903. There is also the problem of suspects committing crime in adjacent areas and fleeing to reservation where Glendale Police have no jurisdiction. Anticipated calls for service expected to be high due to the casino being open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Fire anticipates the need for an additional fire station costing:
18 additional fire fighters
$2.8 annually for Operating & Maintenance costs
$14.6 million for land acquisition and construction
In addition, there is no mutual aid agreement for off-site service (reservation). Can be negotiated perhaps but no guarantee of total cost recovery.
Transportation estimates 20,000 one-way trips per day on weekdays and 30,000 one-way trips per day on weekends. It will generate 8.34 million additional trips in the area per year. There could be traffic conflicts on stadium and arena event days.
There is a possible impact on the Northern Parkway Project. 225 feet of right-of-way is needed on the south side of Northern between the Loop 101 and 91^st Avenue. Tribe may or may not participate.

There are several reasons why I decided to use my old, newly discovered notes. Despite the city council’s inappropriate action this issue is not yet decided. There is still Tribal litigation to be decided and there is still Congressional legislation pending. I would anticipate Referendum petitions on the 2 council actions taken on August 12, 2014. If successful, the voters will decide Glendale’s final position.

Another reason for using them is to ask the question, was this information given to the current council? With senior administrative staff knowing that a majority of council now supports the proposed casino, they may have thought it unwise to fully inform the council. That is no excuse. Council should have had this information. If council did have this kind of information and a majority chose to ignore it and its implications of cost to Glendale, then they are not serving the best interests of Glendale.

Lastly, it is information that should be public. The citizens of Glendale have the right to know that there are costs to Glendale that have not been addressed in the recently approved agreement. I would expect the current senior administration to disavow the facts presented above, especially with regard to water and public safety. They have been given their marching orders to embrace the casino project. The question remains, why weren’t these issues and the costs associated with them addressed in the approved agreement? So much for transparency.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Aug 14

13

Train Wreck

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 13, 2014
Posted in Arizona Coyotes • Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Jobing.com arena • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: city council meeting, City of Glendale, Gila River Arena, Glendale City Council, jobing.com arena, naming rights, Political Action Committee, proposed draft agreement, Recall, Tohono O'odham | 14 Comments

