It’s
surprising to see just how obstructionist an embittered polarizing element in a
community can be.
Here
in the Santa Ynez Valley, the Chumash Casino is just such an element. It is,
for some in the community, an unwanted neighbor.
This
is not a situation unique to the valley – all over California, and across the
nation, plenty of people feel the same way about tribes that muscled casino
operations into neighborhoods that didn’t see themselves as the ideal sites for
a new world Alhambra that draws hundreds or thousands of gamblers into their
midst every night.
What’s
wrong with gamblers? They’re risk-takers, and someone who risks financial ruin
at a casino will risk other things — behind the wheel of a car, for example.
The
way to deal with recalcitrant locals is entreaty, drawing them across the line
from foe to friend by persuasion and by demonstrations of goodwill. That seems
to have been forgotten in these parts.
Just
a few days ago, this forgetfulness was clearly demonstrated at a planning
commission hearing in Santa Maria when the Chumash decided to play
obstructionist politics, effectively blocking a long sought development in Los Olivos.
This
is not to suggest that the development is the best idea ever, though it might
be: that’s not the subject here. Nor is it to suggest that issues raised by the
Chumash are insubstantial.
They
may be very important issues, and it may be appropriate to investigate them.
The problem is how it was done.
The
Chumash have suggested that there might be archeological finds that could be made on the property to be developed, and that these finds
might relate to the tribe’s history. They have requested something called a
SB-18 meeting.
Such
meetings are government-to-government affairs meant to involve California’s
native tribes in the process of shaping broad land use and development goals.
They are not meant to involve anyone in project-specific limitations of
property-owner rights.
In
some parts of the country – Virginia comes to mind – no development can proceed
where archeological finds might be had without the active involvement of
archeologists and curators whose job it is to preserve what is uncovered. But
they aren’t authorized to stop projects, just to make safe those historical
items that might be lost.
The
claim of need for archeological preservation might be legitimate in the case of
the Los Olivos development, or it might not – we
don’t know.
But
it smells a little fishy, because the tribe did not come forward with a
proposal how to protect artifacts that might be found, or even a request that
the developer hire an archeologist at his own expense to do that.
Instead
they sent in a hired gun, Sam Cohen, to warn the commission that it must defer
a decision until archeological issues could be settled through the SB-18
meeting – something with which the SB-18 meeting was not designed to deal.
It
looks to us as if the claim of archeological necessity, whether real or not, is
being used as a delaying tactic, perhaps to convert the property’s owners from
developers to sellers. That might be an understandable goal, but the haughty
way it was done lacks the spirit of good neighborliness, and shows a depressing
lack of community spirit.
That’ll
be 2 cents, please.