Letters to the Editor...
Re: Grove CasinoRegarding The Grove Observer article of June 8, 2007, entitled Official Offers Casino Project Opinions, the casino on Highway 59 is indeed a "done deal." The article submitted by Ben Hynum does not contain one relevant point concerning the situation in Grove. Oklahoma was at one time Indian Territory. The author of the article specifically refers to "off reservation" sites. Except for the Panhandle and the northwest corner and the southwest corner of Oklahoma, all of Oklahoma was a reservation area. Osage County retains its reservation status. By Federal legislation, if a Tribe purchases land in that Tribe’s original reservation area in what became Oklahoma, there is no trust requirement. There is nothing that local, State, or Federal government can do to interfere with the Tribe except for two things: (1) If it is a commercial venture by the Tribe, it cannot be placed in a residential area; and, (2) the venture is subject to public health and safety laws. The Seneca-Cayuga Tribe purchased land in their original reservation area. The casino will be on commercial, not residential, zoned property. What happens in other States is not relevant in any way to the unique situation in Oklahoma. For example, Branson, Missouri, was able to prevent a casino because Missouri provides, by law, for local option decisions by County, similar to liquor-by-the-drink in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court case Sherrill v. Oneida (2005) was concerned with responsibility for ad valorem taxes.
On March 28, 2005, City Manager Bill Galletly and Mayor Carolyn Nuckolls were scheduled to make a public announcement that the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe had purchased approximately 30 acres for a casino site on Highway 59 adjacent to Sailboat Bridge on the west side of the Highway. This announcement was cancelled NOT as reported because the information became public, but because the land deal fell apart and the site purchase was not possible. I do not remember any NO CASINO IN GROVE, OKLAHOMA, movement at that time. Maybe the protesters were asleep at the wheel, or they were not upset about the idea of a casino at that time, or they supported those public officials who wanted a casino.
Jack L. Forrest
A response:Do you know who this Jack L. Forrest is? Because he's intentionally misleading the readers on the power of the Sherrill case. His statement that the Sherrill case is about ad valorem taxes is true. But he's not telling the "Paul Harvey" rest of the story:
The Sherrill case, ruled on March 29, 2005, is the single case used by courts in New York State to dismiss and knock out a dozen major Indian land claims lingering over 840,000 property owners for 25 years. These big land claim cases were not just about ad valorem tax. They were about the principle ruled in Sherrill that "well settled communities have a justifiable expectation to not be parceled into separate tribal "patches."
Also, the Sherrill case is currently in play to defend against fee land taken into federal trust in "well settled communities" and to defend against off-reservation casinos.
In my view, and again, I'm not an attorney - if citizens had no other tool than Sherrill, it would be worth taking a Complaint for Injunctive Relief into federal court on the basis of: 1) an abudance of existing casinos already near Grove; and 2) well-settled communities (Sherrill).
Elaine Willman, National Chair,
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
Toppenish, WA.
On March 28, 2005, City Manager Bill Galletly and Mayor Carolyn Nuckolls were scheduled to make a public announcement that the Seneca-Cayuga Tribe had purchased approximately 30 acres for a casino site on Highway 59 adjacent to Sailboat Bridge on the west side of the Highway. This announcement was cancelled NOT as reported because the information became public, but because the land deal fell apart and the site purchase was not possible. I do not remember any NO CASINO IN GROVE, OKLAHOMA, movement at that time. Maybe the protesters were asleep at the wheel, or they were not upset about the idea of a casino at that time, or they supported those public officials who wanted a casino.
Jack L. Forrest
A response:Do you know who this Jack L. Forrest is? Because he's intentionally misleading the readers on the power of the Sherrill case. His statement that the Sherrill case is about ad valorem taxes is true. But he's not telling the "Paul Harvey" rest of the story:
The Sherrill case, ruled on March 29, 2005, is the single case used by courts in New York State to dismiss and knock out a dozen major Indian land claims lingering over 840,000 property owners for 25 years. These big land claim cases were not just about ad valorem tax. They were about the principle ruled in Sherrill that "well settled communities have a justifiable expectation to not be parceled into separate tribal "patches."
Also, the Sherrill case is currently in play to defend against fee land taken into federal trust in "well settled communities" and to defend against off-reservation casinos.
In my view, and again, I'm not an attorney - if citizens had no other tool than Sherrill, it would be worth taking a Complaint for Injunctive Relief into federal court on the basis of: 1) an abudance of existing casinos already near Grove; and 2) well-settled communities (Sherrill).
Elaine Willman, National Chair,
Citizens Equal Rights Alliance
Toppenish, WA.
Labels: Letters to the Editor
posted by Editor | 8:15 AM
|
0 comments
