Gov. John Kitzhaber said he objects to the Interior Department's conclusion last December that the tribe's 100-acre parcel off Highway 126 on the North Fork of the Siuslaw River qualifies as restored tribal land.
Under federal law, tribal gaming on land acquired after the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires a governor's approval. But when the Interior Department declared the North Fork land restored, because of the tribes' historical ties to it, Kitzhaber was left with basically no say in the matter.

 The land was acquired in 1998, 10 years after the gaming act.

The federal government's decision in the North Fork case could clear the way for more casinos in Oregon and other states, including in metropolitan areas, the governor said. "I am concerned that Interior's decision will significantly impinge any governor's authority under the law," Kitzhaber said in a  news release. "I have given Interior's determination careful consideration, but in the interest of the state in terms of the larger potential for siting other tribal gaming facilities, I am taking this action," the governor said.

The 700-member tribal organization is "surprised and confused by the governor's decision," tribal Chairman Ron Brainard said. Tribal casinos have helped other communities thrive, Brainard said, "and now the governor is not going to let it happen to another community." Brainard said that until recently he expected the state would negotiate an agreement with the tribes over the location and other issues, allowing the project to move forward. "Apparently the governor is worried about the impact of the (Interior Department) decision on other terminated and subsequently restored tribes," Brainard said. But he said the decision is narrow, so there's little chance that it sets a precedent that would allow other tribes to develop casinos on lands acquired since the gaming act went into effect.

But Danny Santos, the governor's legal counsel, said the state is genuinely concerned that the federal ruling could spawn a wave of new casino proposals for sites acquired after 1988, in effect circumventing the governor's concurrence. Many tribes have taken land into trust for cultural, economic and other purposes, Santos said. "This says tribes can make the argument that these lands should be part of their reservations and therefore become eligible for gaming," he said.  "While the Coos tribes could argue this is just a single case, the  reality is I think each tribe - those in Oregon and in other states - could argue, `Well, we're unique.' "

In its Dec. 5 finding, the Interior Department recognized that the North Fork land, known as the Hatch tract, contains the site of a historic tribal village, is adjacent to a tribal cemetery and remained in ownership of generations of tribal members. The federal Bureau of Indian Affairs took the parcel into trust for the tribe but at first refused to classify it as restored land. The tribe appealed the decision to federal court, which ordered the agency to reconsider.

The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians have struggled to break into the casino business since the early 1990s. More than six years ago, they sought support for sites in Springfield and later within the city of Florence, but both plans were withdrawn in the face of public opposition. The state and the tribes signed a compact in 1994 spelling out how the casino will operate, including the kind and number of games, the regulatory structure and the state's role in monitoring the operation. But it applied to a small piece of land in the Empire area of Coos Bay that the tribe later chose not to develop.

With the Coquille tribe's Mill Casino in nearby North Bend, a second casino in that community would not be viable, Brainard said. A new compact must be signed before the tribes can build on the Hatch property. Although the state's suit puts the question of the location on hold, other compact issues will be negotiated in the meantime, both Brainard and Santos said. The two main issues are the scope of games, which has changed considerably since 1994, and security issues

The casino plan has both fans and critics in the Florence area and two members of the City Council have come out against it. But the council itself has not taken a stand, and instead asked Kitzhaber in January to make his decision as soon as possible. The casino will have an impact on city services, Florence City Manager Rodger Bennett said. "We are vitally interested in what happens with the Hatch tract," Bennett said. "Florence is very appreciative of how carefully the governor has dealt with this issue and what it means to all the people of Oregon, not just our community." He said he is in no position to agree or disagree with the state's suit. "This is very difficult and complex," he said. "We are waiting to see how the whole thing unfolds, because we are learning as we go along."  Source:  4/10/02, The Register-Guard, by Scott Maben.

The City Council agreed during a closed session Wednesday to put money aside for litigation.
The council agreed to create a fund because construction of the casino is not in the best interest of Roseville, said Mayor Claudia Gamar.  "I have had more phone calls in the last couple of weeks about this subject than any other subject in recent history. Without exception, every call I've had opposed it," said Councilman Earl Rush. "I'm flabbergasted that I have not had one phone call in support."

