In response to my tepid comments about the potential Middleboro Mega Bingo Hall, a regular reader sent the following:
Much more important, the Hawaii decision, which everyone is forgetting!! This decision puts the nail in the coffin for investers' Reservation Shopping, especially in New England.
The March, Carcieri v Salazar ruling from SCOTUS says that tribes not "now" federally recognized and under federal jurisdiction in 1934 are not eligible for federal trust under the IRA and created a limit to Secretary of Interior authority. There are about 562 tribes currently recognized but there were only 59 IRA tribes on the list. The potential impact is staggering.
Within weeks of the 8-1 Carcieri v Salazar decision, a second strike on fee to trust was issued. This time it came from a case originating in the state of Hawaii. In the 9-0 decision on Hawaii v. the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Justice Alito wrote, "It would raise grave constitutional concerns" Congress sought to "cloud Hawaii's title to its sovereign lands" after it had joined the Union. "We have emphasized that Congress cannot, after statehood reserve or convey....lands that have already been bestowed upon a state". How many readers of this paper could be effected by issues concerning land that has been "bestowed upon a state"; as an original colony, through disestablished territory or when the territory entered into statehood?
The hat trick came from the Navajo Nation v. United States, Essentially, in this 9-0 decision SCOTUS ruled that it is necessary to have a statute or a regulation establishing trust.
Congressional hearings have been held and some of those in Congress believe that although they have tried there is no fix to the Carcieri decision. FEE TO TRUST IS IN TROUBLE.
5 comments:
So from these rulings it appears that even IF Congress passed some sort of Carcieri "fix", SCOTUS would find it unconstitutoinal and strike it down.
I think some tribes who had land taken into trust, other than fedal land, by the SOI, might have a fight on their hands just to keep that land. The Hawaii decision basically says it was unconstitutional for the federal government to take land away from a state to form indian reservations. If I was in one of those tribes, I'd be more worried about keeping the land we have, rather than finding some unconstitutional fix to the Carcieri decision.
We all know what happened the last time there was a dispute over state's rights in this country.
My most favorite nocturnal avian, allow me --
If someone has a crystal ball to predict the machinations of others, they're free to post. (As experience has proven, I infrequently post comments because I lack the time, but do my best.)
Barring that, allow me - the immediate matter of "Native American Gambling" (IRA, IGRA, LIT and so on) appears to have passed, but the property purchased in Middleboro was never owned by the "Tribe."
We can speculate that 'all danger has past,' but has it? Are you willing to risk it?
Casino investors own land in Middleboro.
Maybe we shouldn't allow ourselves to get too cocky.
And maybe we should wake up to the folly that is slot machines.
Let's say that Middleboro is somehow "saved," do you believe a slot parlor in Raynham poses no threat? Do you believe that a mega monster commercial casino in New Bedford won't have an overflow effect? If investors own the Middleboro land, would a mega slot parlor be a wise investment?
(We currently experience an overflow effect from the drug addiction and poverty and unemployment of surrounding communities or hadn't you noticed?)
The Middleboro IGA is with the "Tribe" and pertains to a tribal casino. What about a Commercial slot parlor?
Can we support a commercial casino venture in Palmer that our tax dollars will subsidize?
When studies indicate that communities within a 50 mile radius of a casino experience increased gambling addiction, do you think we're immune?
For me, what began as opposition to having a Mega Bingo Hall (that happened to be billed as a "Resort") forced on us forced me to read some of the research.
When you begin to review the statistics about casino gambling - more specifically, the slot machines, what you see is that "ADDICTION" sustains the industry and impacts your tax dollars. As a taxpayer, you are subsidizing the revenue stream of the slot machine investors.
Senator Pacheco has posed the matter as job preservation at the Raynham Track. I would argue 'not so.'
A slot parlor requires very few employees - it's like the fast food restaurant of gambling.
Kiss your jobs good bye!
In addition, as Ryan Adams pointed out, by reducing the licensing fees to bargain basement values ($25 million instead of auction values), Senator Pacheco has actually driven down the value of casino licenses with the consent of others.
Indiana sold Racino licenses for $250 million (plus additional commitments). Senator Pacheco proposed a bargain basement value of $25 million for each license.
How or why did Senator Pacheco cheat the state out of a billion dollars?
Casino gambling, slot machines, racinos, slot parlors are profitable for investors.
Impartial examination proves that ONLY investors profit - not the state.
Find a state that has legalized gambling that is in better fiscal shape than Massachusetts because of gambling. There are NONE.
The Governor was misled by the industry into making the wrong decisions.
Let's not follow the industry down the same path.
Does it come down to how much we trust others?I dont trust any to do whats write.
Done.Over.Fini.Do you get it?As for the tribe its done.Comercial?Best get to work or the Mboro MegaMONSTA SLOT PARLA?Who ya listna to?
$250 million down to $25 million?and increased sales tax?me thinks I gotta problem wif it.
Post a Comment