GUEST OPINION: Why we are suing to block the casino

<p>As two of the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Kempthorne, challenging the U.S. Department of Interior’s decision to take 254 acres near Rohnert Park into trust for a casino to be owned by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, we would like to report to the community on the progress of the lawsuit.</p><p>On Monday, our attorneys filed opening briefs in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.</p><p>This important case tests the federal government’s ability to displace state jurisdiction and all local planning controls over a parcel of land and install Las Vegas-style gaming. More immediately, the court will decide whether local citizens directly affected by the government’s action have the right to ask federal courts to review it.</p><p>The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and Station Casinos intend to open a 762,000-square-foot hotel and casino, including at least 2,000 slot machines. </p><p>There is Indian land, and then there is Indian land. That is, there are remote lands Native Americans have occupied for generations, and there are urban lands tribes are now trying to purchase with the help of Las Vegas partners, such as Station Casinos, so they both can take advantage of the Indian monopoly on slot machines.</p><p>Many people think that California voters intended to approve Indian gaming only on historical Indian lands but not on newly purchased lands. We agree.</p><p>The Wilfred Avenue site sought by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria has been governed by state law since California joined the Union in 1850. But the federal government now claims that it can take title to the land in trust for the tribe, and state law will automatically no longer apply. That is not the law.</p><p>State land remains under state sovereignty unless either (1) the federal government reserved jurisdiction over land it owned when the state was admitted to the union, or (2) the state consents to cede its jurisdiction over the site. Neither of these exceptions apply to the Wilfred site, so therefore it remains governed by state law.</p><p>Plaintiffs have sued for a court declaration to clarify that even after the federal government takes title, state law will continue to govern this site. This raises important constitutional issues that go to the heart of the practice of purchasing traditionally non-Indian property to be taken into trust for casino gaming.</p><p>The trial court judge did not listen to the merits of the case. Rather, the judge threw the case out, ruling that the plaintiffs do not have standing. She ruled that the injuries alleged were speculative because the Graton tribe will need to obtain further approvals. She is mistaken. The injuries alleged are both real and immediate.</p><p>Taking the land into federal trust would deprive us all of the benefits of local zoning regulations, including compliance with local general plans and zoning ordinances, as well as depriving us of the ability to challenge a project inconsistent with those planning laws in state court.</p><p>Taking the property into trust would deprive us all of the benefits of state law outlawing casino gaming.</p><p>Taking the property into trust would cause an immediate drop in the value of nearby homes, due to the prospect of a huge casino, because the Department of Interior’s internal guidelines mean that once the property is taken into trust, allowing a casino is essentially a foregone conclusion. The threat of a casino is not merely speculative.</p><p>This country is governed by the rule of law, and that requires that sovereignty be determined at the threshold, not at some later time. This matter needs to be settled now.</p><p></p><p><i>Chip Worthington is a pastor in Rohnert Park and founder of the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. Mike Healy is a member of the Petaluma City Council.<i/></p>