HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03162004 - C.41 C.41
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on March 16, 2004 by the following vote:
%..e
AYES: Supervisors Gioia,Uilkema, Greenberg,DeSaulnier and Glover
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors opposing Indian Casino
Projects in the Contra Costa County.
On this date,the Board considered adoption of Resolution of the Board of
supervisors opposing Indian Casino Projects in the Contra Costa County.
The Board discussed the history of the issue and requested clarification of various
relative items. After conclusion of further discussions,the Board took the following
action:
1. RETURN to undetermined date;
2. DIRECTED County Administrator and County Counsel to develop workshops
including information from CSAC, ABAG, and any other public or private
agency as soon as possible; and
3. DIRECTED County Administrator to return with a protocol that any future
supplemental agenda items placed before the Board has author's approval.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of
an action taken and entered on the minutes of the
Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
Attested:March 16,2004
John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board
of Supervi rs and County Administrator
By:
Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION Not
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OPPOSING
INDIAN CASINO PROJECTS IN THE CONTA COSTA COUNTY
WHEREAS, on non-tribal lands,the United States Secretary of the Interior must
determine that a casino will not be detrimental to the surrounding community and the Governor
of the State of California must concur in this determination; and
Vv'REREAS, the Secretary of the Interior must consider the views of local officials when
making the determination;
WHEREAS,the leaders of the House of Representatives have asked the Department of
Interior to oppose"reservation shopping"and strongly urged the Department of the Interior not
to approve any more off-reservation casinos; and
WHEREAS,United States Senator Dianne Feinstein is on record as being opposed to
such off-reservation casinos; and
WHEREAS, any agreement with the state for local revenue sharing does not compensate
the local community or County for the actual direct and indirect costs of gaming; and
WHEREAS, Indian Tribes are now opening adjoining non-gaming businesses, such as
car dealerships,that do not have to pay tax or comply with state environmental or labor laws; and
WHEREAS, Indian tribes are exempt from most State laws such that any Indian business
that opens on Indian land has huge competitive advantages over any competing non Indian local
business and can cause local businesses to fail.
WHEREAS, a large scale tribal casino in Contra Costa County will be a significant
burden to our over-crowded roadway system, and a 24 hour Indian casino will add significant
trips to an already grid-locked regional roadway system,including Highway 4, SR 242, 1-80; and
WHEREAS, at other Indian casinos, traffic has increased by 200%, and accidents by
500%, causing back-ups that last hours, and large Indian casinos can cause 40-50,000 additional
car trips per day; and
VvTMREAS, the environmental impacts of casino projects could have the potential of
being far reaching and of such a magnitude that they would negatively affect all of Contra Costa
County and a significant portion of the Bay Area, including grossly aggravating existing traffic
problems; and
WHEXEAS, under the provisions of Proposition IA and the Tribal-State Compact, local
communities have been granted no effective input into the development of proposed Indian
casinos that threaten their rights and the State and local governments appear to have no effective
redress for significvit environmental impacts that gaming casinos impose on local cone aunities.
TZ:ZT V00Z-TT-8dW
0.4, (
TRIBAL CASINO FACT SHEET
is RESERVATION SHOPPING IS CONTRARY TO FEDERAL AND STATE POLICY*
TRIBES DO NOT HAVE THE RIGH`TO BUILD URBAN CASINOS,
Before a tribe can take land into tnist and withdraw it from state jurisdiction, the Secretary of
Interior must approve the acquisition. Under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act(``IGLU"), the
Secretary, after consulting with local officials,must determine that a casino will not be detrimental to
the suirounding community and the Governor must concur. The Governor,unlike the Secretary, is not
required to make any findings regarding the merits or harms of tribal gaming. Confederated Tribes of
Siletz Indians v. United States, 110 F.3d 688, 694(9`'' Cir. 1997). The only exception is where the tribe
is acquiring land in their historical locality. Even then, the State can refuse to a compact for Class III
gaming on urban lands. Wisconsin Winnebago Nation v. Thompson, 824 F.Supp.167, 171 (D WI. 1993),
a Cir.
1994);Artichoke Joe's v. Norton, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 25893 (2003) at
.fd 22 F.3d 719 {7`ti
*82-83;IGRA, 25 U.S.C. §2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)(1).
In June 2003, following well-publicized abuses like San Pablo,the leaders of the House of
Representatives asked the Secretary to oppose"reservation shopping"and off-reservation casinos.
When Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory act("IGRA'l in 1988,they did not intend
to authorize"reservation shopping"by Indian tribes. Indeed, IGRA presumptively prohibits
gaming on all afteT-acquired lands and only permits off-reservation gaming under extremely
limited circumstances. However, some Indian tribes are apparently attempting to take advantage
of IGRA's provisions and move into lucrative casino markets far from their reservations and
lands where they have a historical connection. (Letter from Speaker Hastert, attached).
Senator Feinstein is similarly on record as opposed to such casinos.
2, URBAN RESERVATIONS UNDERMINE PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES, AND
CAUSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN UNREIMBURSED PUBLIC
COSTS*
Indian lands are not subject to state civil jurisdiction. Therefoie,businesses on reservations do
not have to pay taxes, or comply with state or local land use,envirownental or labor laws. Moreover,
tribes are now opening fion-gaming,businesses, such as car dealerships,that do not have to pay property
or sales tax. For example,tribes have owned or operated"smoke shops,"a resort hotel, an airport, a
sawmill,restaurants, an automobile racetrack,banks, outlet malls,television stations, spas, textile
manufkcturing, electronics manufacturing, and health clubs. In an urban area,tius creates a black hole,
where state and local jurisdiction ends, and any business can relocate immune from regulation or tax.
This hurts the community, schools, fire and police protection, etc... Oklahoma estimates a$580 million
annual loss M* tax revenues due to tribal businesses. New York estimates an annual loss of$895 mi Ilion
alone from tribal tobacco sales.
Moreover,,these Tribal casinos and other business cause severe local impacts. San Diego County
estimates$500 million in un-reimbursed expenses due to Tribal gaming. Agreements for local revenue
sharing do not compensate for the actual direct and indirect costs. Local governments,have little ability
to even negotiate with Tribes. The burdens fall on taxpayers.
TZ:ZT VOOZ-TT-8UW
oft
so 0 8 1U101
30 URBAN INDIAN CASINOS HURT LOCAL BUSINESSES.
Tribal casinos withdraw hundreds of millions of dollars per year in disposable consumer income,
money otherwise that would be spent on local businesses for home improvement, housing and consumer
goods. And any other Indian business that opens on Indian land has huge competitive advantages over
any competing non-Indian local business,which will cause any competing local businesses to fail.
4,, THE INDIAN CASINO MAY EXPAND ITS OPERATIONS.
Once areservation exists,the tribe can add adjoining land despite state and local objections.
S. PUBLIC OPINION IS STRONGLY AGAINST INDIAN CASINOS.
The voters were told that Tribal casinos would be in remote areas and on existing reservations.
Polls show that 79%of the people oppose urban tribal casinos, and only 18%support for Proposition 1A
today. In Rohnert Park, local citizens are organizing a recall of officials who solicited a Tribal casino.
66 TRIBAL CASINOS HAVE SIGNIFICANT LAND USE AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
Tribal casinos burden already over-crowded roadway systems and interfere with local land use
planning. At some Tribal casinos,traffic has increased by 200%, and accidents by 500%, causing back-
ups that last hours. A Tribal casino can cause 40-50,000 additional car trips per day. Thi's is not"smart
growth." Most counties want the flexibility to locate high quality low impact businesses,with good
jobs,near highways,rather than low-wage casino jobs over which they have no control.
7, TRIBAL CASINOS PROVIDE SCANT PUBLIC BENEFITS., AND THE BENEFITS FOR
NATIVE AMERXCANS ARE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE.
Tribal casinos have no meaningful oversight or regulation. Patrons, vendors and employees are
surprised to learn that they have to resort to tribal courts for disputes.The state cannot sue tribes.
Tribes are exempt from McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform,law, and refuse to comply with
the California Political Reform Act.
Two thirds of all Native Americans in Californiab are not enrolled members of a tribe, and therefore
get absolutely no benefit from tribal casinos. (Indeed,many tribes with casinos unfairly"thiti"
their ranks in order to maximize per capita distributions.)
Even for those persons that are enrolled members of a California tribe, there is a tmmendous
disparity in casino related income from between$287 to$3 million annually. Tribal gaming does
\4* not reflect a'�rational"distribution of benefits or a rational social policy.