City Attorney Mark Doane would not discuss the amount of money in the litigation fund. "That way, the other side knows how much I'm going to spend, and I'm not going to do that," Doane said.

Howard L. Dickstein, a Sacramento attorney who represents the United Auburn Indian Community proposing the casino, said Roseville's decision to create a litigation  fund is a stalling technique and a waste of money "If they want to throw the taxpayers' money away, that's their business," Dickstein said. "The tribe has tried very hard to be a good neighbor to Roseville," he added. "The tribe negotiated a comprehensive memorandum of understanding with Roseville's city attorney, which was recommended to the Roseville City Council by staff, which was rejected. The tribe has tried to be a good neighbor. It has dealt with mitigating impacts and was slapped in the face."

The United Auburn Indian Community anticipates building a 200,000-square-foot casino complex on 58 acres in the Sunset Industrial area along Athens and Industrial avenues.

The complex would include a casino with slot machines, bingo, video games and card games. The complex also would include offices, a restaurant and a gift shop.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs agreed to take the land into a trust for the Indian community.

The Board of Supervisors approved a memorandum of understanding with the Indian tribe to make the best of the situation, Supervisor Robert Weygandt said. The understanding resulted an agreement to pay $35 million in mitigation fees to Placer County. The fees would cover the cost of road improvements, traffic enforcement and law enforcement required for the casino.

"Legally, the tribe can take property into trust anywhere in Placer County. They were adamant that they wanted a casino in south Placer County," Weygandt said. "I think the city of Roseville is certainly welcome to do what they choose to do," he said. "I'm confident there were no other available options to us."

Roseville is not the only community to oppose the casino. On Monday, Rocklin's Mayor Ken Yorde, Lincoln Councilman Michael Storz and Gamar spoke to the undersecretary of the Department of Interior about concerns that have been raised about the casino.

Gamar and Yorde flew to Washington, D.C., and Storz participated through a telephone conference call. "The issues are closeness to housing developments and schools," Yorde said. "Where I grew up in Wisconsin had casinos, but they were on Indian reservation land. This is not reservation land. This is something bought for putting a casino there."

Rocklin's concern is with the proximity of the proposed casino to high schools, he said. Rocklin High School is about four miles away and a second comprehensive high school planned in Rocklin could be a mile and half from the casino, he added. "The Indian casinos let people in when they are 18, when in Nevada it's 21. When the high school kids are 18 they could sign themselves out (from school) and go gambling," Yorde said.

Dickstein confirmed that the casino would admit 18-year-olds.

In 1999, the Lincoln City Council said it opposed the casino, but the council agreed to a memorandum of understanding to provide sewer service to the casino, said Jerry Johnson, city manager.  Lincoln can provide sewer services to the casino or the casino can build a sewer treatment plant, Johnson said.

"We have an operating permit for our new wastewater treatment plant that I think everyone would agree is a more environmentally sound plant than if not provided by the city," he said. "(City) staff is directed to work with the casino. We think that's the most ecological standpoint."

Because of the memorandum of understanding, Lincoln won't follow Roseville in establishing a litigation fund, Johnson said.

Yorde said he doesn't know whether Rocklin will put up money for legal action.  "You never know what's going to happen in litigation," he said. "Roseville has more money than other jurisdictions. It's not my call to make. It's a call for the whole council to make."  Source:  1/20/02 - The Sacramento Bee, By Maija-Liisa Young -- Neighbors Staff Writer.

After all, who can argue that Oregon isn't oversaturated with gambling, from the ubiquitous state lottery to the tribal casinos already scattered across the state? Construction of yet another casino raises legitimate concerns about issues such as crime, economic impacts, gambling addiction, traffic problems and more.

