5.20.07
Big Lagoon's Barstow casino project a bust?
Jessie Faulkner The Times-Standard
BIG LAGOON -- The proposal to establish a casino in Barstow instead of adjacent to Big Lagoon may very well be history.
Unless there's a state legislative hearing scheduled between now and Thursday to move Big Lagoon Rancheria's gaming compact for a casino in Barstow forward, the Rancheria's chairman said it's very likely that the tribe will abandon the legal settlement and once again negotiate for a casino at Big Lagoon.
Big Lagoon Rancheria Chairperson Virgil Moorehead said Friday that he had expected to meet with legislators last week to schedule an informational hearing before the Government Organizational Committee, but that meeting had been postponed twice. The hearing is required to bring the compact to a vote in the state Senate and, later, in the Assembly.
Meanwhile, the settlement of the federal case brought against the state earlier, alleging bad faith negotiating, specified that if the Barstow property isn't brought into trust by May 31, the tribe can walk away.
Moorehead said there is the provision allowing the Rancheria to extend the settlement until Sept. 15, but he had little interest in doing so as of Friday.
Without ratification of the gaming compact -- much touted by the governor's office when it was signed in September 2005 -- there's no reason for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring the Barstow property into trust.
”There's no reason for us to continue to negotiate if the Legislature and the governor are not going to approve it,” Moorehead said.
So far, the chairman said, five gaming compacts have been approved by the state Senate and passed to the Assembly, while Big Lagoon has been unable to schedule a committee hearing on its compact.
The bottom line is that the process will begin anew with the Rancheria negotiating for construction of a casino at Big Lagoon.
The compact -- the first in the state to allow gaming operations away from tribal homelands -- attempted its first journey through the state legislative process during last year's session. The Government Organizational Committee voted down by the compact, but left the door open for a second attempt, however a second hearing wasn't scheduled.
This year, legislation to ratify the compact, has been stalled in the rules committee since its introduction in January. And while most legislative bills have until May 31 to pass out of committee or die, the gaming compacts are being considered as memorandums of understanding, or MOUs, according to a representative from state Sen. Pat Wiggins office. Wiggins is sponsoring the bill to ratify Big Lagoon's gaming compact. As MOUs, the May 31 deadline for moving out of committee does not apply.
Moorehead, who has grown increasingly impatient with the snail-like pace of the process, vows to pursue establishing a casino at Big Lagoon.
The original intent behind allowing Big Lagoon Rancheria to build a casino in Barstow was to avoid damage to the environmentally sensitive shores of the lagoon.
Other elements of the proposed compact, however, raised caution flags for some of the state's larger tribes who fear the more liberal labor language, as in easier to organize employee unions, and the higher percentage of gaming revenue earmarked for the state -- might come into play when their own compacts come up for renewal.
If the Rancheria returns to federal court after pulling out of the settlement agreement -- there's a court date in mid-June in Oakland -- a motion will likely be filed alleging, once again, that the state is negotiating in bad faith.
Should the federal court rule that the state has negotiated in bad faith, one possibility is that both the Rancheria and the state could submit proposed gaming compacts to an independent arbitrator, Moorehead said. The arbitrator would then chose one of the compacts, essentially eliminating the state's right to negotiate any of the compact provisions including a percentage of the resulting revenue. The compact would then go directly to the U.S. Department of Interior for approval.
”That would be a big precedent for California,” Moorehead said.
Meanwhile, the California Coastal Commission, the Sierra Club and the state Department of Fish and Game have their fingers crossed that the Barstow project will come to fruition.
But the state Coastal Commission has a bit more power than hopeful finger-crossing. In the event, that the Big Lagoon Rancheria receives U.S. Department of Interior approval to proceed with a casino at Big Lagoon, the state Coastal Commission may sue.
According to Coastal Commission legislative liaison Sara Christie, the state commission has authority over such a project under the provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act which preceded the California Coastal Act. The federal government ruled that any state who adopts a federally approved coastal program, has the authority to review federal projects. A casino at Big Lagoon would qualify as a federal project.
So, Christie said, if the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not refer such a project to the California Coastal Commission, the commission would file a lawsuit.
The larger concern is the potential environmental impact to the ecologically sensitive area. Such a project would adversely impact the water quality, viewshed and endangered species, she said.
Meanwhile, Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas continues to support the gaming compact that would allow Big Lagoon to open a casino in Barstow. The director spent time in Sacramento during April talking to legislators about the issue, according to Christie.
”From every angle you look at it,” she said, “it just makes sense to move it to Barstow.”
To further complicate matters, however, Christie said Las Vegas based gaming interests had stepped forward with objections about the proposal to build a casino along the main highway to the center of Nevada's gaming industry.
Jessie Faulkner can be reached at 441-0517 or jfaulkner@times-standard.com
Jessie Faulkner The Times-Standard
BIG LAGOON -- The proposal to establish a casino in Barstow instead of adjacent to Big Lagoon may very well be history.
Unless there's a state legislative hearing scheduled between now and Thursday to move Big Lagoon Rancheria's gaming compact for a casino in Barstow forward, the Rancheria's chairman said it's very likely that the tribe will abandon the legal settlement and once again negotiate for a casino at Big Lagoon.
