Boldrey and others speaking on behalf of Barwest LLC and its tribal partners have repeatedly insisted in public testimony that no modern-day tribes have any ancestral histories in Barstow.
They may have kept this information from Governor Schwarzenegger's representatives as well while they were negotiating agreements in 2005 that would give Detroit-based Barwest LLC the right to develop and manage two side by side casino resorts in Barstow and earn up to 30% of the net proceeds of the two Indian casinos.
Curiously, The City of Barstow has been delaying public participation in the legally mandated update of its ten year old General Plan, last updated in 1997.
* * *
FROM: Ron Rector (Barstow Economic Development Director)
SENT: February 23, 2005
RE: HCED Listserve Draft Tribal Consultation Guidelines Regarding Local Land Use Planning
Lance:
Looks like the Chemehuvis’ [sic] may get a shot at you yet.
------
FROM: Boldrey, Lance R. (attorney, Barwest LLC)
SENT: February 23, 2005
RE: HCED Listserve Draft Tribal Consultation Guidelines Regarding Local Land Use Planning
I would not necessarily jump to that conclusion, although I’d be interested to get Scott’s [Priester, then-Barstow Planning Director] perspective after he’s reviewed the materials and gone through the workshop (if he’s going).
First, these appear to be triggered only upon adoption or amendment of “general” or “specific” plans. I defer to you guys and the CEQA experts as to whether that is required by our development and a new MSA.
Second, and more to the point, these require consultation only when a tribe has a “cultural place” within the city’s limits. As I read the definitions and examples of such sites (page 4 of the supplement document), the asserted Chemehuevi “place” does not appear to fit. “Cultural place” appears to be intended to capture those sites of either permanent habitation or of particular religious significance, with the caveat that the term also includes sites listed or eligible for listing in the CA Register of Historic Places. The Chemehuevi “site” within the city’s limits was only a campground on a trading route from, I believe the late 1800’s. We also do not know if any historical evidence has actually established it as such. (All we know is someone from the City contacted the tribe several years ago to see if this campground was linked to them, and they of course agreed that it was.)
As you know the historical research we commissioned from experts in the field shows that the Barstow area was inhabited historically by a band that is now extinct. Any other tribal ties to the area would have been tenuous ties from tribes essentially just passing through. Accordingly, I would not conclude that the Chemehuevi will have standing to weigh in even if a new or amended “general” or “specific” plan is required.
(From an outside perspective, I think this bill is likely to lead to real chaos, as many tribes will undoubtedly “overclaim” the protections of the act to demonstrate power over larger areas of territory. If there is no real independent check to determine if a site is, in fact, a “cultural place” expect a nightmare.)
Finally, this issue does present one potential problem with moving the site for the gaming development, if, in fact, the parcel that Argovitz is pursuing is the same parcel that the Chemehuevi had optioned, the Chemehuevi’s fee-to-trust applications asserts that the so-called Chemehuevi campsite is actually located ON THIS PARCEL. This could complicate matters if different tribes seek to have the land placed into trust ...
------
FROM: Scott Priester (Barstow Planning Director)
SENT: March 03, 2005
RE: Lance Boldrey Comments
Thoughts/comments on Lance Boldrey’s comments
1) I am not attending the workshop – it’ll likely be in northern California;
2) The destination resort project is located in the adopted Lenwood Specific Plan area. Depending on the details of the development that will be off federal lands, an amendment to the specific plan may be needed to carry out the project (the devil’s in the details).
3) It doesn’t appear to matter if there is a “cultural place” in the City – if their name is on the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) list, we’re subject to it. I have requested a list from the NAHC of the tribes with whom the City will have to consult. It was faxed to NAHC in Sacramento today, so stay tuned.
All in all, I don’t necessarily think this will be a way to tube a project, but it could cause delay, mitigation negotiations, etc. on certain projects.
No comments:
Post a Comment