Header image alt text

Joyce Clark Unfiltered

For "the rest of the story"

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

On May 13, 2013 the Rose Law Group Reporter posted the following article. I do not usually re-post entire articles but in this case many of you may not see it. This opinion piece was written by those, in addition to Glendale residents, most affected by the Tohono O’odham proposed casino, the Tribal leaders. Read their words. They relied upon the words of their brother and sister TO Tribal leaders.

(Disclosure: Rose Law Group represents leadership of the Arizona House and Senate in lawsuit against the Glendale casino.)

[OP-ED] Tribal leaders say Tohono O’odham’s has ‘ill ambition’ for casino

Posted By Phil Riske / May 13, 2013

By Diane Enos, Gregory Mendoza, Sherry Counts, Arlen P. Quetawki, Sherry Cordova and Clinton M. Pattea | The Arizona Republic

New federal legislation introduced by Arizona congressional Reps. Trent Franks, Ed Pastor and Ann Kirkpatrick that would keep compacts intact deserves a fair look.

The complexity of the issue has been captured by The Arizona Republic in its editorials and in recent news articles that have delved into the history of the voter-approved Proposition 202 to shed light on how a proposed casino in Glendale has much broader implications.

Arizonans who in 2002 voted “yes” on Proposition 202 did so based on the 17 Arizona tribes’ promise that Indian casinos would be kept out of neighborhoods and, as penned by then-Gov. Jane Dee Hull, “Voting ‘yes’ on Proposition 202 ensures that no new casinos will be built in the Phoenix metropolitan area and only one in the Tucson area for at least 23 years.”

These commitments were accepted and promoted by 17 Arizona tribes, including the Tohono O’odham Nation, and Arizona. We worked for nearly two years to negotiate a tribal-state plan for limited Indian gaming that was accepted by community leaders, business leaders and elected officials, who in turn publicly advocated for what ultimately became Prop. 202.

At the time, none of the participating 17 tribes expressed disagreement with the framework, which is why a proposed casino in Glendale is a plain violation of the commitments made to Arizona voters in 2002.

As leaders of Arizona tribes, we expect honest transactions from federal, state and local officials and set the same expectations of ourselves and of fellow tribes. It is for these reasons that we support this new, bipartisan legislation.

The Keep the Promise Act will protect the integrity of our work during the gaming-compact negotiations.

It will safeguard the trust of elected officials, business leaders, our own communities and the Arizona voters when they said “yes” to Prop. 202.

Without it, an explosion of new neighborhood casinos — in Glendale and beyond — could be on the horizon because if the promises made through Prop. 202 are broken, the door is opened for other off-reservation casinos.

To that end, it is no secret that the Tohono O’odham Nation now says it never pledged to restrict the number of casinos in the Phoenix area or to keep them out of neighborhoods. It asserts the right to develop multiple casinos on county islands near Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale or anywhere else in the Valley.

Such ill ambition is detrimental to Prop. 202, destroys the good work of 16 tribes and cultivates an atmosphere of distrust.

This is why there is an urgent need for the Keep the Promise Act. It will protect the collective vision of “limited and balanced gaming” in Arizona that was carefully engineered by tribal and state leaders, and approved by voters.

Actively support House Resolution 1410, the Keep the Promise Act, and urge your legislators to do the same.

Diane Enos is president of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Gregory Mendoza is governor of the Gila River Indian Community. Sherry Counts is chairwoman of the Hualapai Tribe. Arlen P. Quetawki is governor of the Pueblo of Zuni. Sherry Cordova is chairwoman of the Cocopah Indian Tribe. Clinton M. Pattea is president of the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation.

 

Trent Franks

Congressman
Trent Franks

Lately, Councilmember Alvarez has been pushing the Tohono O’odham agenda before Glendale City Council-to no avail. A majority of them are not biting. Perhaps it’s because they accept that the city is still in litigation with them and one does not fraternize with the opposing party of a lawsuit. That obviously does not bother Councilmember Alvarez. On May 2, 2013, our favorite non-newspaper, the Glendale Star, published Alvarez’ Letter to the Editor entitled Franks supports East Valley interests over will of West Valley voters…again. You can read the entire Letter to the Editor with this link http://www.glendalestar.com/opinion/editorials/article_36e063a8-b1ba-11e2-912b-001a4bcf887a.html

I dare to venture that my recent series of blogs about the casino may have prompted the TO to try to get out in front in an casino 1attempt to neutralize my comments. They certainly have been pushing on Councilmember Alvarez of late to try to get their message out, first at council meetings and now with this Letter to the Editor. The TO poured thousands of dollars into the recent election campaigns of Alvarez’ chosen candidates and now it’s time for her to carry their water.

