|
|
NEWSLETTERS
Beginning in 2007, NCIP started a series of periodical newsletters design to update and inform the citizens of the community who may not have access to or be comfortable using the Internet. The Newsletter Page is designed as a sequential archieve of that data. INDEX
NCIP Newsletter Issue #10 Analysis of Tribal Draft Environmental Impact Statement NCIP Newsletter Issue #9 Tribal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Released NCIP Newsletter Issue #8 Buena Vista Casino Intergovernmental Services Agreement (ISA) Newsletter NCIP Newsletter Issue #7 More on No MSA = No casino, plus Props 94, 95, 96, & 97 NCIP Newsletter Issue #6 Why NOT Negotiating a MSA = NO Casino!! NCIP Newsletter Issue #5 More casino Questions Answered NCIP Newsletter Issue #4 Correcting Tribal Misinformation NCIP Newsletter Issue #3 Questions From the NCIP Casino Forum NCIP Newsletter Issue #2 Understanding the importance of a MSA NCIP Newsletter Issue #1 Casino Questions Answered
Analysis of Tribal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issue 9 deals with the Tribal Draft ENvironmental Impact Statement which we believe to be Outdated, Inadequate, Error Filled & Misleading. The fraudulent Franklin Group released their draft Environmental Impact Study (EIS) on April 18th and the period for public comment closed July 2nd. No Casino in Plymouth, Amador County, the City of Plymouth, the Foothill Conservancy and several individuals filed written comments delineating specific objections and questioning the numerous inadequacies, the outdated data, the many misrepresentations and a host of false, fraudulent & misleading statements contained in the draft EIS (DEIS). The flaws in the DEIS cannot be summarized in this two page newsletter. The inadequacy of the Tribe's DEIS can be better understood by reviewing the nearly 200 pages of comments and questions submitted by NCIP and Amador County. NCIP was very ably assisted in preparing our comment package by local environmental Attorney Thomas Infusino. NCIP’s comments and questions can be accessed on our Website under the page entitled Draft EIS. The lengthy comments submitted by Amador County can be found on the Amador County Website at http://www.co.amador.ca.us/eirs/plymouth/index.cfm The NCIP response highlights the inadequacies of the DEIS and demonstrates that the tribe’s conclusions involving the many expected negative impacts cannot be justified based on the data and information presented. Some specific issues in NCIP's comment package include:
The DEIS is replete with this type of analysis where the tribe uses outdated data or estimates or assumptions about a negative impact and then proposes mitigation where the tribe may take some non specific action. No actual plans for mitigation are included in the DEIS which commits the tribe to take any specific action. It appears the tribe has used data from other old non related Environmental Impact Studies and many reports, data sources, and references in the DEIS are not included in the appendices. In addition to its failure to adequately address the many negative environmental impacts of the project the Executive Summary and Introduction of the DEIS contains statements concerning the Franklin Group’s recognition, restoration, and landless status that the record and history simply do not support. All comments and questions related to the many misrepresentations and false statements in the DEIS must be addressed in a final EIS. If the issues raised by NCIP and Amador County are addressed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior based on the factual record and history of the Ione Band then the Franklin Group should lose it’s stolen identity as the Ione Band and the proposed casino project in Plymouth will be a “Dead Deal”. The Department of the Interior requires that any Tribal proposal for Indian Gaming comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). A “draft” EIS is far from the confirmation of a “done deal” that local casino proponents would have you believe. A “draft” EIS is just one step in the long time consuming process required to acquire land for a casino. Any EIS that does not properly mitigate the negative impacts to the environment caused by a casino is likely to be challenged in Federal Court. Court of Appeals Opinion published April 17,2007 You Can Make a Difference
The Tribe’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement should be withdrawn. The document is simply inadequate and fails to meet the requirements of NEPA. The numerous instances of outdated, inadequate, and error filled data as well as the frequent false and misleading statements need to be corrected. Please Call or E-mail the following Governmental officials and ask them to insist that the BIA require that this document to be withdrawn: Return to INDEX
