PD Editorial: No room for extremes in tribe debate

Amid the heated controversy surrounding a planned housing development west of Windsor by the Lytton Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians, several truths stand out.

First, the 270-member tribe, which has been using revenues from its casino in San Pablo to buy up property southwest of Windsor, is entitled to a place to call home. The Lytton Band has not had such a place since its 50-acre rancheria located just north of Healdsburg was taken some 57 years ago. The Pomo tribe is now looking to build 360 homes on more than 500 acres of land it’s seeking to have taken into trust by the U.S. government.

Second, many communities in California would be delighted to have a land-use agreement with a tribe that allows construction of homes but prohibits the construction of a casino. Such is the agreement that the Lytton Band has worked out with the county Board of Supervisors and has been submitted for congressional approval by Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, in May.

We hazard to guess that many in Rohnert Park would have applauded such a deal if that had been an option when the Graton Rancheria came forward with a development proposal just west of the city, a project that became the Graton Resort & Casino. But such no-casino deals are a rarity and often have been prohibited. In this case, Huffman’s bill appears on sound footing for several reasons, not the least of which is that the Lytton Band already owns and operates a gaming facility.

Third, residents have legitimate concerns about the cumulative impacts of traffic from this project, which includes a possible 200-room hotel and 200,000 case-a-year winery development in the future. The intensity of such a project, from the removal of hundreds of oak trees to the depletion of groundwater resources, would come with significant impacts.

It’s also fair to say that communication with Windsor residents about the details of the project has been poor. It’s regrettable that it’s been six years since the tribe first applied to have 124 acres taken into trust and six months since the county announced a 22-year agreement with the Lyttons and the first public forum for Windsor residents wasn’t held until Aug. 24.

Nevertheless, it’s also true that efforts to prevent tribes from having land taken into trust have largely been fruitless, giving weight to arguments that the county and the town of Windsor are better off trying to work for the best agreement possible with the Lytton tribe. Opponents of the plan dispute that contention as noted in today’s Close to Home (“Future of Lytton tribe land is not inevitable”) on the Forum front. They claim the circumstances surrounding the Lytton band property and history - and a recent Supreme Court decision that limits the ability of some tribes to have land taken into trust - casts doubt on the supposed inevitability of this proposal.

We have our doubts. In any case, history has shown that little comes from staking extreme, no-compromise positions in these disputes. Huffman has indicated a willness to amend his bill particularly in order to address concerns about the tribe’s long-term construction plans. Meanwhile, compromise also seems within reach on issues such as groundwater usage and connecting with Windsor utilities. But nothing will be gained from holding onto an expectation that the tribe’s plans for housing will somehow be summarily rejected and go away - a hope that is both unrealistic and profoundly unfair.