Did she write the piece? That’s for you to judge and as you do so, reflect on her public comments at council meetings which have not been nearly as polished. If I were a betting person, I would bet that her Letter to the Editor was ghosted by one of the lovely ladies at TriAdvocates, a consultancy firm hired by the Tohono O’odham. It certainly provides TriAdvocates something to do for their $180,000 annual retainer.

Alvarez berated Congressman Trent Franks for doing what he should be doing for his West Valley constituency and that is protecting their interests as well as those of the State of Arizona by introducing H.R. 1410. He is also protecting the interests of a majority of the Tribal nations in this state that have publicly opposed the actions of the Tohono O’odham.

Alvarez cites the “overwhelming support for the project in this community, with polls consistently showing more than two-thirds of West Valley voters are in favor of the casino…”

polling 1Really? I could write questions for a poll right now that would demonstrate that two-thirds of West Valley voters are NOT in favor of the casino. Conveniently two factors are ignored. One is that a poll can be written and utilized to back up any point of view. In most cases, they are meaningless. Secondly, I know that a majority of those Glendale residents immediately impacted by the casino do not support it. The further away one is from it and especially if one lives in another town or city the resistance to this casino diminishes. For those who live in Sun City, for example, the casino is merely a convenience with less travel time. What does someone in Peoria care if it costs Glendale millions of dollars to support a casino? It’s not in their backyard and they will not bear the costs.

Alvarez then goes on to say, “The West Valley should currently be enjoying the 3,000 permanent jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars per year this project will bring to our community.”

If you had read any of my previous blogs, the professors and researchers I cited make very clear that the jobs created by a casino will be in man moneypart, “displacement” jobs. In other words, instead of someone working at a Denny’s that person will take a job at a casino. Keep in mind, 25% of the jobs will go to Native Americans. There is nothing wrong with that but now those alleged 3,000 jobs becomes 2,250. In my blogs I offered factual information that the number of jobs that will be created is vastly over stated. As for the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that will come to Glendale my question is from what? It can’t be from taxes because the TO will pay no tax of any size, shape or description to anyone. Perhaps Alvarez is referring to the 8% of the state-mandated 12% tribes must allocate through grants to non-profits? If so, it would take years and years and years to even come close to her “hundreds of millions of dollars per year.” So much for offering factual information.

Lastly Alvarez says, “Making matters worse is that H.R. 1410 seeks to re-write the voter-approved Arizona Gaming Compact, a document that was written and signed by 17 sovereign nations and the State of Arizona.”

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Tohono O’odham Chairman
Ned Norris Jr.

This statement earns a Woo Hoo for today. Prior to bringing the compact to voters all of the state tribes spent several years negotiating and approving among themselves the framework of a compact. It was a gentleman’s/gentlewoman’s agreement among the tribes. Did the TO agree with fingers crossed behind their backs? It appears so. It raises the question of, if you will renege on a promise to your fellow Tribes who else will you renege on?

That framework was then negotiated with the State resulting in Proposition 202 that the voters of the state approved. In an attempt to persuade voters to approve the compact it was clearly stated that the number of casinos in the Phoenix Metro area was limited to seven. That is the number of casinos that exists today without the proposed TO casino. Franks’ bill seeks to do the very thing the TO refuse to do and that is protect the intent of the Arizona Gaming Compact.

No, Councilmember Alvarez, your attack on Congressman Franks is misguided and seemingly managed by your “friends” who do not live in Glendale. The Congressman is to be commended for protecting our interests and we do live in Glendale.

copyright

sup ct 2I preface this recitation of the legal timeline of litigation regarding the casino by saying, that IT DOES NOT MATTER how any of these suits was decided- for or against either side – because in every case the decision was appealed to a higher court. In some remaining cases further appeals of lower court decisions will occur. Any outstanding legal decisions, mark my words, will also be appealed. I believe that the final decision will rest with the United States Supreme Court. I do not know which of the issues will make its way there but one of them will. It will be several years before this issue is decided in its finality. Quite frankly, it does not matter if you and I are for or against the casino. It does not matter if the Tohono O’odham promises a million jobs. None of that matters. What will matter is some highly technical legal issue that will be the determinant of a final decision.