10
Non-Indian out of state investors are major beneficiaries of tribal gaming. They take approx. up to
50 percent of the tribal casinos annual gross revenues amounting to approx. $2.5 billion each year.
See Bartlett et al., Time Magazine, Keel of Misfortune(Dec. 16, 2002);Bartlett et al.,Time
Magazine, Playing the Political Slots(Dec. 23,2002).
1
.rhc wild rise of Indian gambling has tumcd a relatively tiny number of individuals into millionaires,political
rainmakers, and "sovereign nation' moguls untouchable by every day law." American Enterprise, 37,Jan./Feb-04.
TZ:ZT VOOZ-TT-NUW
RESOLUTION No.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OPPOSING
INDIAN CASINO PROJECTS IN THE CONTA COSTA COUNTY
WHEREAS,on non-tribal lands,the United States Secretary of the Interior must
determine that a casino will not be detrimental to the surrounding community and the Governor
of the State of California must concur in this delamination; and
WI-TEREAS,the Secretary of the Interior must consider the views of local officials when
making the determination;
WHEREAS,the leaders of the House of Representatives have asked the Department of
Interior to oppose"reservation shopping"and strongly urged the Department of the Interior not
to approve any more off-reservation casinos; and
WHEREAS,United States Senator Dianne Feinstein is on record as being opposed to
such off-reservation casinos; and
WHEREAS, any agreement with the state for local revenue sharing does not compensate
the local community oTCounty for the actual direct and indirect costs of gaming; and
WHEREAS,Indian Tribes are now opening adjoining non-gaming businesses, such as
car dealerships,that do not have to pay tax or comply with state environmental or labor laws; and
WHEREAS,,Indian tribes are exempt from most State laws such that any Indian business
that opens on Indian land has huge competitive advantages over any competing non Indian local
business and can cause local businesses to fail.
WHEREAS,a large scale tribal casino in Contra Costa County will be a significant
burden to our over-crowded roadway system,and a 24 hour Indian casino will add Significant
trips to an already grid-locked regional roadway system, including Highway 4,SR 242,1-80; and
WHEREAS,at other Indian casinos,traffic has increased by 200%, and accidents by
500%, causing back-ups that last hours,and large Indian casinos can cause 40-50,,000 additional
oar trips per day-, and
WHEREAS, the environmental impacts of casino projects could have the potential of
being far reaching and of such a magnitude that they would negatively affect all of Contra Costa
County and a significant portion of the Bay Area, including grossly aggravating existing Uaffic
problems; and
WHEREAS, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the Tribal-State Compact, local
communities have been granted no effective input into the development of proposed Indian
casinos that threaten their rights and the State and local governments appear to have no effective
i
redress for significant environmental impacts that gaming casinos mpose on local corru aunities.
C'M/7n&J T7.7 T K-4017.T T NHI.I
w'
4
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
strongly opposes the creation of an Indian ,gaming casino on any site in Contra Costa County.
C 12004
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTENTIONS:
Adopted this day of March. -, 2004.
Federal D. Mover, Chair
Board of Supervisors
5106200204
MR-42-2004 FRI 04:54 54 Phi CITY OF SAN PABLO FAX N0. 5I06200204
-�-._.. _..... Pe 01
S) •
C1 Y 0 SAN PAB 0
One Alvarado Square
13831 Sart Pablo Avenue
San Pablo, CA 94806
�� �•
WWW. -�pablo.ea.us
. . ..... Phone 510.215.3000 Fax 510.620.0204
Office of the Mayor
Contra Costa Board of Supervisors via fair: 925.335.1913 and mail
Administration Building
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553-1229
Dear Board Members:
In reviewing;the Board's agenda for March 16,we noticed that there is an added item
"'Opposing the creation of an Indian Gaming on any site in Contra Costa County''. We
have received the CSAC fact sheet and take issue with many of its assertions.
We respectfully suggest that you look to the City of San Pablo's Municipal Services
agreement as a model to be built upon by communities considering Indian Gaming. This
community participates in revenues from this business and the business complies with all
of our building codes. More importantly,we feel that the Board's policy decisions should
pertain to sites that are within the unincorporated areas of the county and not within the
cities of the coiuity.
We cannot accept the notion that communities cannot regulate tribes nor benefit from
their operations and submit to you a copy of the Municipal Services Agreement between
the City of San Pablo and the Lytton Band of the Porno Indians as a factual basis for our
position.