The August 12, 2014 meeting of the Glendale City Council was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. You know the inevitable outcome; you know it will be extremely painful; but you are utterly powerless to stop it. All you can do is watch it unfold. This is the first council meeting I attended since leaving office over a year and a half ago. People have been telling me for months that the animosity among councilmembers was evident. I thought OK, there were times when our council meetings were not happy affairs. Little did I know that the atmosphere reeked of councilmember nastiness and disrespect. It was palpable fueled by the absolute arrogance of the council majority (Sherwood, Hugh, Alvarez and Chavira). The meeting was not unusual as council sped through proclamations and the consent agenda. The last two items were casino related. One was council approval of the draft agreement between the Tohono O’odham and Glendale. The other was the first official groveling of the city council with a resolution supporting the construction of the casino. All hell broke loose. The draft agreement was introduced and recited by Michael Bailey, Glendale’s City Attorney. Mayor Weiers opened the public comment portion. There were 22 speakers to the item. 15 citizens spoke in opposition to the draft agreement and 7 spoke in favor of the draft agreement. The speakers’ comments in opposition to the proposed casino revolved around these general themes: casinos produce greater crime in the adjacent area; they create a greater rate of gambling addiction and subsequent bankruptcies and home foreclosures. The two major themes were comments about the rush to get this agreement done and the fact that it simply wasn’t a good deal for Glendale. There were some memorable comments to share (my apology if I butcher someone’s name). John Burnell of the Sahuaro district related that a family member, as a gambling addict, maxxed out credit cards and lied to keep it secret. The husband had to take two jobs and it took him over two years to get the family’s finances back on track. Barbara Roberts acknowledged the casino job creation but said, “Yes, we need jobs but what kind of jobs?” Timothy Green of Goodyear said, “Casinos only succeed on the backs of losers.” A rather profound statement. Ron Kolb, Ocotillo district said, “The West Side will never be the same.” Dr. Ron Rockwell, pastor of a Yucca district church very near the casino site, said, “You no longer care about the moral and spiritual culture of this community.” Randy Miller, candidate for the Barrel district council seat, called out Councilmember Alvarez and her continual homage about the importance of listening to the people…yeah, Norma, right. It seems to be a principle of hers only when convenient. Those speakers in support of the casino were arrogant and boastful. John Mendlelberg, former Mayor of Surprise, said, “You must concede.” Reverend Maupin of Phoenix, said, “You lost the war. You should be grateful for whatever you are getting.” He accused Councilmember Martinez of being a liar and a racist. Robert Quizneros of the Ocotillo district complained about the audacity of “the other side’s hiring of attorneys and lobbyists” to defeat the casino. A special “shout out” to Lauren Tolmachoff, candidate for the Cholla district council seat. It appears that she has become a one-trick pony as she reiterated her support for the casino in the name of jobs. Hey, Lauren, don’t you know about “job displacement?” Several pro-casino speakers kept referring to, “it’s their (TO) land.” Well, yes it is after a purchase kept secret for 7 years and its newly minted designation as a reservation. It’s all about a reservation WITHIN Glendale. I defy anyone to identify any city in the State of Arizona that has a reservation within its boundaries. Then it was time for the Councilmembers to speak prior to their vote. Alvarez’ remarks were priceless in their ignorance. She made memorable comments such as, “what’s the difference between a lottery ticket and a casino?” Or, “We have casinos in Scottsdale.” Or, “They (Tohono O’odham) are going to provide a service.” That one caused audible audience derision. And lastly, “Make us responsible for what we’re doing.” Trust me, we will. Councilmember Sherwood, self-proclaimed negotiator and leader, was strangely silent all evening except for his monologue prior to his affirmative vote. His comments deserve a special blog and its coming. Councilmember Martinez offered a series of amendments to the draft and that’s when all hell broke loose. Councilmembers Alvarez and Chavira, repeatedly and often, yelled out while Councilmember Martinez was trying to speak, “Call for the question!” Their obvious intent was to silence Councilmember Martinez’ efforts. What were they afraid of? They knew they had the votes to defeat any amendment. Chavira was literally in a rage because of Martinez’ efforts. He lept out of his seat and it looked as if he was about to confront Mayor Weiers physically. Wow, Sammy. Finally we see the true persona and your reaction when crossed and you don’t get your way. The lack of control he exhibited demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as a councilmember and cannot conduct himself in a manner required by the office he holds. Martinez offered 4 amendments: raising the TO payment to $20 million or 3% of the Class III net; offsite infrastructure costs to be paid by the TO up front; a waiver of sovereign immunity especially with regard to fraud and other bad acts; and payments to continue beyond 2026. Each was rejected. The vote was as everyone expected. The majority of 4 – Sherwood, Alvarez, Hugh and Chavira voting to approve the agreement and Weiers, Martinez and Knaack voting against. What was unexpected to the degree it manifested itself, was the vituperativeness and nastiness. At one point a citizen called Martinez a liar and a racist. Mayor Weiers should have stopped the speaker immediately and requested a police officer escort the person from the building. There is no doubt that Mayor Weiers lost control of the meeting during the first casino agenda item. His failure fueled the majority’s contempt and rage. Kudos go to Bonnie Steiger, a Glendale resident and faithful attendee at council meetings for 28 years. She is everyone’s Grandmother. She was so disgusted with council’s behavior that she said their lack of respect for the very office they hold merited the removal of all of them. Lastly, I offer two interesting items for your attention. One is the Coyotes publicly announced today that they had accepted a deal for arena naming rights. Are you ready for this? It will be called the Gila River Arena. Hooray for the Gila River. Although it may require Glendale approval, Glendale may only reject for very narrow reasons and the new naming rights do not fit the criteria. Can you say embarrassing, Glendale?? Or perhaps the majority of 4 will figure out a way to kill the deal. The second item is that just before 5 PM, yesterday, August 12, 2014 a group filed paperwork with the Glendale City Clerk’s office for a Political Action Committee for the purpose of recalling Councilmember Gary Sherwood. Things are heating up in Glendale. As I said at the beginning of this blog, this meeting was definitely a train wreck but the pain is yet to be borne by all of the people of Glendale. © Joyce Clark, 2014 FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have 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, democratic, 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 Law and who 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.

