|
December 13, 2006 George Skibine, Director Office of Indian Gaming Management Office of Deputy Assistant Secretary Policy and Economic Development 1849 "C" Street, NW Mail Stop 3657?MIB Washington, D.C.�� 20240 Re:����� Proposed Rules
Regarding Gaming ����������� on Trust Lands:
#1076?AE?81 Dear Mr. Skibine: ��������� Thank
you for this opportunity to provide comments on the proposed section 20
regulations.� Section 20 of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, as well as the trust land regulations under Part 151,
have been of grave concern to our organization No Saugerties Casino,
Inc.� We are a grass?root
organization that was formed in response to published reports that casino
developers and two distinct Native American tribes had acquired options on
property in Saugerties and in the Town of Ulster, on our southern boarder and
in our school district� Trust
acquisition and tribal gaming have substantial and often devastating impacts
on the communities in which they are located.�
Large?scale gaming on trust lands can destroy community
character through development inconsistent with local land use, dramatic
increases in traffic, pollution, and noise, crime, accidents, and substantial
demands on limited governmental resources.�
It is for these reasons we organized broad?based non?partisan
community opposition to a casino in our town. ��������� Because
decisions regarding gaming and trust acquisition have such tremendous impacts
on the surrounding communities, the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) decisions
should not be made unilaterally, but instead only with careful consideration
of local community concerns and impacts.�
By local community we mean the immediate and actual municipality (in
our case town and village) in which the casino seeks to be established.� In our experience, however, BIA's approach
has minimized interaction with local communities, and excluded us altogether
from the decision?making process in any meaningful sense.� Unfortunately, our review of the proposed
regulations indicates that little is being done to remedy this problem.� Our primary concerns regarding the
regulations are as follows. ��������� First,
the vast majority of gaming taking place on lands acquired in trust after
1988 is permitted under either the restored lands exception or the initial
reservation exceptions to section 20.�
These exceptions should be just that ��
exceptions.� In most cases, the
two?part determination process should be applied.� While the proposed regulations would
include some standards for determining whether one of these exceptions
applies, those standards are not sufficiently rigorous, and more problematic,
the regulations establish no process whatsoever for decision?making. ��������� Whether
a tribe qualifies for the restored lands or initial reservation exception
should be an inquiry in which the participation of the public, local
governments and the affected communities is actively sought.� The regulations should establish a process
for a tribe's application for a determination, for publicizing the tribe's request,
for consulting with the public and soliciting comments, and for considering
the comments.� The proposed regulations
fail to provide for any of these steps.�
The regulations should also specify what, if any, role the National
Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) will have in the decision?making
process.� ��������� In
addition, the standards that BIA has proposed in the regulations are not
sufficient to protect the public and local community interest.� Application of either the initial
reservation exception or the restored lands exception appears to hinge on the
definition of "significant historic connection."� The regulations do not clarify what this
phrase means for the initial reservation exception, and for the restored
lands exception, the definition is too broad.�
A "significant historic connection" should be found only
when the tribe has had historic exclusive use and occupancy of an area, and a
previous federal court or Indian Claims Commission determination on the issue
should be binding.� ��������� �Further, with respect to a modern
connection, a modern connection cannot be based on such an easily manipulated
standard as the location of tribal headquarters within 25 miles of the
proposed site.� Tribal headquarters can
be readily moved.� A modern connection
should require more than simply the existence of office space.� The 50% requirement is a better standard in
that it is not so readily manipulated.�
��������� While
the proposed regulations fail to provide any process for determining when an
initial reservation or restored lands exception applies, with respect to the
two?part determination, the regulations are all process (though
inadequate) and no standards.� Again,
the process described is inadequate with respect to public
participation.� More than a mere
comment period is required when trust land or gaming decisions are being
made.� Section 20 requires
consultation, not a bare minimum comment period.� BIA must actually consult on an on?going
basis to ensure that local concerns are properly heard and accounted for in
the decision?making process.� In
addition, the regulations should establish standards by which the Secretary
will evaluate the impacts of gaming on the tribe and the surrounding
community.� As it stands, the
regulations only describe the information that is to be collected, but state
nothing regarding how the Secretary is to consider such information.� Controlling effect should be given to the
views of the affected local community when off?reservation gaming is
proposed.� Standards must be
established to guide Secretarial decision?making, to ensure that a
"detrimental to the surrounding community" finding will be made
when there is substantial local opposition. ��������� These
are serious problems with the proposed regulations.� We appreciate the opportunity to
comment.� However, in light of the
serious deficiencies in the proposed regulations, BIA should revise these
regulations to reflect local concerns and then re?issue the regulations
in draft for public comment.� Thank you
for your serious consideration of our comments. Respectfully submitted, Lanny E. Walter, Chair No Saugerties Casino, Inc. |