  • 2001  The land in question is annexed by Glendale; later that year annexation repealed and abandoned by Glendale
  • prop 2022002  Voters of state approve Proposition 202, the gaming compact; members of the Tohono O’odham actively and publicly advocated for its passage
  • 2003  The Tribe, under a shell company, Rainer Resources, Inc. buys the 134 acre parcel within Glendale’s borders
  • 2009  The Tribe announces plans to build casino with a major, state-wide Press Release and on the same day visits Glendale City Hall to announce they are coming;  In July the Tribe sues Glendale over its claim of annexation of land
  • 2010  In March the Tribe sues Bureau of Indian Affairs to compel it to take land into trust for reservation; In July the Bureau of Indian Affairs approves taking 54 of 134 acres into trust provisionally for a reservation pending outcome of other litigation and gaming approval; In September Glendale sues stating the TO needs state officers’ approval and the Gila River Tribe sues because the Department of the Interior acted improperly in deciding land could be annexed by the TO
  • judge 12011  In May Judge Campbell rules that the TO can not build a casino until all legal actions exhausted; In July a state law allowing Glendale to block TO land through annexation is struck down upon appeal; In August The National Indian Gaming Commission rejects a casino ordinance for the Tohono O’odham Nation; In September  U.S. Rep. Trent Franks offers a bill to stop what he called an “illegal” Indian casino proposed near Glendale
  • 2012  In April the 9th Circuit Court to decide two legal issues initiated by the Gila River Tribe and the State of Arizona; In June US House of Representative  passes Rep. Franks’ bill; however, the bill does not make it through the Senate and the 9th Circuit upholds one suit in favor of the TO land into trust decision; other suit still pending their decision
  • bill2013  The Gila River Tribe files suit contending the TO violated the voter approved state gambling compact; In April oral arguments heard; The decision is pending; U. S. Representative Trent introduces another bill to stop new casinos from being established after 2013

 

copyright

Since the Tohono O’odham announced its 2009 plan to put a casino within Glendale on a county island I have done a great deal of research on the effects of a casino. In 2010 I found a series of columns from April and May, 2010 written by Jim Marino, Guest Columnist for the Santa Ynez Valley Journal, California. His findings are stark and troubling and so eerily similar to the findings of others that I wanted to share quotes from his series. My comments, relating to Glendale, follow the quote in red.

casino 1“These casinos were thrust into communities under the claim the federal Indian Gambling Act [I.G.R.A.] and the state compacts made them a “done deal” and the local communities had nothing to say about it.”

I.G.R.A. when all is said and done may be the nail in Glendale’s coffin.

“But if they didn’t oppose them, these local communities might get some of the gambling dollars in lieu of the many taxes local and state government could not collect. If the local government did not cooperate, on the other hand, they would get no money and often would be accused of being anti-Indian racists and insensitive to the plight of “Indians” in America. After wielding this political stick, these gambling investors and tribes would then wave the carrot, telling local government they would create “jobs” and thus be a great benefit to the community.”

I have been accused of being an anti-Indian racist insensitive to the treatment of Native Americans at the hands of the White Man because I have voiced my opposition to a casino within Glendale’s borders. Does any of this sound familiar? When all else fails to persuade use the promise of jobs.

“The tremendous costs of providing public services like police, fire, schools, jails, hospitals, public works, social services, etc., used regularly by Indian casinos and related businesses, and the demands placed on infrastructure like roads, bridges, public buildings, and other facilities, are all paid for by the non-Indian taxpayers because these tribal businesses are exempt from property taxes, bed taxes, sales taxes, personal property taxes, corporate taxes and state income taxes among others.”

Fact. City staff reported long ago that Glendale taxpayers would pick up the cost of another water treatment plant specifically needed to handle the increased demand that would occur because of the casino.

roads 2“The amount of money that trickles down into the local economy from the salaries of employees and the costs of goods and services is nowhere near enough to make up for lost tax revenues or to pay the tribe’s fair share of the costs to the community for increased demands on public services and infrastructure. Neither are the occasional gifts tribes like the Chumash make usually to the police or fire agencies which gifts are often less than the $2 million the tribe still receives in federal welfare and grant monies every year. “

8% of specified gaming revenues are required by law to be granted by the Tribes to non-profit organizations. Even if every dollar of that 8% could go to Glendale it would not meet the costs Glendale taxpayers will have to bear to support this casino.

“Another economic myth is that by calling the casino a “resort” it will somehow become a destination location for tourists. This myth is debunked by several studies showing the vast majority of gamblers come from a one- to two-hour drive or fewer than 50 miles and come to gamble only.”