But none of those concerns outweighs the coastal tribes' clearly and firmly established legal right to build a casino and to reap the economic and social benefits already realized by Oregon's other tribal groups. Even if the objections merited appeal - and they don't - the hard reality is the governor has about as much chance of overturning the federal decision as a  gambler has of breaking the house at the blackjack table.

A knowledge of tribal history is essential to understanding why the 720-member confederation should be allowed to proceed: The ancestral territory of the tribes once covered 1.6 million acres of Western Oregon between the Siuslaw and Umpqua  rivers and from the coast to Eugene. White settlers began moving into the region in the early 1800s, and the tribes' lands were taken under a treaty that promised - but never delivered - compensation.

Instead, the tribes were forcibly marched to reservations where it's estimated that half of the Coos and Lower Umpqua Indians died of starvation, exposure and disease. In 1954, Congress dealt the tribes another cruel blow, terminating their federal status. It was not until 1984 that the  federal government officially restored the coastal confederation, granting a few acres of land near Coos Bay. Four years later, Congress enacted a law allowing Indian casinos, with the aim of providing tribes with a means to generate money for economic and social development. The law provided a huge boost for the eight other tribal groups in Oregon, but the coastal tribes were unable to capitalize on it because they lacked sufficient reservation land. After failing to establish casinos at other sites, the tribes focused on a 98-acre site, formerly the location of a historic Siuslaw village and burial ground, that they purchased in 1998. The U.S. Department of Interior initially ruled that the land could not be used for tribal gambling because it was not part of the tribes' reservation. Late last year, the government wisely  reversed that decision, recognizing the site's historical ties to the tribe and the unfairness of restricting the tribe to the  inadequate reservation holdings granted before passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

All that remains now is for tribal leaders to finalize a state compact with the governor that will allow them to build a $20 million to $25 million midsize casino. City of Florence and Lane County officials should not impede this process, and the governor should move swiftly to complete the compact.

Many of the concerns that city and county officials have about a casino can be addressed in the compact. By working with the governor's office and the tribes, local officials can ensure that  issues such as traffic congestion, the scope of gaming, security and land use are hammered down in the agreement.

Some local officials also have expressed fears that the federal land decision, if left unchallenged, will set a precedent that will  lead to a proliferation of tribal casinos across Oregon. That overlooks the narrow application of the federal decision, which was carefully written to apply only to the coastal tribes. There are other constraints, such as the governor's policy of allowing no more than one casino per tribe. It also overlooks the formidable difficulty of the state challenging a federal government decision.

Beyond all doubt, there's already too much gambling in Oregon. But the coastal tribes had nothing to do with the state's decision to create the ever-expanding state lottery, which opened the door to Indian casinos. Why should Oregon's last tribal confederation without a casino - and the dreams of economic development and self-sufficiency that go with it- be sacrificed because of the long-standing policy decisions made by the state?

The city of Florence and Lane County officials should immediately withdraw their requests for a state appeal, and the governor's office should complete the state compact with the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians.  Source:  1/20/02, The Register-Guard, Editorial.

"The tribes came in a brought the DOI opinion with them and faxed it o us the day before so we'd have a chance to look at it," Santos said.  "One thing we did mention to them - which seems to have gotten a lot of attention - is that we needed to look at the DOI decision and see if it had implications for other tribes and the state.  Our interest is what the implications are for not just the Confederated Tribes, but other restored tribes.  "The long and short of it is the question of what this means for after-acquired lands (lands acquired by tribes after the 1988 passage of the IGRA) and new determinations about previous findings," Santos said.  Santos said that the DOI decision repeats many times that the decision only applies to the Confederated Tribes and this particular piece of land. However, the state is concerned that other tribes might find unique ways ot change prior decisions by the DOI, Santos said.

"The DOI clearly repeated that this issue and decision is unique to the Confederated Tribes and this specific tract of land. But if this is somehow perceived by any parties to open doors, the state would have some concerns.  What are the applications of that type of review on other parcels?  Are they unique?  Are there situations that other tribes could argue would likewise be unique?" Santos asked.  "We really haven't had an opportunity to sit down with our colleagues at the Oregon Department of Justice and review the decision," Santos said, citing the state budget process as the reason for the delays.  "We haven't even briefed the governor yet because we have nothing to tell him or advise him on, one way or another."