Big Lagoon Rancheria Chairperson Virgil Moorehead said Friday that he had expected to meet with legislators last week to schedule an informational hearing before the Government Organizational Committee, but that meeting had been postponed twice. The hearing is required to bring the compact to a vote in the state Senate and, later, in the Assembly.
Meanwhile, the settlement of the federal case brought against the state earlier, alleging bad faith negotiating, specified that if the Barstow property isn't brought into trust by May 31, the tribe can walk away.
Moorehead said there is the provision allowing the Rancheria to extend the settlement until Sept. 15, but he had little interest in doing so as of Friday.
Without ratification of the gaming compact -- much touted by the governor's office when it was signed in September 2005 -- there's no reason for the Bureau of Indian Affairs to bring the Barstow property into trust.
”There's no reason for us to continue to negotiate if the Legislature and the governor are not going to approve it,” Moorehead said.
So far, the chairman said, five gaming compacts have been approved by the state Senate and passed to the Assembly, while Big Lagoon has been unable to schedule a committee hearing on its compact.
The bottom line is that the process will begin anew with the Rancheria negotiating for construction of a casino at Big Lagoon.
The compact -- the first in the state to allow gaming operations away from tribal homelands -- attempted its first journey through the state legislative process during last year's session. The Government Organizational Committee voted down by the compact, but left the door open for a second attempt, however a second hearing wasn't scheduled.
This year, legislation to ratify the compact, has been stalled in the rules committee since its introduction in January. And while most legislative bills have until May 31 to pass out of committee or die, the gaming compacts are being considered as memorandums of understanding, or MOUs, according to a representative from state Sen. Pat Wiggins office. Wiggins is sponsoring the bill to ratify Big Lagoon's gaming compact. As MOUs, the May 31 deadline for moving out of committee does not apply.
Moorehead, who has grown increasingly impatient with the snail-like pace of the process, vows to pursue establishing a casino at Big Lagoon.
The original intent behind allowing Big Lagoon Rancheria to build a casino in Barstow was to avoid damage to the environmentally sensitive shores of the lagoon.
Other elements of the proposed compact, however, raised caution flags for some of the state's larger tribes who fear the more liberal labor language, as in easier to organize employee unions, and the higher percentage of gaming revenue earmarked for the state -- might come into play when their own compacts come up for renewal.
If the Rancheria returns to federal court after pulling out of the settlement agreement -- there's a court date in mid-June in Oakland -- a motion will likely be filed alleging, once again, that the state is negotiating in bad faith.
Should the federal court rule that the state has negotiated in bad faith, one possibility is that both the Rancheria and the state could submit proposed gaming compacts to an independent arbitrator, Moorehead said. The arbitrator would then chose one of the compacts, essentially eliminating the state's right to negotiate any of the compact provisions including a percentage of the resulting revenue. The compact would then go directly to the U.S. Department of Interior for approval.
”That would be a big precedent for California,” Moorehead said.
Meanwhile, the California Coastal Commission, the Sierra Club and the state Department of Fish and Game have their fingers crossed that the Barstow project will come to fruition.
But the state Coastal Commission has a bit more power than hopeful finger-crossing. In the event, that the Big Lagoon Rancheria receives U.S. Department of Interior approval to proceed with a casino at Big Lagoon, the state Coastal Commission may sue.
According to Coastal Commission legislative liaison Sara Christie, the state commission has authority over such a project under the provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act which preceded the California Coastal Act. The federal government ruled that any state who adopts a federally approved coastal program, has the authority to review federal projects. A casino at Big Lagoon would qualify as a federal project.
So, Christie said, if the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not refer such a project to the California Coastal Commission, the commission would file a lawsuit.
The larger concern is the potential environmental impact to the ecologically sensitive area. Such a project would adversely impact the water quality, viewshed and endangered species, she said.
Meanwhile, Coastal Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas continues to support the gaming compact that would allow Big Lagoon to open a casino in Barstow. The director spent time in Sacramento during April talking to legislators about the issue, according to Christie.
”From every angle you look at it,” she said, “it just makes sense to move it to Barstow.”
To further complicate matters, however, Christie said Las Vegas based gaming interests had stepped forward with objections about the proposal to build a casino along the main highway to the center of Nevada's gaming industry.
Jessie Faulkner can be reached at 441-0517 or jfaulkner@times-standard.com
origial story can be found at http://times-standard.com/local/ci_5943055 or http://haloscan.com/tb/timesstandard/5943055
also from the Times Standard: Gaming Compact Previously Voted Down in Assembly Remains 'Stymied' in Senate Rules Committee; Big Lagoon Rancheria signs Barstow extension
You may also want to review these additional posts:
- Secret deal would at least double size of tribes' twin casino mega resort holdings
- Failure to meet Governor's May 31st deadline could terminate Tribe's unratified gaming agreement
- Detroit casino developer quietly paid Tribes' $111k lobbying bills
- When it comes to the environment, Detroit Casino syndicator is two-faced with "green"
- Compacts for non-gaming tribes being considered in California present inequities
- Despite gaming agreements, Tribe could pursue commercial development at Big Lagoon
- 'Disadvantaged' Tribe has amassed additional property valued at $2.65 million
- Spokesman for casino syndicators in denial; Barstow gaming compacts have been on life support for the last year
- Author of Barstow casino bill not hopeful