This fact is borne out by many other studies. It also explains why the Tohono O’odham, upon their consultant’s advice, rejected the possibility of a casino in Buckeye.

gambling 1“Therefore, an Indian casino essentially siphons dollars from the immediate surroundings. Those are dollars and local monies not spent in other non-Indian businesses and entertainment venues where such discretionary income would otherwise be spent. Non-Indian businesses nearby often cannot compete with an Indian business that pays no taxes, is exempt from state and local laws, rules and regulations workers compensation and public liability insurance and cannot be sued for any of its misdeeds, no matter how outrageous they may be.”

Many have said that the casino will take business away from the hotels and restaurants in Westgate. Right now there is a television ad running for Fort McDowell Casino that offers a $7.99 prime rib dinner on Tuesday nights. There is no way a Yard House, Margaritaville or Gordon Biersch could compete with gambling subsidized meals offered at a casino.

construction“One of the common methods that gambling promoters and investors, using an “Indian tribe” as a front to introduce gambling casinos into a community, is the promise of “jobs.” Often they target communities that are economically depressed because they know local government, unions, Chambers of Commerce, businesses and others often jump at the chance for anything that creates ‘jobs’.”

The TO has done exactly that-with the promise of jobs in Glendale as a means of mitigating its current financial difficulties. It is a siren song the TO hope will not be ignored and uses consistently to gain support among the general public for its proposal.

RoveyFarmEstates“There are casinos that have ruined entire residential neighborhoods like the San Manuel Casino rising above single-family homes in a housing tract, which homes then lost most of their value because of the nearby gambling operations. Neighbors complained about noise, traffic, drunkenness, open drug trafficking and even having to pick up beer cans and used hypodermic needles from their front lawns.”

There are nearly 10,000 people living in the immediate vicinity of the proposed casino with over 600 apartment units immediately south and over 900 homes immediately east. Their property values are in jeopardy.

contract“ People who dealt with or entered into contracts with these casino tribes and businesses found out that if the tribe stiffed them for the bill, they could not sue, again based on the court-created doctrine of legal immunity for Indian tribes and their businesses discussed in last week’s article.”

Based upon the manner in which the TO purchased the land secretly and then held it for 6 years, I would be reluctant to trust any relationship with them. Add to that the fact that the TO’s sister tribes feel betrayed by the TO’s denial of a seven casino limit in the Phoenix Metro area as promised with the voter approved Gaming Compact.

“This use of the tribal legal immunity doctrine to evade legal responsibility is one of the most flagrant and outrageous impacts of Indian gambling and business expansion. This doctrine is exacerbated by the fact that these tribes, their casinos and businesses, can also operate outside of all state and local laws (except alcohol-control law). Laws that were enacted over many years to protect customers, workers, the environment and quality of life.”

In Arizona the only control over Tribal casinos is the state’s Gambling agency.

crime 1“Virtually every casino community has now experienced increases in crime ranging from shoot-outs, murder, theft, robbery, embezzlement, gang activity, substance abuse and drug trafficking, drunk driving, auto accidents and fatalities, gambling addictions, credit problems and bankruptcies, family neglect, even suicides, and the list goes on. Recently, Highway 154 ominously being called “the Chumash Highway” has experienced several auto accident fatalities, not to mention the officially unexplained suicide jumpers from the Cold Springs Canyon bridge. Only a few weeks ago, a gang shoot-out erupted amongst the slot machines at the Jackson Rancheria casino located in Amador County.”

While these experiences occurred in California, there is the common thread of increased crime resulting from casinos.

“Not long ago, Sheriffs deputies were involved in a running gun battle outside the Soboba Casino where at least two suspects, who were tribal members, were shot and killed and the Sheriff refused to respond to calls there anymore. One deputy Sheriff working a special overtime detail at the Chumash Casino in Santa Ynez arrested 36 drug violators in only six weeks time, most of them felonies involving methamphetamines being used, possessed and sold around the casino.”

Since the land in question is a County Island and if the TO are successful in establishing a reservation neither the County Sheriff’s Office or the Glendale Police Department would have authority to respond to any criminal activity on the reservation unless specifically requested by the TO. I suspect the TO will not do so as it would provide an opportunity for negative publicity.

thief“In another case, an elderly couple were walking in the parking lot of another Southern California Indian casino near San Bernardino and a thief whizzed by on a motorcycle and snatched the woman’s purse in the parking lot. The motorcycle grazed their car during the theft. They reported the incident to casino security guards, expecting that the crime would be reported to the Sheriff’s Department. They found out later, when they made an insurance claim for the damage to their car, this incident was never reported to the police. This is but another of the many negative impacts of Indian casinos, the fact that the primary duty of Indian casino security staff is to conceal any negative incidents that occur or insinuate the false claim that some kind of “sovereign status” permits them to deal with criminal acts when it does not.”