Santos said there is a misperception in the public that the state is reviewing the DOI decision because of some bias against the Confederated Tribes or this tract of land.  Not true, he said.  "This is not a matter about the (Confederated Tribes).  People seem to think our needing to review this might reflect on some concern we have with the Tribes.  That is not the issue at all.  If the DOI decision stands, then we will do compact negotiations with the Confederated Tribes.  They have been very straightforward in their communications with us." Santos said.

The Tribes asked for renegotiation of their compact in an official letter approximately a week after meeting with Santos, he said.  The state has 180 days from the time of written notification of a desire to renegotiate the compact to respond and start negotiations in good faith.  "Along those timelines, the next round of communications will begin at the end of this month or the first part of February," Santos said.

In the meantime, if the state decides to appeal the DOI decision, the state will notify the Confederated Tribes of that and will put the compact negotiations on hold.  "If we come to the determination that the DOI decision merits an appeal, we would let the Confederated Tribes know that.  But I want to emphasize that we have not made any such findings," Santos said.  Source:  1/12/02 Siuslaw News, by Karen Vitek.

Federal law requires a tribe to enter a compact with a state before it can operate a casino.  The process allows states to set guidelines or restrictions.  Washington, for example, does not allow slot machines.

Snoqualmie tribal officials plan a 70,000-square-foot timber-and-stone lodge within view of Mount Si, a peak that's sacred to the tribe.  The Muckleshoots want to amend their existing compact so they can build a second casino on their reservation in Auburn.  Source:  January 12, 2002 The Register-Guard - by The Associated Press.

"the decision sets a precedent allowing post-1988 lands (after the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988) to be added to the tribes for the purpose of gaming," Dwyer said.  "It is a very dangerous precedent and it is a precedent that could have long term impacts not only in Lane County but all over the state of Oregon and perhaps even the nation."

Dwyer said he might bring up the letter in the commission business section of the meeting this morning in Eugene.  "It is my preference to get this letter on the way because (the state) needs to know how we feel on this, assuming the board agrees," Dwyer said.  "I would hope the governor takes this very seriously as to what the ramifications of what this (federal ruling) will do."

Dwyer said that, if not dealt with at today's meeting, the letter will hopefully be on the agenda for next week's commission meeting on Jan. 16. Source:  January 9, 2002, Siuslaw News.

The council did not take any public input on the discussion, which was listed on the agenda as a mayor and council report item, not a public hearing.  Members of the Confederated Tribes were present during the discussion, as were approximately 20 other audience members.  "I received the decision over the weekend and I know there has been a tremendous amount of rumor about it," Burns said.

The U.S. Department of Interior decision of Dec. 5 grants the tribes gaming rights on a more than 98-acre parcel at the intersection of North Fork Road and Highway 126.  The decision paves the way for the tribes to negotiate an amendment to their state gaming compact with Gov. John Kitzhaber.  The compact regulates "class III gaming" (casino-style gaming) and was originally signed in 1994 for a parcel of land in Coos Bay.

Many of the councilors had not had a chance to read the December 2001 federal decision, and Burns said he had not read it thoroughly yet, but was asking for the council to discuss the possibility of sending a letter to the governor about the federal decision and potential compact negotiations.  Burns had already sent a letter, as mayor, ot the governor on Dec. 24 asking for the governor to hold a meeting with the city "in order to discuss the concerns of the people of Florence over your negotiations with the Confederated Tribes."  "You have often been portrayed as being sensitive to the concerns of Oregon communities over their abilities to deal with the many demands of casinos.  It is important to the people of Florence that we know the 'hows' and 'whats' and 'ifs' of this negotiation.  I would very much appreciate time with you to share thoughts on our concerns and our options," Burns wrote.