Aug 14

11

An open letter to Glendale Councilmember Ian Hugh

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 11, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: City of Glendale, draft agreement, Glendale Councilmember Ian Hugh, proposed casino, Tohono O'odham | 3 Comments

August 11, 2014

Dear Councilmember Hugh,

I do not know you on a personal level for your service as a Glendale councilmember the first time was before mine and your service the second time was after mine. I do get a sense of you from your public actions and comments.

You have lived in Glendale all of your life. You own a business, Bridgestone Tires, in downtown Glendale. You married and raised a family in Glendale. You love Glendale as evidenced by your many years of public service to our community. You are a fiscal conservative and have voiced concerns about Glendale’s financial status. You are a good and honorable man.

From your public statements you support the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. That is a separate issue that merits debate at another time. This agreement is not about whether one thinks the Tohono O’odham has the right to build.

This agreement is a business deal, pure and simple; you give me “X” and I’ll give you “Y.” This agreement is not a good business deal for Glendale. Please review the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale Agreement one more time. There are solid, reasonable reasons why the proposed agreement in its present form does not serve the best interests of Glendale. Here are just three of the many, major flaws:

It does not protect Luke Air Force Base. It does not allow Glendale the right to design review and the ability to insure that construction of any structure will not interfere with Luke’s mission.
The payment to Glendale is too low. By now you have seen what other cities across the country have been able to achieve in terms of revenue sharing. Some tribes share as much as 25% of their revenue.
The sovereign immunity waiver offered is restrictive. Glendale must be able to fully and freely access its ability to enforce the provisions in any court and any jurisdiction.

Please put aside your support of the Tohono O’odham and examine this agreement strictly in terms of Glendale’s best interests. I am asking you to make a motion to table this agreement, return to the negotiating table and craft an agreement that reflects the imperative…to create the best deal possible for Glendale. If a motion to table is rejected, I ask that you vote “No” and reject this flawed agreement.

The tabling or rejection of this proposed agreement gives voice to your love for and to your commitment to Glendale. It will show that you listen to and value the input you receive from the community. There is no reason to rush this through. As a Glendale City Councilmember it is your responsibility to create policy that serves our entire community. Please show everyone that you take that responsibility very seriously.

Thank you for your service to Glendale. It is recognized and very much appreciated. In times such as these, you have a very difficult job and I doubt the public understands exactly how difficult. Thank you for your consideration of my remarks and request.

Sincerely,

Joyce Clark

FAIR USE NOTICE

Aug 14

10

Still more reasons to reject a flawed agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 10, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: City of Glendale, draft agreement, proposed casino, Tohono O'odham | 2 Comments

The Glendale City Council will vote on the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement on Tuesday evening, August 12, 2014. Expect a packed house with speakers both pro and con. If you would like to attend the meeting here are the details:

Tuesday, August 12, 2014

6 PM

Glendale City Council Chambers

5850 W. Glendale Avenue

In the proposed agreement the Nation will pay $100,000 to the Glendale Convention and Visitors Bureau with an annual 2% ($2,000) increase. Bet on the payment coming from the state mandated percentage that all tribes must dole out to non-profits annually. Although not specified in the proposed agreement the general understanding is that the money will be used to promote and advertise the casino. Now, that’s a sweet deal for the Tohono O’odham (TO). The funds will be used exclusively for the proposed casino’s promotion to the detriment of other competitor member businesses who have restaurants, bars or hotels.

Glendale would be better served to have a stipulation similar to the Seneca/Buffalo agreement. In June, 2014 the Buffalo News reported, “Seneca Gaming Corp. on Thursday announced a plan to spend $3 million over a year marketing Buffalo’s attractions… The marketing program announced Thursday includes print, television, radio and digital advertising in Ontario, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Among the targeted markets are Toronto, Cleveland and Pittsburgh.” Hmmm…$3 million and Glendale is settling for $100,000 to its Convention Bureau to be used to advertise the proposed casino.

It is widely known that Mayor Weiers, while visiting the City of Niagara Falls, received a great deal of information on that city’s casino revenue sharing arrangement. He brought it back, had it copied and distributed to every member of council. They know there is a better deal to be had yet they continue to rush to accept this deal. People are now openly wondering is there any quid pro quo? Have the Tohono O’odham done or will it do Independent Expenditure campaign mailings for Alvarez? In 2016 will it do the same for Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira? Many readers of this blog still can’t get over Mark Becker’s (Becker Billboards owner) campaign donation of $2,500 to Alvarez and her vote of approval for the billboards. So much for principle. If they are ugly and unwanted in her district, why wouldn’t they be ugly and unwanted in the Cholla district?