When you enter the reservation you do so at your own risk.

tv“Another problem is the failure and refusal of many local media outlets to report the crime, corruption and negative incidents occurring regularly at Indian casinos because those casinos are the biggest television, radio and newspaper advertisers they have. So the so-called “free press” has in effect, been co-opted by the fear of offending these gambling casinos who are their best advertising customers.”

This is a genuine concern. The Tribes advertise their casinos on television incessantly. One of our television stations, Channel 12, is connected to the Arizona Republic. Neither of these two giants of media are going to jeopardize their revenue streams by going negative. When was the last time you remember any media reporting on the use of the Tribal land, just north of Arizona’s southern border, as an open conduit for drug smuggling or illegal border crossings?

copyright

Casino…good, bad or indifferent? Part 3

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 16, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , , , | 1 Comment

We know the proposed site of the casino. We know about the state voter approved gaming compact and how the Tohono O’odham acquired the land.  Is a casino is healthy for an urbanized area?

There is one disclaimer however. I am not commenting on the casino as a social justice issue. For this discussion this issue is not about the white man having treated Indians badly over several hundred years. It’s not about owing Tribes for past wrongs. Today’s society has crafted many solutions for ameliorating social injustice. What this is about is whether a casino, whether owned by Las Vegas interests, Atlantic City interests or the Tribes, is a good thing within a major city. Glendale is a major city with a population of nearly a quarter of a million people. It is the fourth largest city in the state. It definitely qualifies as an urban area within the Phoenix metropolitan area.

threaten 2How is crime related to a casino? Does crime go up, go down or stay the same? The following is an Abstract entitled Casinos, Crime and Community Costs by Earl L. Grinols and David B. Mustard, originally published in 1996 but this excerpt is from the Review of Economics and Statistics (February 2006). The authors say, “We examine the relationship between casinos and crime using county-level data for the United States between 1977 and 1996. Casinos were nonexistent outside Nevada before 1978, and expanded to many other states during our sample period. Most factors that reduce crime occur before or shortly after a casino opens, whereas those that increase crime, including problem and pathological gambling, occur over time. The results suggest that the effect on crime is low shortly after a casino opens, and grows over time. Roughly 8% of crime in casino counties in 1996 was attributable to casinos, costing the average adult $75 per year.

“Casinos increased all crimes except murder, the crime with the least obvious connection to casinos. Most offenses showed that the impact of casinos on crime increased over time, a pattern very consistent with the theories of how casinos affect crime. The crime-ameliorating effects of casinos through increased employment opportunities and wages for low-skilled people will be concentrated shortly after opening. Between 5.5% and 30% of the different crimes in casino counties can be attributed to casinos.

“This translates into a social crime cost associated with casinos of $75 per adult in 1996. This figure does not include other social costs related to casinos, such as crime in neighboring counties, direct regulatory costs, costs related to employment and lost productivity, and social service and welfare costs. Overall, 8.6% of property crime and 12.6% of violent crime in counties with casinos was due to the presence of the casino.

crime 1“According to the study, 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-lowering effects, like additional police and the new jobs represented by a casino are overwhelmed by rising crime increased by the presence of the casino, according to the study.”

Since this study was published in 1996 many pro casino interests have attempted to debunk it. Be that as it may, this is a definitive study that has been repeatedly cited by many reputable public policy groups in attempting to determine the benefits and negatives of a casino.

The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies in its April, 2010 report entitled Impact of Expanded Gambling in New westgate 1Hampshire concluded in part, that negative impacts could be substantial:

  •      Decrease in meals and room taxes away from other, traditional sources (a shifting of tax revenue away from hotels and    restaurants such as Westgate, toward gambling facilities)
  •      Visitors and residents spend money on gambling that would be spent on other goods and services (known as “substitution”)
  • The state will have increased expenses related to expansion of personnel to accommodate the new facility
  • Creates an atmosphere of increased competition for state investments and subsidies
  • Shifts workers currently in one industry to the gambling industry (known as “displacement”). This new development may take workers from other industries and moves them into the casino industry
  • Social costs increase related to increased crime and pathological gambling
  • Significant potential political influence from a single industry

This New Hampshire study also offered, “For a standard casino, most patrons come from within 30 miles and participation declines exponentially as distance increases. These markets do not conform to state or other political boundaries.”

casino 1Another issue identified by the study said, “In casino markets like Las Vegas and Atlantic City 8-10% of casino patrons are ‘problem gamblers” (National Opinion Research Center, 2000). A person is not going to have a problem unless they have access to gambling. Proximity to a casino impacts propensity to gamble. Proximity to a casino (e.g. within 50 miles) increases the risk of pathological problems (National Opinion Research Center, 2000). Problem gambling will impact communities closest to the gambling venue and decrease the further away you are.”