Burns said he had not received a response to the letter.  However, City Manager Rodger Bennett, in his monthly report to the council written on Dec. 2, stated that the governor's office of legal counsel had spoken to the city about the city's concerns.  "A conversation with the Governor's Legal Counsel told us fairly little, except that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (a division of the Department of the Interior) had not notified the state as of Wednesday of last week (about the department's decision).  All information has been forwarded by Francis Somday (tribal administrator).  "The Gov's official line was 'we are studying the ruling very carefully (italics in the report).  We are keenly aware that every other native American tribe in Oregon is alert to the ruling and looking at it for potential precedence that they can attach to (it)," according to Bennett's report.

"We were told that we will not be allowed to sit at the negotiating table but that we would be allowed to ask the Governor to speak for our specific concerns," Bennett's report stated.  Bennett also said that the city has received several comments, "mostly negative," from citizens about the possibility of a casino on the North Fork Road site.  Burns said he has also received letters.  He and Bennett said that citizens' comments would be most effective if sent to Kitzhaber and the Confederated Tribes, the people dealing with the negotiations.  "People in Florence should (send comments) to the folks dealing with (the ruling) at the governor's office and the tribes.  Focus on the people who have the ball in their hands right now," Bennett said.

Each councilor gave their opinions about the federal decision, the potential negotiations with the governor and the tribes on the gaming compact, and the possibility of a casino on the North Fork property.  Councilor Donna Lee said she had concerns about the federal decision and possibility of a casino, but that the city would need to keep an open mind in case the state decided in favor of the tribal proposal.  "I have concerns ... the council and the city should do as much as it can do to represent the people, but if the federal and state government give this a go-ahead, I would hate to see our noses cut off to spite our faces.  Once the final decision is made, we need to keep an open mind as much as possible," Lee said.  "I think we owe it to the people in this community to do all we can to encourage the governor to appeal (the federal decision)."

Councilor Dianne Burch said that she is "very strongly opposed" to a casino.  "As you know, my position on this has been very clear from the very beginning, not just this time but I was also opposed to (a 1995 plan) a casino within our community," Burch said.  "I have met with the management of the tribes many times and I respect them and regard them highly.  But about the proposal they are requesting, for concerns, I have many.  They are broad-based and across the line.  From one extreme, I have my morals and values and on the other, infrastructure ... issues such as roads and services and so forth."  Burch said she had taken a letter to U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden and asked for his help, as well as had conversations with several Lane County Commissioners about the project.  She said that Anna Morrison, west Lane County commissioner, and Bill Dwyer, chair of the Lane County Commission and representative for the Springfield area, have both spoken out in opposition of the proposal for a casino.

Burch said she had concerns, as a councilor, about the city's ability to provide water, sewer, police and other services to a casino at the North fork site, as well as concerns about the impact on Highway 126.  "I have had conversations with the Confederated Tribes and I know this is their dream and vision, but it isn't just you we're going to be dealing with.  It is people outside our state with the authority and control making demands on you and us," she said.

Burch said that she wanted the tribes to stop their proposal and consider other uses of the site, or other sites.  "Just stop and realize, why can't we work together to find something other than a casino?  Maybe you could talk to Reedsport or Gardiner.  They have a huge area there on the riverside that is not dedicated with the old mill sites.  I'm not saying that's the answer, I'm just saying you need to look at other alternatives.  Don't just say that this is what you have decided," Burch said.

Councilor Dave Braley said he too had concerns about the project's effects on the economy, social services and transportation.  "At that time (of the 1995 proposal) we received an enormous amount of testimony from people who had researched this in communities all over the (country)," Braley said.  "There was a tremendous amount of information we got that indicated the community ought to be deeply concerned with this proposal.  The folks in the tribal government are great people ... and I respect them.  But this casino is not the right thing for Florence.  I hope they do not pursue it and I would encourage the governor's office to review the (federal) ruling."

