BestCraps.com

Lawmakers and City Government Oppose Proposed Glendale, AZ Tribal Casino

Posted on November 19th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

Proposals by Native American tribes to construct casinos generally do not meet much opposition form the government. In the case of a casino proposed to be constructed near Glendale Arizona, however, even legislators and the city itself are filing lawsuits to stop it. An announcement was made by 17 legislators and legislators-elect of the state of Arizona that they are opposed to the plans of the Tohono O’odham tribe of building a resort casino in the suburbs of Glendale, at 91st and Northern avenues. They also said they would like to join in the federal suit followed by the City of Glendale that aims to stop the casino from being opened.

The law firm that represents the legislators, the Rose Law Group, issued a statement which read, “In a motion filed with the U.S. District Court in Phoenix, the Tohono O’odham tribe asked a federal judge to alter a previously approved schedule for resolving the litigation. Instead, they want the judge to rush the litigation through so they may avoid possible action by the Legislature to protect the people of Arizona and our states’ rights.” Russel Pearce, the recently elected President of the State Senate, said that the tribe is putting too much pressure on everyone to have their proposal approved. He explained, “In all my years in government I have never seen chutzpah like that which is on display by the Tohono O’odhams. Their motion makes clear that they mean to cram this casino down the throats of Arizonans regardless of what the people think.”

The Rose Law Group further claimed that legislators have pointed out in their federal court filing the absurdity of this statement by the tribe: ‘The Federal Defendants and the Nation’s purpose for their opposition is clear – they seek to eliminate the chance that the State Legislature may have any voice in asserting the state’s sovereign interests in the Secretary’s decision to divest Arizona of its territorial and jurisdictional rights in the parcel at issue.’ Since then, legislators and legislators-elect of the state have given their support to any effort that would stop the construction of the casino.

At the start of November, Ned Norris Jr., Chairman of the Tohono O’odham Nation, called the pronouncement made by opponents to the resort casino as “irresponsible political rhetoric.” Norris has issued a statement in behalf of his tribe, saying that those opposed to the move are ignoring the opportunity for all parties to have a dialogue on how to make the project successful. He claimed, “Instead, they are doing everything they can to prevent job creation, economic activity and tourism promotion at a time when our state most desperately needs it. We will continue to seek this dialogue to ensure that this project is a win-win for all West Valley communities, despite the irresponsible political rhetoric directed against us by a very few.”

The tribe also pointed out that it had commissioned a survey that revealed that 70 percent of the residents of the West Valley area are supporting the project. The officials of the city are very much against it, though. The attorney of the city, Craig Tindall, said that the casino will have significant impacts on the different aspects of the city. He explained, “It changes the nature of the community forever. The federal government’s creation of an Indian reservation without the approval of the legislature violates the U.S. Constitution.” The attorney also claimed that the city does not place much weight on the survey. He said that surveys can always be done to obtain answers that people who have commissioned it desire. He also clarified that the tribe did not even release the survey question, which is the primary means of telling whether the survey is meaningful or not. Tindall added, “This is a complex issue and most people do not understand all that is entailed with the creation of an Indian reservation and with the legal issues the Tribe has created by amending their application. The Tribe insists that the casino resort will be an economic benefit to the community – contrary to many studies – yet, they have never publicly explained how this will ever occur (if it ever was to occur) if they do not have either federal or state authority to game.”