Sincerely,
t
Barbara Vigil
Mayor
Attachment
cc: San Pablo City Council
Contra Costa Cities
Lytton Band of the Pomo Indians
MAR-12-2004 FRI 04.55 PM CITY OF SAN PABLO FAX N0. 5106200204 p, 02
MW2-12- 004 1156 Contra Costa County 925 335 1098 P,03/V4
1&" A, P/1
T�$AL CASYNO FACT$ T
z. RESERVATION oFPING!$CONTRA-SLY To SZDERAI.AND BTwTE POLICY.
-YR ZRES DO NOT I3AVIE RIGHT TO BUILD UUAN CA=NOB.
j3dam a nibs elm taloa lid pinto that end withdraw it from Vtste jwi sdicfionp r!A S of
latarios must vs the aequwtioA. Ulidsr the Iindisn Crming Regulatory Act("10RAlo the
Soczewy, after consulting with local os.must dewire dut a a�so will not be detrimeatxl 10
tl+e sursoundiag c�ammuo�ity aad the ck�y�must ron�ur, �'he Gova�au�r.unHice tl�o 5ec,�t�ry,it not
required to mea my tGidiass —Al the maita or hum of tn*bal Sawing+ Confsdaratsd Tri+bw of
Slletz Indians v Mftd SYatas, i I O F.3c!688,694(90'Cft: 1997).The only oocccptioa is wbm ft gibe
Is acquiring 1wd in their hisWtical locality. 8ve+n than,the State can refte to a compact for ClM M
gaming
anurban lseudi. WltcoutR Wbtxsbugv Nation a Thapson,824 F.Upp.167, 171 (D WL 1993),
Wd 22 F.3d 719(7*Ciro 1994);Artichoke Joe fir v Norton,2003 U.3.App. 25893 (2003)at
*8243;IC3R,A.25 V.S.C. J2710(d)(7)(BKdW)t
In Jun e 2003 fbUowir+g weUIpablidtal abuses like Sm Psbin.the I of the House of
ftrawtW"I welted the 5eas�+w oppose srvatiaa aioppiu�"=d aSre:avatioo oas�soa.r
When Conpw paged the =C,�niag R– ulatory qct("IGR1►')io 1988,&eY did not imand
to aut'hoziw"Mvrvaaon"pptng"by Indian tn'bn. Indoed.lGRA.prestuc�ptivoly prohibits
gaming op all aftar-acquivad Zand only permits off-reserr►stim gmniag tmdat acftnsly
lieaited ait+aumstwicic However,some laditw gibes am srattly I to taioe sdv�uisge
of YQRA's provisions wad move into luerative casino madccu lour txieir reser+itions wd
1 9 whom they hive a histvrical eomection. (Lemr from Speaker Hattan, ed).
Se�autot Paaatte�a is ac�tly on record as opposed to au,ah .
j. V"A►N R$8ERVATIONB UNDERMIriE MOPRRTY AND SALPB TAXES,AND
� MRS�CAVSE MIND DOFMnIIOr$OF 0OLLA pUSLYC
COSTSIr
Indian lands gra aat aubjoct tv cihljwisdicn�. TbWoie.k�nanessea on rwavallons do
not have to pay axes,or wmply w*b stu or local land u 0.environmental or Ubor kva- iKomver,
tabes am now openiu,g noon gsmirtg bwiuesse�,such as car do not have to PAY I�PatY
or WN tax. For sxuupIrv,tis have avvnW or oparated"amo�Ce sbap�,"&lriort hotel,an siipon,a
stwmill.rt�tturaat�,xn automobile racatrack,bm1�,ouslat iaaUs,teltvisi�stations,span,textile
. matt�ie��eltcdnnics tt�tauArcturinP,Bund
health club:. In an utibsn ae,ek orucao z btgcic hole,
were statR wad loe4 jutiends,and=y busiaes�caA relocate itt�tuAe fr�n regutatian or tauc.�
This hurt�a t�►e commu�tY.sv�+oeala,�and pollee prrot�atiou,etc... OkI�ha�s atimsts�s X580�Uioss .
a=wl Iva is taxrcvenua due to tnbsl busiNew Yorks an agmw,l Iona of S895 million
alone from idba1 tabs cca setas.