In addition, “An analysis by the New Hampshire Lottery Commission shows that scratch ticket sales have declined in the last six months of 2012 in the region of New Hampshire closest to the Oxford County casino.”

This New Hampshire study raises issues not previously discussed publicly such as a diminishment of state lottery sales in the geographic region closest to a casino or that pathological gambling increases in the geographic area closest to the casino.

roads 2What about the issue of traffic? The Connecticut South Western Regional Planning Agency issued a Casino Traffic Impact Study in 2009.  “The purpose of this study was to estimate the possible traffic and air quality impacts of the development of a casino in Bridgeport.” The study concluded, “that the development of a casino would have a significant impact on traffic congestion in southwestern Connecticut. 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 thus traffic impacts of casinos may be experienced at all times of day.” Many transportation agencies in many states where casinos have located have done similar studies. All recommend new transportation infrastructure whose costs are borne by taxpayers.

roads 1The increased traffic in the area will not just be due to the number of visitors to the casino. Add to that, traffic from employees as well as vendors and suppliers making deliveries with their semis at all hours of the day and night. In Glendale a traffic impact analysis study was done for Westgate and the University of Phoenix Stadium. As a result of those studies, additional traffic mitigation was created and paid for by the developers of those projects. There is no mechanism to compel the Tohono O’odham to enhance road infrastructure in the area. As a sovereign nation there is no local, state or federal mechanism to compel another nation (think of it as another country) to reimburse the costs of enhanced transportation infrastructure to and from their site.

constructionIn return for the problems created by a casino in an urban area, supporters of the casino continually use the mantra of (1) it will pump up business in the adjoining local area. They say that customers will leave the casino environment and move to Westgate to eat and to shop.  I doubt the restaurants and hotels, or Tanger Outlet Mall in Westgate would agree with that notion. More likely, customers with limited disposable income will make choices and it will be one or the other – Westgate or the casino – not both; and (2) it will bring jobs – temporary construction jobs and later, permanent jobs servicing the casino. Keep in mind, 25% of the jobs created, whether temporary construction jobs or permanent service jobs later, are reserved for Native Americans. At Talking Stick Casino, “Chanen Construction, which has worked with Casino Arizona for 14 years, divided the enormous job of sheet-rocking the interior and exterior into 10 different bid packages. This resulted in five firms getting the work, instead of one, which is the norm. But Chanen wanted ‘to maximize opportunities for different project participants,’ the company told McGraw-Hill Construction in a profile of Talking Stick published last fall. ‘We have a process where we let tribal members who own businesses participate as subcontractors, so we want to make the packages in smaller bites so more participation could occur’.”

The Tohono O’odham has 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 reportedly a much more realistic number for this facility). In an effort to “sell” the benefits of the casino, it is quite possible numbers have been inflated. It is a subtle form of deception, no doubt, but not unexpected considering the TO’s actions with regard to Proposition 202.

Problems throughout the country related to casino construction have surfaced. Here is but one example – 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.

Reports started as early as November, as a local member of the Carpenters Union raised the first alarm about locals being replaced by out-of-area workers.   Now the complaints are coming from a union cement worker who believes that approximately 70% of the casino workforce is made up of the out-of-towners.”

Those who think the casino is the answer to Glendale’s problems, will dismiss the arguments made in this blog and take this as an opportunity to respond in the negative. As long as comments are respectful of one another and deal with the issue at hand, they will be posted as responses to this blog.

In the next blog we will look at the legal issues and a basket full of attorneys involved in the casino issue.

copyright

casino 1Having read my previous post on the casino you should have a pretty good idea as to where the proposed casino will be sited and what people and properties will be impacted. Let’s go back in history to see what was occurring regarding the whole issue of Tribal gaming in the early 2000’s.

