Subscriber Comments for
Santa Barbara County Supervisors will decide Tuesday if the ...

Comments in order of when they were received | (reverse order)

FLICKA	2012-07-10 07:53 AM
I get a kick out of "local residents don't want the county to lose control of land use issues". The Native Americans lost control of their "land use issues" a very long time ago. They get a few acres back and people go nuts about it.
COMMENT 295744	2012-07-10 07:55 AM
When do you expect to welcome them at your home?
COMMENT 295748	2012-07-10 08:02 AM
Oh Flicka... sounds like somebody is still stuck in the 1800's. Seriously, I lived in Santa Ynez and the riff-raft the Casino brings in is not a welcome sight. It started off as a tent, then expanded to a larger (much larger mind you) casino. Now the locals have to deal with burglary, drugs, and drunk drivers. 95% of that crime just wasn't there before the Casino went in.
COMMENT 295769	2012-07-10 08:36 AM
Ought a supervisor who lives in the area recuse oneself due to possible benefits from rejecting such an expansion?
COMMENT 295797	2012-07-10 09:42 AM
Casinos are a Western business in America & anywhere Western business concept exists,there is going to be crime. It`s the system,not the Indians...Western Amer. has been trying to assimilate Indians for over 500 years & now there are some tribes who`ve joined,but when employing Western teachings to assimilated life, they are opposed?! The Santa Ynez band is going to buy land somewhere because $ talks,plain & simple...& as SB`ns need $,guess where the land will be for sale? yep, right here, starting with mine: FOR SALE,11 acres of prime SB land...$1,000.00
COMMENT 295804P	2012-07-10 09:54 AM
I, too, live here in the S.Y. Valley, and 748 is spot on with the call. Why not build a new casino where the Miramar Hotel sat? Or on the Mesa, or Montecito, or .... This way the masses from LA wouldn't have to drive so far, especially on a dangerous highway (154).
COMMENT 295814	2012-07-10 10:03 AM
Another life long valley resident opposed of the casino and the less than desirable people it brings to the area. It was fine when it was a bingo hall, they made money, property was improving on the 'res', people were driving nicer cars, etc. Greed drives the Indian Gaming business, not a need for more money or more land.
BUREAUCRITES	2012-07-10 10:15 AM
This isn't about a casino. The 7-acre property across Rte 246 from the reservation is proposed for a cultural center/museum, park, and commercial development. The tribe had more ambitious development plans but discovered artifacts on the property that limits development. There are two main issues: 1. Was the Chumash tribe "under federal jurisdiction" in 1934? This is required for land to be taken into trust by the federal government under the Supreme Court Carcieri decision. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, based on a legal opinion from agency lawyers, recently decided that it was. This legal issue applies to all fee to trust applications by the Chumash. 2. Does the 7-acre parcel qualify for trust status? The agency decided in 2005 that it did. SYV residents appealed, and the case has been litigated ever since. (The courts held that neighbors had the right to appeal.) The 2005 decision approving the trust acquisition was adopted after the legal ruling above. This issue depends on the specific facts of the case.
COMMENT 295874	2012-07-10 11:50 AM
Someone once commented on here about HISTORY and how it's very common in history for one group to come in and win land over another. Rarely (if at all) does the "losers" get to cry and get some land back. If that is the case let the Spanish and the French and England come back and retreve their land and then the "Indian's" can deal with them. Oh and Mexico too. I don't feel the need to give land to the Chumash - sorry but it wasn't me who took the land from you - it was some others who came here who weren't even directly related to me.
COMMENT 296102	2012-07-10 08:23 PM
Why is it 5 supervisors get to decide how this turns out? Why wouldn't this be up to the voters? Just wondering. Thank you
BUREAUCRITES	2012-07-10 09:29 PM
296102: The board of supervisors voted 3-2 not to appeal. They get to do this because the supervisors direct civil lawsuits for and against the county, including appeals of actions by federal agencies. This is provided for by State law. In California, the voters can adopt legislation (initiative) and repeal legislation (referendum). They elect state and local officials, like the members of the board of supervisors, and can recall them. The voters do not have power to make administrative decisions like filing lawsuits. The US Constitution gives Congress power over Indian tribes. Congress has enacted various laws relating to Indians and delegated administrative power to the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. This includes the authority of the United States to take land owned by tribes into trust for the benefit of the tribes, per standards contained in the laws and agency regulations. These decisions may be appealed to an appeals board and the courts, but are not subject to popular vote.

36% of comments on this page were made by Edhat Community Members.

EDHAT COMMENTS POLICY