Social concerns expressed by Braley included increases in crime and an increased demand for services to help problem gamblers.  Economic concerns included the casino developing into an entire resort with hotels, restaurants, shops and other things that would hurt the small businesses of Florence, including the events center.  "Our own events center is struggling to survive and prosper.  We're doing well, but I'm not sure this town is big enough for two of these, especially if one is subsidized by casino money.  the events center is history if that happens," Braley said.

Transportation issues included the fact that the roads in the area are "not designed at all for anything like this," Braley said.  "There are more worthwhile enterprises like a resort or something to do with the cultural aspects.  There is something much better than a casino," Braley said.

Councilor Phil Brubaker suggested that the council should get more clarity on the issue and possibly endorse an appeal of the federal decision by the state.  "If the ruling is upheld, then we'd better work together," he said.  "But we should get clarity before taking up the issue."

Mayor Alan Burns wanted to set up a community forum on the subject, with the tribes presenting their proposal and the community responding, if the tribes were willing.  Brubaker said that was putting the cart before the horse.  "I don't see the purpose of a forum.  If the ruling is overturned, there is no proposal," Brubaker said.  Bennett agreed that it was too soon to hold a public forum.

"Councilor Brubaker is probably right that trying to define things more clearly at this point, until we get clarity what it is we're trying to define, may be hasty," Bennett said.  "Meanwhile you and everybody wants to do something because we see this casino coming like a locomotive and it is making some people very unhappy.  I think we can only fertilize the unhappiness by dealing with this before we see what we are talking about."

Burns said that the council needs to be fair before deciding as a council what its position is on the casino proposal and the federal decision.  "We have not seen the tribes' proposal.  We've heard a tremendous amount of opposition, but there are people out there who might support it.  I'm not disagreeing, but I'm trying to get the process is fair."

The council decided to "do its homework" on the federal decision and discuss it again on Jan. 14, when it has a previously scheduled special session at 6:30 p.m. to consider adoption of the comprehensive plan. In an interview on Tuesday, Francis Somday said that he and the other representatives of the Confederated Tribes were at the meeting prepared to answer questions and he felt the council's decision was premature.  "The governor's legal counsel has already stated publicly that they are reviewing the case and deciding whether they want to appeal it," Somday said.  "(The governor's office has) also said that it wants to commence discussions on the negotiations around the end of the month or first of the month.  It's a mixed signal.  A letter asking to appeal seems to be premature since he's still reviewing the issue."
Somday said that some of Braley's comments bout studies detailing adverse social impacts can be countered with some Oregon studies on tribal casinos showing how much the casinos helped the communities they are in.  "Grand Ronde has given millions of dollars back to Oregon communities from its development fund."  Somday said. "this tribe will do the same once it establishes its gaming operation (near) Florence and establishes its community development fund."

Concerns about the demise of the local businesses have also been discussed by the tribes, Somday said.  The tribes do not plan at this time to have a hotel, he said.  He also said the tribes have talked in the past about working with the events center and complementing the events held at the casino.  "There is already a substantial base of hotels in the city of Florence and our initial plans do not include a hotel or that kind of accommodation," Somday said.  "We prefer working with the businesses in the Florence area and making sure they are to the maximum capacity.  It only makes good business sense.  There will be some food courts or restaurants, and certain services you normally see in a casino-style operation - fast food or buffets and some low-key restaurants.

We've talked with previous managers of the events center and we are interested in working with them ot make both their venue and our venue successful.  Some ideas we have come up with are, if there's an activity going on at the events center, we could run shuttles between the center and the gambling establishment to make sure people get there.  We could post sales of tickets to shows and promote things at the center.  We plan to promote all of the natural resources and venues in the Florence area.  There are other things going on in Florence the tribes would be interested in sponsoring and supporting as well."

Somday said that it was disturbing to see the councilors so ill informed.  "I think a lot of it was venting and a lot of it was misinformation.  It was pretty evident that some of the city councilors had not gotten the opportunity to fully read the opinion and didn't fully understand the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988." Somday said.  "It is unfortunate we were unable to make any comments because it would have clarified many of the issues and it might have been a more informed discussion."  Source:  January 9, 2002 Siuslaw News, by Karen Vitek.