Long before the casino was a gleam in the eyes of the Tohono O’odham, in the mid-1990’s the land (approximately 135 acres) was owned by Jerry Kowalsky. Mr. Kowalsky and his group purchased the land in order to establish Icon Movie Studio. In tandem with submitting his plan he also started the procedure to annex the land. His plan was not approved by council. The dream died. Land that had been annexed was later deannexed by the city. His plan for a movie studio, some say, was never welcomed by the mayor. It was rumored at the time that she did not like the gentleman and did not believe he has the financing in place. Well, we all know now what a good judge of character and financial ability she turned out to be – witness Ellman and Moyes, both of whom promised much and delivered little. I supported Mr. Kowalsky’s plan. I believed it would be a catalyst to bring jobs and to cause support businesses  to locate there. Do you remember a movie, The Passion of Christ, produced by Icon Studios? It made a bazillion dollars. So much for Icon and its financial capabilities.

Ned Norris Jr Tohono O'odham Nation Chairman

Ned Norris Jr.
Tohono O’odham
Nation Chairman

DianeEnos Pres Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community

Diane Enos
President
Salt River
Pima-
Maricopa
Indian Community

It is widely known that since the spring of 2001 at the very latest, the Tohono O’odham was looking at West Valley locations for a possible casino site. they originally looked in the Buckeye area but their consultants advised them it was too far out and needed to be closer and in fact, suggested Glendale.While they were land shopping the talk of the state was a tribal gaming compact scheduled to go before the voters of the state in the election of 2002 known as Proposition 202. In the years previous all of the tribes in the state had met and worked collectively to hammer out the parameters of the proposed compact before bringing it to the state and the voters. The Tohono O’odham were heavily engaged in the inter-tribal discussions to hammer out this framework. Lately in court, the Tohono O’odham has been saying that they were unaware of any discussion to keep casinos out of metropolitan areas. Yet governors and legal counsel representing the tribes have flatly stated that the TO’s involvement in the process was full and robust.  In fact, Ned Norris, Jr. currently President of the TO Nation, actively and publicly stumped for passage of Prop 202 knowing full well its provisions and implications. The TO also contributed substantial funding for the publicity campaign used to persuade voters. All the while they were meeting secretly among one another to acquire land in the Phoenix metropolitan area. No wonder they wanted to retain their 4 casino allocation. They never planned to build the 4th casino in the Gila Bend area-they were too busy planning for the Phoenix area.

The following comes directly from the publicity pamphlet entitled, Yes on 202: The 17-Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiative, Answers to Common Questions, published and mailed to every registered voter in the state in the spring of 2001:

prop 202

According to the Prop 202 voter education pamphlet issued by the Arizona Secretary of State: “Voting “yes” on Proposition 202 ensures that no new casinos will be built in the Phoenix metropolitan area and only one in the Tucson area for at least 23 years.”

Gregory Mendoza President of Gila River Indian Community

Gregory Mendoza
President
Gila River
Indian Community

In Congressional hearings on the issue held last year Gila River Indian Community Governor Gregory Mendoza stated, “No new casinos in the Phoenix metropolitan area was a requirement made clear to all 17 tribes involved in the compact negotiations. It was a key commitment and without it there would never have been acceptance or the passage of Prop 202.”

The voter-approved Proposition 202 was rooted in three key elements:

  • Indian casinos would be kept out of neighborhoods;
  • Each tribe agreed to a specific casino allocation; some even gave up rights to additional casinos in order to limit the number within the state; and
  • Then Governor Jane Dee Hull in the Prop 202 voter education pamphlet issued by the Arizona Secretary of State, echoed the same with, “Voting ‘’yes” on Proposition 202 ensures that no new casinos will be built in the Phoenix metropolitan area and only one in the Tucson area for at least 23 years.” This was a lynch-pin issue for the Governor. Without it she was not willing to advocate for or sign a compact.

In December 2002 the Tohono O’odham and the state executed the voter approved compact and in February 2003 the United States Secretary of the Interior approved the compact. All the while Rainer Resources, Inc., a Delaware company with a Seattle mailing address acting as a Tohono O’odham shell company, secretly sought land in the Phoenix Metropolitan area for a casino.

In August of 2003, the TO under the guise of its shell company bought the land, knowing that it was within Glendale’s boundaries. Back in the 70’s there were “land wars” and each city staked out territory for future annexation. Glendale’s recognized western boundaries were set at Northern Avenue as its north boundary and Camelback Road as its south boundary. Any unincorporated land between those two boundaries could only be annexed into Glendale. The TO knew that for it had been policy and formally recognized for at least 30 years.