Are you dumb founded yet by this proposed agreement? If not, you should be. It’s reminiscent of the arena management deal and the Camelback Ranch deal. The majority (Alvarez, Hugh, Sherwood and Chavira), avid supporters of the TO, have continually pointed fingers at previous councils and their inability to negotiate deals to benefit Glendale. Now they have an opportunity to negotiate in Glendale’s best interest and they have blown it.

This is a deal that begs for rejection. The majority of 4 can’t do that for all kinds of reasons: their haste to get something…anything…before the November General Election when the council make up could change and they lose their majority; their haste to get something…anything…should the Attorney General’s investigation into Open Meeting Law violations drops the hammer on any or all of the 4 of them and they lose their majority; and lastly, out of sheer embarrassment for rejecting an agreement they have publicly proclaimed as a “good deal for Glendale.”

What they fail to recognize is that the Tohono O’odham are desperate. They need Glendale. Glendale does not need the Tohono O’odham. The TO must still secure gaming approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Interior Department and to obtain it they need Glendale and the Governor of the State to enthusiastically embrace their plans.

This coalition of 4 councilmembers reminds one of an old, worn out, street hooker bending over and willingly accepting five bucks for services rendered. It’s downright pitiful and embarrassing.

FAIR USE NOTICE

Aug 14

8

Three reasons to reject the proposed Tohono O’odham/Glendale agreement

Posted by Joyce Clark on August 8, 2014
Posted in Casino • City Council Actions • City issue and actions • City of Glendale • Glendale elected officials • Glendale finances • Glendale zoning issues • Tohono O'odham | Tagged With: City of Glendale, draft agreement, proposed casino, Tohono O'odham | 1 Comment

The proposed agreement between the City of Glendale and the Tohono O’odham should not be executed at this time. It is premature. There are outstanding legal actions and Congressional legislation yet to be decided. At the very least, the Glendale City Council should table this action to a time uncertain. There is absolutely no need for execution of this agreement immediately. In the last blog there were 3 major flaws with the agreement. Let’s take a look at them.

