This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears above any article. Order a reprint of this article now.
County voters send message on casinos
Sonoma County voted by a 2-1 margin against allowing four Southern California tribes to triple the number of slot machines in their casinos, a result some read as a rebuke for all Indian gaming.
"Since the casino issues in the measures are several hundred miles away, the logical conclusion is that Sonoma County people are concerned with the existing local casinos and the ones that are proposed," said Mike Healy, a former Petaluma councilman and casino opponent. "I believe it is a protest vote, and a very loud protest vote."
The vote also rekindled interest by a Sonoma County supervisor in a countywide advisory measure on proposed casinos in Rohnert Park and Cloverdale and the expansion of River Rock Casino in Geyserville.
"In my opinion it was a statement against the proliferation and expansion of casinos," said Supervisor Mike Kerns of Petaluma. "I think it is a recognition that people don't want these facilities to expand any more than they already have."
Sonoma, Lake, Mendocino, Napa and Marin counties were among the 16 counties, all in Northern California, to vote against Propositions 94-97.
The strongest opposition came from Sonoma County, where the no vote was 64 percent.
The propositions ratify compacts between the state and four tribes. The agreements allow the tribes to add 17,000 slot machines to the 8,000 they already have at casinos in Riverside and San Diego counties, in return for some of the profits.
The controversial measures spurred a statewide campaign in which $140 million was spent, with the proponents outspending the opponents by a 4-1 margin. The four measures passed with 56 percent.
Sonoma County voters always have been lukewarm about casinos. When tribal gaming measures were on the ballot in 1998, 2000 and 2004, support in Sonoma County lagged behind the rest of the state.
"People who voted for it thought this would allow gaming on Indian reservation land that is in remote areas of the state," Kerns said. "Nobody envisioned the tribes would be purchasing land near cities and in urban areas for the purpose of building casinos."
In Rohnert Park, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria proposed a $450 million casino and 360-room hotel on 360 acres west of Highway 101 in 2003, three years after Congress restored the tribe's federal status.
The proposal has been controversial since its inception, sparking an unsuccessful recall in 2004 against two members of the City Council, which had negotiated a revenue-sharing agreement and promised not to oppose the casino.
The tribe is awaiting completion of its environmental impact report and acceptance of the property into federal trust. It also must secure a state gaming compact.
Neither Greg Sarris, tribal chairman, nor Susan Moore, president of Friends of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, could be reached for comment Wednesday.
Rohnert Park Mayor Jake Mackenzie said the state propositions have no bearing on what happens in Rohnert Park.
But he agreed the vote can be seen as a protest.
"There could be fears that these compacts have set a precedent for powerful tribes to negotiate ever larger casinos," Mackenzie said.
The Sonoma County vote will be taken note of by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when he negotiates the compact, spokeswoman Sabrina Lockhart said.
"California voters did approve gaming, and by law the governor must negotiate with federally recognized tribes," Lockhart said. However, she said, "local voter support is part of the criteria."
Lockhart said all negotiations are secret, the governor's office will not even acknowledge if they are going on, and the terms are not announced until they are completed.
Kerns said he has talked with Sonoma County attorneys about putting a casino advisory measure on the June or November ballot.
It could be patterned after a Petaluma measure in 2006, when voters by a 4-1 margin instructed their elected officials to do all they could to fight a potential casino on the south end of town.
"There are some people who think it is a waste of time and money, it is only an advisory measure and doesn't carry any weight legally," Kerns said. "But others say it sends a message to the governor when he considers compact agreements, that the people of Sonoma County are opposed to these casinos."
You can reach Staff Writer Bob Norberg at 521-5206 or bob.norberg@pressdemocrat.com
Copyright © 2012 PressDemocrat.com — All rights reserved. Restricted use only.