Tribal Draft Environmental Impact Statement Released Issue #9 deals with the Tribal Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a Proposed Plymouth Casino Noticed in Federal Register - April 18, 2008 Finally, 18 months after the Franklin-led Ione Band filed its incomplete and error-laden Fee-to-Trust (FTT) Application, which listed the EIS as part of the document, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement has made its appearance for public review and comment. This DEIS is allegedly based on the comments received during the Scoping Sessions held by the BIA at the Amador County Fair Grounds in 2003 and 2004, over four years ago, and is a required element of the application the tribe submitted in November 2007. Despite alarmist reaction to the release of the DEIS as “the beginning of the end”, this document represents nothing more than an expected next step in the process that the tribe must follow. However, the BIA, the Department of Interior and the Franklin-led Band have continued their well-documented pattern and practice of misinforming the public by stating in the Notice that the tribe currently owns 228 acres in fee title. THIS IS A BLATANLTLY FLASE ASSERTION. A records check at the Amador County Recorders Office at 2:25 PM Friday, April 18, 2008, failed to produce a single document to support that the Band owns the 228 acres. Unfortunately, despite forewarning by NCIP that this statement was incorrect and therefore deceiving to the public, the Ledger-Dispatch chose to include this erroneous and misleading information in the Tuesday, April 22, 2008 edition, thereby failing news journalism’s historical role as the nonpartisan watchdog of the people and lending credibility to more tribal misinformation. In light of the fact that is has taken the Tribe over 4 years to produce this DEIS, No Casino In Plymouth is working diligently to obtain an extension of the comment period, from 75 days to 180 days, as well as postpone the public hearing scheduled in less than 30 days, in order to provide the public and local government agencies adequate time to review and provide thorough analysis and comment on this enormous document (estimated at over 1500 pages). Initial preview of the DEIS has already found it to be riddles with errors and inconsistencies. Whether an extension is granted or not, NCIP is committed to providing meaningful comment at the scheduled May 21st public meeting and will submit written comments prior to the closing date for the comment period. No Casino In Plymouth has also recently submitted over 200 pages of documents to the Department of Interior and other state and federal representatives that demonstrate a clear pattern of ethics violations relative to the Band FTT application by the Sacramento Regional Office of the BIA and extending to high-ranking officials at the Department of Interior. REMEMBER No Decision Has Been Made & The Tribe Does Not Own The Land In Question. Final resolution of this casino proposal will most likely occur in Federal Court. The EIS is one of many steps required to get to that end! WHAT YOU CAN DO !!!!
CONTACT John Rydzik (916) 978-6042 and request a hard copy of DEIS. **and also Attend the Public Hearing on May 21, 2008 Amador County Fair Grounds** 6-9pm Email Secretary of Interior Kempthorne’s Chief of Staff, Brain Waidmann, at Brian_Waidmann@ios.doi.gov and request that the DEIS be withdrawn because the Federal Register Notice wrongly informs the public that the Tribe owns land. Call Senator Feinstein: (559) 485-7430 or (202) 224-3841 or E-mail at http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe Call Congressman Lungren: (202) 225-5716 or (916) 859 9906 or E-mail at https://forms.house.gov/lungren/forms/email.shtml Ask that they request Assistant Secretary Artman to provide proof of tribal ownership of the 228 acres or withdraw, correct and reissue the Federal register notice. Return to INDEX
NCIP Intergovernmental Services Agreement (ISA) Newsletter Why the ISA Must Be Rejected ! No Casino in Plymouth (NCIP) believes the proposed ISA with the Buena Vista Tribe must be rejected by the Board of Supervisors for the following reasons: NCIP urges you to let the Board of Supervisors know that Amador County citizens are not willing to withdraw the lawsuit or forfeit their right to sue for any amount of money and that a NO vote on the ISA is required. It is in the best interests of Amador County for the Board of Supervisors reject the ISA, go to arbitration, and continue litigation. Contact the Board of Supervisors at 223 6470. A hot line for ISA comments is 257 5099 Questions & Answers about the ISA
Q. Does the ISA require the County to drop its lawsuit? A. Yes, it is obvious that the tribe does not want the status of the land determined in court based on the facts. Q. Does the ISA require the County to never challenge the status of the land in any court? A. Yes, it is really obvious the tribe does not want this issue in court and this would prevent the County filing any new lawsuit in Federal Court. The County could not make any challenge to the project in State Courts under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County cannot protect the health, safety & welfare of its citizens in the future. Q. Is the $92,800.00 for Schools all the money for Schools? (this is 9 cents per student per month) A. Yes, and the School Board voted unanimously on February 6th to reject the ISA, protect Amador County and arbitrate. Q. Is the County indemnified by the Tribe for $10 million for lawsuits against the County from its citizens? A. Yes, this means the tribe will work through the County against County citizens for the tribes benefit. Q. Has the Tribe provided data that proves that there is enough water? A. No, according to the County the tribe has not proved that sufficient water is available for a 950 machine casino. Q. Will the Tribe allow County testing of the Tribe's wells to verify there is enough water? A. No, if the wells can supply enough water why not let the County test? What is the Tribe hiding? Is this good faith? Q. Has the County spent $1.4 million on its lawsuit? A. No, the County has spent $262,000 with the D.C. law firm (Attorney Dennis Whittlesey)
The ISA demands a NO vote from our Supervisors to protect Amador County from ILLEGAL casinos.