The department said its decision was based on the history of the property and on recent court decisions and National indian Gaming Commission opinions directing the department to interpret ambiguous portions of the gaming laws in ways that will benefit tribes.  It also stated that this decision applies only to the specific circumstances regarding this Confederated Tribes' proposal, not other future proposals by other tribes.

In 1999, the department denied gaming status to the approximate 98-acre parcel of land - known as the Hatch Tract - because it did not feel the property qualified as "restored land" under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.  The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 states that all tribes must come to an agreement with the governor and local communities for gaming rights on properties acquired after 1988, unless the land qualifies for one of three exemptions: as part of a settlement of a land claim; as the initial reservation land of the tribe or as "the restoration of lands for an Indian tribe that is restored to federal recognition."  According to the IGRA, if the land meets one or more of these exemptions, then the decision by the federal government overrides the power of the governor to veto the site as potential gaming land.  The IGRA also indicates that the governor must negotiate for a compact in good faith with any tribe that receives the federal approval for gaming rights.

The Confederated Tribes currently have a compact with the state for another piece of land in Coos Bay which was being considered in 1994 as a potential casino site.  The December 2001 decision by the federal government means that the Confederated Tribes can renegotiate that original compact with the intent of adding in the North Fork Road property instead of the property in Coos Bay.

The last exemption is the debated one in this case, as the meaning of "restored" is not clear.  The department gave an interpretation of the meaning of "restored lands" in its original 1999 decision denying gaming status on the North Fork Road property.  "We believe that 'restored lands' ... include only those lands that are available to a restored tribe as part of its restoration to federal recognition," the 1999 decision said.

The Hatch Tract and adjacent Peterman Tract both became part of the tribal land holdings in 1998.  The tribe was restored to federal status in 1984.  Therefore the lands could not be considered for gaming under the IGRA, the original department opinion stated.  However, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in September of 2000 that the department was interpreting the IGRA too strictly.  "On Sept. 29, 2000, the court ruled in the department's favor on three of four claims (by the tribes)."  states the December 2001 Department of the Interior decision.  "However, the district court also ruled that the department had adopted an unduly narrow interpretation of the 'restored lands' exception in the (IGRA) and remanded that single issue (to the department) for further review."

The courts indicated in two case s- the Confederated Tribes case and a 1999 case (Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney) - that the word "restored" as used in the IGRA is ambiguous. The new decision from the Department of the Interior states that the confusion lies in what part of speech the word "restored" is.  If the word 'restored' is intended as a verb, "as i the act of restoring," then the department's original interpretation that the land must be part of the restoration act for the tribe is valid, the Department of the Interior decision explained.  If "restored" refers to "the state of being restored," the decision said that "the timing should extend to completion of the land restoration process, whether through later legislative or administrative action."

In the Grand Traverse case, the court ruled that the IGRA should be interpreted to "imply a process rather than a specific transaction, and most assuredly does not limit restoration to a single event."  Based on this direction by the court, the department in December 2001 decided that Congress did not intend the 1984 restoration of the Confederated Tribes - and associated list of land restored to the tribes - to "limit the Tribes' future economic development" by limiting which lands counted as "restored lands."

The U.S. District Court also directed the Department of the Interior to look at the specific historical circumstances surrounding the North Fork Road property.  The Hatch Tract does have unique historic and geographic ties to the Confederated Tribes, the department found.  The Hatch Tract was first identified as a "Siuslaw Village" in 1856 by Capt. John F. Reynolds of the U.S. Army, according to research done by the tribal historian, Stephen Dow Beckman, and referenced in the department's December 2001 decision.  The site, known as Ka'aich, was the location of the ceremonial lodge of the Earth Lodge Cult, a version of the Ghost Dance, in 1877," according to Beckman's report.  That land was split up by the government when the local tribal members were relocated to the Siletz reservation.  Part (including the Hatch Tract) went to Jesse martin, a Coos Indian, and another part (including the Peterman Tract) went to Tom Johnson, a Lower Umpqua Indian.

