|
In contrast, Native A~erican tribal planners sa)' that it all started before the pilgrims arrived. The), maintain that the
<br />sovereignty of tribal governments predates the U.S. Constitution, a theory bolstered by the Indian Reorganization Act of
<br />1934 (It~). That act ab41ished the federally mandated allotment of tribal land into p;rcels owned by individual tribe
<br /> members, a practice that encouraged economically strapped Indians to sell
<br />
<br />The Indian Gaming
<br />enacted in 1988, provides a h
<br />the establishment and oper~ion of ~Taming on
<br />Native American lands. As ~of November 19,
<br />1993 100 tribal.state compl~cts, involving7 19
<br />states and 78 tribes, have be~n approved. The
<br />progress in implementing lEPtA has occurred
<br />primarily through cooperafio~ between states
<br />and tribes, and in some ca~es through coutl
<br />decisions in litigation.
<br />
<br />State
<br />
<br />Alabama
<br />Alaska
<br />Arizona
<br />Arkansas
<br />California
<br />Colorado
<br />Connecticut
<br />Delaware
<br />Florida
<br />Georgia
<br />Hawaii
<br />idaho
<br />Illinois
<br />indiana
<br />iowa
<br />Kansas
<br />Kentucky
<br />Louisiana
<br />Maine
<br />Maryland
<br />Massachusetts
<br />Michigan
<br />Minnesota
<br />Mississippi
<br />Missouri
<br />Montana ·
<br />Nebraska
<br />Nevada
<br />New Hampshire
<br />New Jersey
<br />New Mexico
<br />New York
<br />North Carolina
<br />North Dakota
<br />Ohio
<br />Oklahoma
<br />Oregon
<br />Pennsylvania
<br />Rhode island
<br />South Carolina
<br />South Dakota
<br />Tennessee
<br />Texas
<br />Utah
<br />Vermont
<br />Virginia
<br />Washington
<br />West Virginia
<br />Wisconsin
<br />Wyoming
<br />
<br />Note: All states except
<br />have legalized bingo.
<br />
<br />F Number of
<br />Number of; Tribal
<br /> Tribes ~ Compacts
<br /> 1 ~
<br />
<br />220
<br />20
<br />0
<br />95
<br />2
<br />1
<br />0
<br />2
<br />0
<br />0
<br />4
<br />0
<br />0
<br />1
<br />3
<br />0
<br />3
<br />4
<br />0
<br />
<br /> 7
<br /> 6
<br />
<br /> 7
<br /> 4
<br />
<br /> 0
<br /> o
<br />22
<br /> 7
<br />
<br /> 4
<br /> 0
<br />
<br /> 0
<br />
<br /> o
<br />
<br /> 0
<br />
<br /> 4
<br />
<br /> o
<br />
<br />0
<br />o
<br />12
<br />o
<br />5
<br />2
<br />1
<br />0
<br />0
<br />0
<br />o
<br />2
<br />o
<br />0
<br />3
<br />0
<br />o
<br />3
<br />0
<br />0
<br />0
<br />7
<br />11
<br />1
<br />0
<br />4
<br />1
<br />1
<br />0
<br />0
<br />0
<br />1
<br />o
<br />5
<br />o
<br />0
<br />1
<br />0
<br />0
<br />0
<br />8
<br />o
<br />0
<br />0
<br />0
<br />
<br />9
<br />0
<br />11
<br />0
<br />
<br />Arkanaa~, Hawaii, and Utah
<br />
<br />land to speculators. It also promoted tribal sovereignty by expanding the list
<br />oflndian lands already free from taxation by adding those purchased with
<br />restricted tribal funds or trust monies.
<br /> By removing some of the obstacles in the way of tribal governments' efforts to
<br />restore their land base, and by recognizing tribal sovereignty, the federal govern-
<br />ment also preempted states' claims of rights to grant tribal governments legislative
<br />power. (It should be noted, however, that even before the passage of the IRA, the
<br />federal government maintained an exclusive right to negotiate treaties with indian
<br />nations.) In other words, the enabling powers granted by states to municipalities
<br />do not apply to tribal governments. Tribal planner Chas Wheelock of the Oneida
<br />Nation, which is developing a casino within the ci~' limits of Green Bay, Wiscon-
<br />sin, says man), local governments fail to grasp this concept--and man), Indian
<br />nations fail to impart it. Until this fundamental difference in relationships to the
<br />federal government by states and Indian nations is full)' worked out, Wheelock
<br />maintains, all parties will share a mutual responsibility to help resolve jurisdic-
<br />tional issues at the local level.
<br /> The 1988 gaming law does require that issues of tribal and state
<br />sovereignty be negotiated in the form of compacts where class II1 games are
<br />involved. Although many state governments have balked at not receiving
<br />what the), view as potential tax revenues that could be generated if reserva-
<br />tion casinos were taxable, many have received an ample share of revenues
<br />through compacts.
<br /> But conflicts have arisen when tribes have tried to operate casinos on newb,
<br />acquired land that is not contiguous to the reservation. This issue has been tested
<br />in a case involving the Siletz tribe, which purchased land in Salem, Oregon, with
<br />the intention of opening a casino. The federal judge ruled that Gov. Barbara
<br />Roberts had the right to veto that use of the property under the 1988 Gaming
<br />Act. The act states that, if casinos are operated on nonreservation, indian-owned
<br />lands within another jurisdiction, the U.S. Interior Secretar).' must put that newly
<br />acquired land in trust for the tribe. This cannot be done without the state
<br />governor's concurrence. This issue will be tested again, however. Indian gaming
<br />companies have proposed su~'h operations on properu' within the municipal
<br />boundaries of Detroit; Kansas Ciry, Missouri; Wichita, Kansas; Council Bluffs,
<br />lowa; and other cities.
<br /> Local governments are not solely concerned with getting their cut of the
<br />profits. Many fear the nuisances traditionally generated by casinos, especially
<br />if they are unable to regulate the site. Wheelock feels that such concerns,
<br />although understandable, are not grounded in reality. "That is a misconcep-
<br />tion predicated on the idea that the development of Indian-owned land will
<br />be substandard because it is not subject to local zoning restrictions," he says,
<br />"when in fact many of the land development standards required by tribal
<br />governments are much kinder to the earth and surrounding uses than typical
<br />non-native regulations." Wheelock says issues of casino impacts can and
<br />should be resolved with local governments through open communication and
<br />cooperation on the part of both parties.
<br />
<br /> Zoning News is a monthly newsletter published by the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are
<br /> available for $45 (U.S.) and $54 (foreign).
<br /> Michael B, Barker. Executive Director; Frank S. So, Deputy Executive Director.
<br />! Zoning News is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, Editor; Michael Barrette. Dan Biver. Sarah Bohlen, Fa?'
<br /> Dolnick, Michelle Gregory, Alissa Hammer. Sanjay Jeer, Marya Morris, Reporters; Cynthia Cheski. Assistant
<br /> Editor; Lisa Barton. Design and Production.
<br /> Copyright ©1994 by American Planning Association, 1313 E. 60th St., Chicago, IL 60637. The American
<br />~. Planning Association has headquarters offices at 1776 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20036.
<br /> All rights reserved. No part of this publication ma5, be reproduced or utilized in an5' form or by any means.
<br />r:' electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval
<br />~ system, without permission in writing from the American Planning Association.
<br />!. Printed on retwcled paper including 50-70% recycled fiber ~
<br />'~ and 10% postconsumer waste.
<br />
<br />
<br />
|