BestCraps.com

Proposed Casino Plan Meets Differing Views

Posted on December 15th, 2010

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

A plan proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein regarding Native American owned casinos has been met with opposing opinions. The plan, according to Feinstein, would make it harder for tribes to set up casinos on newly acquired land. In order for a tribe to currently do so, they would have to show significant ties to the land; both historical and modern. The proposed legislation will make it even harder. While Feinstein’s plan initially involved tribes around the California Bay Area building casinos in urban areas of the state. People such as Washington Attorney Judith Shapiro forsee it affecting tribes across the country. “She has her eye on the Bay Area, but (her plan) would grotesquely and adversely affect many tribes across the country.”, she said. Native American’s fear that the proposed law would prevent most casino’s from being built on newly acquired land due to the impossibility of the requirements.

As chairperson of an appropriations subcommittee that controls the budget for the Department of Interior, which deals with Indian Tribes and their land issues, Senator Feinstein is a very formidable opponent to the Native American Tribes who seek to operate their own casinos. And Dianne Feinstein has continually shown her determination against Native American Tribe proposals for casinos—even at the last stretch of her term. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reportedly supporting the proposed legislation spearheaded by Feinstein. Those opposed to the proposed legislation, including tribal leaders have said that it is an affront to the tribal nation. They claim, it is essentially discrimination to deny them their right to set up whatever they want to on newly acquired land

Senator Feinstein claims that the move will only deal with urban casinos. According to her, allowing urban casinos would be tantamount to turning back on a decision ratified by the residents almost ten years ago, to only allow casinos in reservation lands. Current legislation dictates that before tribes can set up the construction and operation of a casino in an area, they must first prove historical and modern ties to the land. This, according to Feinstein, is too broad and is too open to varying constructions as the meaning of the language of the law. From her proposal, Feinstein moves to have tribes prove “substantial direct modern and aboriginal ties to newly acquired lands“. An alternate language of the same proposal requires tribes to prove “clear and convincing historical and modern-day connection” to lands they are proposing to build casinos on.

Either language of the proposed law will cause the tribes unimaginable difficulties in acquiring land for casino purposes. The tribes claim that it would be virtually impossible for them to prove ties to the land in the ways required by the proposed legislation. Other concerns also stem from the issue on landless tribes in the process of acquiring lands—the proposed legislation would make it even harder for these tribes to do so. Senator Feinstein maintains that the proposed legislation will necessarily combat the existence of reservation shopping. “If the Senate takes up this bill, I plan to offer legislation to make clear, once and for all, that reservation shopping is not acceptable in California,” she said.

The tribes claim that Feinstein’s concern over reservation shopping is misplaced saying that the Department of Interior has only granted very few off-reservation projects in twenty years. If the proposed legislation is passed, the Scotts Valley tribe’s casino plans would be jeopardized. The casino is already well under way in its construction phase and if ever Feinstein’s plan is passed, the tribe would have to prove ties to the land in accordance with the new requirements. That’s not how the game has been set up. We’re not going to find (tribal ancestors’) bones underneath the greenhouse, and that’s not what was required.”, Eric Zell, spokesperson of the tribe said.

The tribes have expressed their displeasure at Feinstein’s actions saying that the Senator never consulted the tribes which claim to be the parties affected by her proposal. The tribes maintained that the Senator should have consulted the tribes first in the meeting since if they were to be the affected parties of the legislation, it would be prudent to hear out their concerns.