These parcels were never taxed by the state or county and remained in the possession of those families until they became part of the lands of the Confederated Tribes, according to the tribes.  The department found that the Tribes incorporated the land into the tribal trust as soon as it became available from the individual families.  "It will often be the case that newly restored tribes will, out of practical necessity, take some time to acquire land." the new decision states.  "The department recognizes as Congress surely did, that newly restored tribes do not have readily available funds for land acquisition, that land is not always available, and the process of land acquisition is time consuming."

The Hatch Tract is historically linked to the tribes, and the community "has known for years" that the Hatch and Peterman tracts were tied to the tribes, the department said.  Under all these considerations, the land qualifies as restored land under the IGRA and therefore meets the criteria for an exemption from the governor's veto of a gaming site, the federal department found in its December 2001 decision.  Part two of this story will examine the current state gaming compact signed in 1994, and its bearing on expected negotiations with the governor about the North Fork Road property.  Source:  January 9, 2002, Siuslaw News, by Karen Vitek.

The City Council on Monday directed City Manager Rodger Bennett to prepare the letter, which will be reviewed at a council meeting next Monday. And even though two councilors spoke at length in opposition to the casino, Councilor Phil Brubaker, who proposed the letter, said it should not be considered a move by the city against the casino.

Brubaker said the city's request should be regarded as an attempt to clarify the legal issues surrounding the land, located on the North Fork Siuslaw River Road off Highway 126. The Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians hope to build a $15 million to $20 million casino there. "Let's get it through the process and out of the realm of uncertainty," Brubaker said.

Last month the Department of Interior reversed an earlier decision and in effect said the unique circumstances surrounding the 100 acres should qualify it to be classified as "restored land" suitable under federal law as a casino site - even though it was taken into trust after Oct. 17, 1988, the date of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The department generally does not allow gaming on lands taken into trust after that date.  The exception was allowed because of the tribe's long ties to the land, once the site of an Indian village and held in individual trust for tribal members for generations.

Danny Santos, the governor's legal counsel, said the state plans to review the decision with an eye toward a possible appeal, likely to federal court.  The main concern, Santos said, is the possible precedent the Interior decision might hold for other tribes and other tribal land. But at the same time, he said, an appeal is not certain and the state is preparing to enter into negotiations with the tribe on a pact that would establish how the project would take shape.  Those negotiations will likely take place late this month or early February, after a decision whether to appeal is made.

Brubaker said the appeal is needed because unless the  "restored land" issue is resolved, it constitutes a cloud over the project that might deter the investment the tribe will need and would do the community no good either. A draft of the letter will be reviewed at a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. next Monday. No public comment was allowed Monday night, but Mayor Alan Burns said comment about the letter would probably be accepted next week.

Tribal officials listened to the council discussion but were not permitted to comment. Afterward, tribal Chairman Ron Brainard said he heard a lot of misinformation and is surprised the City Council hasn't asked for a "council to council" session to discuss the casino proposal with the tribal council.

Councilors Dave Braley and Dianne Burch spoke against the casino project, raising concerns about crime, gambling addiction, possible adverse effects on the economy and   potential infrastructure problems for the city and county. They said they've encountered much public opposition to the proposal, similar to what surfaced six years ago when the tribe proposed a casino inside the city. Burch said the issue will be raised at a Lane County Board of Commissioners meeting on  Jan. 16.

Burns proposed inviting tribal officials to a public forum to answer questions about the proposal, but Brubaker argued that  it would be premature until legal issues are resolved. Councilor Donna Lee said the council should side with the majority of the public on the issue, but work with the tribe as much as possible if it becomes clear the casino is inevitable. Source:  1/8/02 - The Register-Guard, by Larry Bacon.

Council members said the proposed site off Highway 101 in north Coos Bay could have hindered
traffic patterns and future development of the area.  Tribal leaders said they may have to move the
proposal out of town.  Source: January 4, 2002, The Register-Guard