Mvr+oover,tihess Tribal casiays gad otic brswe covers tonal imps. 5ais Diego Cot�ty
estimu�$SOQ million in ua�tmbu�aed axpe�ases due to Tr�bat giminX Agroe�a�►ts four laa�l r to
si�a,nia�do not oompa�sate for she�retual diteet wad iadiroct+mss. I.oW govammaeats have little obility
To eve nnatius wtth'i'Hbe9. The fill on wpa,Yars.
W"Old .
T2:Zi �-�t-tl�I
MAK-1 I-2UU4 FRI U4:bb Fm cirry OF SAN PABLO FAX NO, 5106200204 P. 03
MAR-Ie-2W4 11;58 Contra Costa CountW 925 335 1M P,04/04
URR"
1"IAN CASINOS 19 CAL]BUSMSSR&
Ttibal casinos wilxkaw huadM&of haus afdoUaa ym m" divetable
othavive w*WA be spftt an to b 05 four bol"impmv"ne"t housing Anct C 0
A on kuhan I has hu" e a4muges over
m, Aud=Y other kA bu OPM3 fou"
any Wompefinil m JnMam food businam Whin WW 4WUW=Y clompftg to 918-il-to
4, xmlt RMUS CASINO MAY EXPAND 0MRATIONSIS
Onoo a g1wayadon cxht%lie tube ON add*Vohing land stas and MW obi
st PUBLIC OPINION IS STRONGLY,AGA ST DMUS'CAS" IN0S*
The Vat=Wft*told tbat Tnialc umloos-would be in rote am aud on CdSdn9 r*MVAti0W*
Polls show that 79%of ther people wban tribal egos,and OrdY 18%=Waft fbr Pr0P0 1A
to&Y* Inict--malt Pstk,INAI effims woorganizinS a,rood of of Who#0WtedaTribAlCWno4
6. TRIBAL CASINOS HAVE SIGNIIqCAM LA"USZ AND TRAMC IMPACTS*
Tribal -se-1—ow bwdom*eady 9V4raGMW4C4 ModwaY S With kcd land
p-lanr6"g* Atom TAMM-UArr -bye,haz cue J mcw;dmu by SW*
=
UPS that last Hours. A T1*21 ca nor Gn 40-50.000 04diticell car tips per day. Thiv is not"Snuft
9MWth,.*" Most Counties wet __0=__ to locate high qU41'I tY 10W impact busiumm,with pod
ve
iota,non hithwam rather low-wage c ,lobs over which gory ba rM Wntrul.
7, TWRAL CASINOS PROVMlt SCANT PURUC SENtnTSt AND THE FUS FOR
NATNE AM 'ANS ARE I3LY QUESTIOl�'�TA'�0
0 Tnbal casinos have Uo ovew&or re n. Patrons,vendan and Mplayvft ase
*bid coU for ft$.
smpri"*d to IUM*A fty h to Mon to M cm-at suit tn
0 Tribes am Qx t fim mccalvarewp1d 04mogn r.cc IWO reft"to CWW1Y%Wth
the cauftmda polifical Re$=AZ.
IF TWO tdl*of 511 Nadv*AMWI I IMM M cawbnAa of i tribe,and thawfore
AN 4 d
so absolutely no benefit tnbil - (Ind maw U%m with mdnos iwnwy
X1 !go
their m*j in oro to maid =0%dbtdbUtf0U&)
• P I
Even for that we en m of a fie,these Is a tr
Y Nil dam
dilWIL
lit
M 06&0 __m_n__, fi0Anbotw*m$287to$3 W# U&HY. Tribal g do%
*Anot r4ect*"ndoull'distnImfion oftnefits ora ratsmw social policy.
0 Non-In aW of stae investm its moor b=40mes of mu They take-wlr--DX.up to
P I ININ
50 � out 0=811 mvenuft=amting to Xyylox,$2.3 billion a&year.
'S"Bden st*L2 Time e, Wreel ofjWbfortwer(Dec. 166 20 );Bwfleft et d,,,Time
M992ai"96 PlaYlAW the PDRUCal Slots(Do&23,2002�
'Tht wOd ifte of UkUan paVing has WmW a rWadvidy tiny mm*cr of indivi It U-MOUGM-hTs
#A A- .ret
- -11 MW
nation'moxWs Unsouchabl*by evvry day law." A.....94'"rp ARW(wp"371 hnReb."
MTFL P a 04