All that I have related regarding the TO’s actions can be found in the most recent court filing of April 14, 2013 and can be accessed by using this link: http://www.azcentral.com/ic/community/pdf/glendale-casino-case-court-filingx.pdf

bush

President
George W.
Bush

In 2003 there was absolute silence and the TO waited. Why? For a more favorable President and administration to assist them with their agena. They needed an administration to interpret the law favorably. George W. Bush, a Republican, was President at the time and his administration would not have supported the TO’s stealth move. So, they continued to wait until times and administrations became more favorable. In 2008, Barack Obama, a Democrat, was elected as the nation’s President. Good times for the TO had arrived. The tribe had waited 6 years. It was now 2008 and their time had come and they would not be denied.  Van Jones, President Obama’s former Green Jobs Czar, said this about Native Americans, “No more broken treaties. No more broken treaties. Give them the wealth. Give them the wealth. Give them dignity. Give them the respect they deserve. No justice on stolen land. We owe them a debt.”

obama

President
Barack
Obama

Almost immediately upon Obama’s inauguration, in late January of 2009, the TO literally descended upon Glendale’s City Hall and announced that they were coming…take it or leave it, like it or lump it. On January 28, 2009, the Tribe met with city staff and informed them that they had  transferred the land into its own name and had filed an application asking the Secretary of the Interior take the proposed casino site into trust so that it could be used for gaming. On the following day, the TO issued a press release with their intention to build a “Las Vegas-style” casino on the site. Two months later, city staff, having requested more specific information from the TO for their next meeting, met with the Tribe. The Tribe declined to provide any information until they had successfully secured reservation status. They knew they were now in the “cat-bird’s” seat and cooperation was not necessary to secure their objective.

So far, I have not broached the subject of the casino and its siting. Next up will be the casino and its implications for an urbanized area.

copyright

Casino…to be or not to be, Part 1

Posted by Joyce Clark on April 11, 2013
Posted in Casino  | Tagged With: , , | 4 Comments

On April 9, 2013 there was a court hearing in Phoenix on the issue of the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. From the reporting that has occurred Judge Campbell’s mind appears to be made up and it does not bode well for the State, the Gila River tribe or Glendale. Today I begin a series on the proposed Tohono O’odham casino. It’s proposed location is in a County island within the borders of Glendale, Arizona. We’ll look at geography and where the proposed casino sits in relation to other sites within Glendale. I created this map. It is not to scale but it does demonstrate the relative position of other, established development to the proposed casino site. Unfortunately, this site does not allow for a larger image. If you would like to see a larger version, email clarkjv@aol.com and I will send it to you as a jpg. file.

Casino Map LARGE JPG Ap 9 2013Perhaps the most important piece of geographical information is that the proposed casino will be approximately less than a 1/2 mile north of the Westgate site and Jobing.com arena. Another piece of the puzzle is the number of homes nearby:

There are 4 high density residential sites. Two of them are near Cabelas, directly south of and adjacent to the proposed casino site, for a total of approximately 800 units. The two other high density sites are in Westgate and are another approximately 800 units.

Now, add to those 1600 apartment units, these nearby residential communities: ProvenanceProvenance (across 91st Avenue and within 1/4 mile) with 120 homes; Rovey Farm Estates (across 91st Avenue and witin 1/4 mile) with 800+ homes; Broadway (within a mile) with 60+ homes; Pendergast Estates (within a mile) with 60+ homes; and Desert Mirage/La Buena Vida (within a mile) with 1200+ homes. That’s a total of 3,840 residential units in close proximity to the proposed casino. The recognized multiplier of residents per home is 2.5. Multiply those units by 2.5 persons per unit and that equates to 9,600 or almost 10,000 people living in very closeRoveyFarmEstates proximity to the proposed casino.

Centrada Norte

Centrada Norte

In addition to existent development in the area there are many future developments that have already been approved by Glendale City Council. These developments would add more hotels, more commercial and some additional residential units to the area. Some of these approved projects are: Centrada Norte, Bella Villagio, Sportsman’s Park East/Sportsman’s Park West, and Zanjero – all within a quarter of a mile to a mile away). By no means is this a complete list.

Kellis HS

Kellis HS

There is also a Peoria district high school. Raymond Kellis, directly east and across 91st Avenue from the proposed casino. The Peoria district also owns land to the east of the high school that has been planned for a number of years to beome an elementary school.

To recap, the proposed casino would impact nearly 10,000 people, a high school, Westgate and all future development of the area.

Next up…how did the Tohono O’odham get the land?

copyright