The City of Glendale has no authority to review the design and the only entity that can inspect construction is the Fire Marshall. The Fire Marshall will not be able to tell if the plumbing, electrical, etc., construction is up to Code. The reservation is similar to a foreign nation planted inside Glendale. The proposed casino’s design cannot be approved by Glendale and even more importantly, the Federal Aviation Administration. The University of Phoenix Stadium’s height was subject to the FAA process and required approval from the agency. If the Tohono O’odham builds structures whose height interferes with operations of Luke Air Force Base or the Glendale Municipal Airport, Glendale and every agency is prohibited from taking action to stop it. There is precedent for such action. In Kenosha, Wisconsin their agreement stipulates, “That the Menominee Kenosha Gaming Authority will follow all applicable building and Federal Aviation Rules during the construction and operation of the project.” Glendale should insist on a stipulation in the agreement requiring the Tohono O’odham’s development to be subject to Glendale’s design review process and FAA restrictions.
The amount to be paid to Glendale annually is too low. Here are some examples of Tribal revenue sharing with other cities across the country. In NY Governor Cuomo’s press release of August, 2013 says, “Under the agreement, the local governments in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, and the Salamanca area will receive their full 25% share of local impact payments, a total of $140 million. Today, the Governor traveled to Western New York to present checks to the local governments receiving funds under the agreement: Buffalo will receive $15.5 million, Niagara Falls will receive $89 million, and the Salamanca area will receive $34.5 million.” Because of a dispute between the State of New York and the Seneca Tribe payments were suspended for several years. The money cited in the press release were back payments made by the Seneca Tribe to those 3 cities. These cities receive anywhere from $2 to $8 million annually. The Seneca facility is about half the size of the proposed TO casino and therefore generates about half of the revenue expected at the proposed TO facility. Here is another example and it underscores another problem, “Officials in Duluth, Minnesota, are still trying to reinstate a gaming agreement with the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians. The tribe was sharing 19 percent of gross revenues from the Fond-du-Luth Casino. The tribe stopped making payments in 2009 after sending $75 million to the city.” If the Tohono O’odham stop making their miserly annual payments to Glendale, the city will see itself in a Duluth-type situation, waiting years to rectify the situation. Here is one last example and believe me, there are plenty more that could be cited. The Michigan Pokagon-New Buffalo Area Local Revenue Sharing Agreement says, “Section 18 of the Compact defines how tribal payments are made to local governments…These payments shall equal 2% of the annual net winnings at each casino derived from all Class III electronic games of chance, to the local units of government that are located in the immediate vicinity of each tribal casino site or that are otherwise directly affected by the operation of the casino. It is the intent of the State and the Tribe that the payments to local units of government provided for in this section will be used primarily to provide financial resources to those political subdivisions of the State that actually experience increased operating costs associated with the operation of the Tribe’s Class III gaming facility.” For the most recent fiscal year, as of July 31, 2011, the total allocations of the tribal payments were shared by 8 cities and 4 educational districts in the amount of $5,818,019. The City Council should renegotiate the Tohono O’odham annual payment and require $15 million annually. That is equal to ONE DAY of estimated net profit or it should stipulate a percentage (no less than 5% annually) of net profit.
3. Lastly, Lastly, there is the issue of tribal sovereign immunity. The TO in the proposed agreement refers to a TO Resolution 14-317. I visited the Tohono O’odham’s web page on its Code and some very interesting information was available: “The Tohono O’odham Code is an unofficial compilation of the Nation’s laws of permanent and general interest, as well as Tohono O’odham Judicial Court rules, canons, and significant administrative orders. While the Code as a whole has not been formally adopted by the Legislative Council, an increasing number of the Nation’s laws are being adopted in a uniformly codified format and the individual laws appearing in the Code have been duly enacted as reflected in their legislative histories.” The web page defines sovereign immunity further:

“Section 2101 Sovereign Immunity

“The government of the Tohono O’odham Nation (“Nation”) and any person acting within the scope of his or her capacity as an officer, employee, or agent of the Nation are absolutely immune from suit, court process, or liability.
“The Nation’s sovereign immunity extends to the Nation’s districts, enterprises, entities, and the officials, employees, and agents thereof.
“Sovereign immunity cannot be waived except by a resolution or other official action of the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council expressly waiving, or authorizing a waiver of, sovereign immunity; provided that such a waiver shall be limited in accordance with its terms. A Legislative Council action that authorizes a Nation’s district, enterprise, or entity to sue or be sued does not waive sovereign immunity unless a waiver is expressly granted in a separate written contract or other duly approved writing.”

What is Resolution 14-317, where is it and what does it say? On Thursday, July 17, 2014 the TO called a Special Session and the last Resolution approved that day is Resolution 14-316, approving a Pisinemo District 2014 Operations Amendment . When was Resolution 4-317 passed and why is it not posted on the TO web site listing all actions passed by their Legislative Council? The City Council should require a stipulation requiring the TO to completely waive sovereign immunity with regard to any provision of this agreement. If the TO will not do so, then they have something to hide.

The proposed agreement makes me ill. Once again, Glendale is being taken to the cleaners and the majority of 4 councilmembers are too dumb or too ignorant to realize it. If they are truly serving the best interests of Glendale, as they claim to do, ad nausea, then they would take action to reject this TO self-serving agreement or at the very least, table it and craft an agreement that protects Glendale and works in its favor. Any one of these issues is enough grounds to reject or table the current proposed agreement. I would hope Councilmember Hugh might be concerned enough about these agreement provisions to support such action. So should Councilmember Sherwood, who fancies himself a negotiator and businessman extraordinaire.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which is in accordance with Title 17 U.S. C., Section 107. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have 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, democratic, 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 Law and who 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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

For "the rest of the story"

Categories

Archives

Recent comments from readers

Recent Posts

Archives

Spam Blocked

Oct 14

12

Share this:

Like this:

Sep 14

30

Share this:

Like this:

Sep 14

25

Share this:

Like this:

Sep 14

12

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

28

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

14

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

13

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

11

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

10

Share this:

Like this:

Aug 14

8

Share this:

Like this: