Dear Editor:

For those that read the Consortium article published in Capitol Weekly via the SYV Journal’s mention of it in the December 22nd edition, I would like to clarify Preservation of Los Olivos’ (POLO) concern on the California Fee to Trust Consortium.

The BIA Consortium “arrangement” is problematic because tribes are using taxpayer money to take land from the state with no mechanism in place for transparency or accountability. The Santa Ynez Band has pending applications with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, one of which is being challenged in federal court (POLO and POSY v. the United States Department of the Interior).

That tens of thousands of acres across the country are being taken off the tax rolls to expand “tribal territories” outside local and state laws is increasingly creating a jurisdictional nightmare for law enforcement and increases land within a community boundary that is not subject to a Community Plan. Why have a Community Plan when a tribe can simply defeat it?

 

Since the BIA Consortium of Tribes was formed in 2000, more than 11,000 acres of land have been taken off the tax rolls and out of local and state regulatory authority in California alone. Tribes do have neighbors. Tribes do not exist in a vacuum.

The modus operandi for the BIA is secrecy – and, many would argue, corruption. With respect to the Santa Ynez Valley, their tactics have included “losing” over 1,000 letters of opposition from our community to a Fee to Trust application by the Santa Ynez Band; issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact when this finding was in no way supported by the evidence; granting the transfer of this land and then denying our community “standing” to oppose this decision.

Just because there is an “understanding” that lands will not be used for gambling doesn’t make it law. The BIA and casino tribes both know that.

 

If “most of the land applications currently in front of the Consortium come from small, non-gaming tribes” then why not just release the names of the membership?

The Santa Ynez Band is a member, and they operate an untaxed $250 million net-a-year casino. Chairman Armenta has made it very clear he has every intention of expansion regardless of what his neighbors have to say about it.

How many other communities in California are being impacted when tribes are seeking to reinstate their “traditional lands?”

How much land does this mean and how many private property owners does this affect? As the SYV Journal stated, the Santa Ynez Band has claimed rights to “territory” extending from Monterey to Malibu.

Bottom line: The BIA has simply become the federal apparatus for our government to promote, protect, expand and shield Indian gambling at all costs; including violating the civil rights of communities, and federal law allows them to do just that.

Failed federal Indian policy is being used and abused by our government, elected officials, tribes and investors to fleece taxpayers who continue to foot the bill and continue to be told they have no rights.

The Consortium is just the tip of the iceberg.

Kathryn Bowen

POLO Spokesperson,

Santa Ynez

 

Dear Nancy:

 I enjoy reading the Journal each week. 

 I was a little disappointed when I read the article on Charlie’s in Los Alamos, however. The artist commissioned to produce the murals was incorrectly identified; his name is Hugh Slayden.  Also a ranching family referred in the article should actually have been identified as the Chabots. 

As someone who grew up in Santa Ynez (and was a good friend of a Chabot), I know to whom the writer is referring, but many of your readers would not have the benefit of that knowledge.

 Thanks again for the great work each week!

 Warmly, Michele