The Buena Vista Rancheria is NOT a reservation.
The ISA (Intergovernmental Services Agreement) is NO Deal. Attend the Forum at Plymouth City Hall on February 20. 6:30 pm 8:30 pm.
Return to INDEX
More on No MSA = No casino, plus Props 94, 95, 96, & 97
In our last Issue, UPDATE # 6, NCIP made the point that NO MSA equates to an incomplete fee to trust application which means No Casino. This necessity for agreements between local governments and tribes was further emphasized in a recently released memo (1/03/08) from Department of Interior Assistant Secretary, Carl Artman. That memo was distributed to both George Skibine, Office of Indian Gaming and all Bureau of Indian Affairs Regional Directors. The subject was "Guidance on taking off-reservation land into trust for gaming purposes." Two brief quotations from that memo follow.
First, "With respect to jurisdictional issues, the application should include copies of any intergovernmental agreements negotiated between the tribe and state and local governments, or an explanation as to why no such agreements exist. Failure to achieve such agreements should WEIGH HEAVILY AGAINST APPROVAL (emphasis added) of the application."
Second, "With respect to land use issues, the application should include a comprehensive analysis as to whether the proposed gaming facility is compatible with the current zoning and land use requirements of the state and local governments, and with the use being made of adjacent or contiguous land, and whether such uses would be negatively impacted by the traffic, noise, and development associated with or generated by the proposed gaming facility. Incompatible uses might consist of adjacent or contiguous land zoned or used
for ...... day care centers, schools, churches or residential developments.
If the application does not contain such analysis, it should be denied.” (emphasis added )
Despite the rhetoric of Plymouth’s pro-casino minority, negotiating with the Tribe will not protect the City. What Plymouth and Amador County need is No More Casinos, period. That statement is more than an opinion; it is what everything we have learned about the negative consequences of casino development demands. Not negotiating a required intergovernmental agreement is a huge and perhaps fatal obstacle to this proposed casino. NCIP strongly recommends that Plymouth City Council not negotiate or hold any discussions with the tribe which might be viewed as leading to a future agreement. Remember, NO MSA = NO CASINO
Propositions 94, 95, 96 & 97
These sweetheart deals for 4 wealthy and powerful Tribes are a bad deal for California Taxpayers, Workers and Other Tribes.
These propositions, if approved would result in an unprecedented expansion of 17,000 slot machines for four of the richest gaming tribes in California while providing no verifiable benefit to the State. Proposition supporters claim that substantial revenue would come to the State from these agreements but in fact the revenue to the state would be a miniscule 0.5 percent of the State budget. These agreements allow the tribes not the State to determine the gaming Revenues on which the State’s share is based. These agreements are opposed by major newspapers and grass roots citizen groups from all over the state.
Gaming tribes are the State’s largest political contributors. This gambling money is distorting the political process. Help stem the tide of the gambling machine that seems intent on taking over California. Protect California’s future, VOTE NO on Props. 94, 95, 96, & 97. This will send a message to the Governor and Legislature that the voters do not want any expansion of gaming or any more casinos in California. Additional information is available at www.califoniaprogressreport.com .
“The new gambling deals give away too much to a handful of the richest, most powerful tribes in the state. The deals also expand gambling far beyond the gambling in California in 1998.” Sacramento Bee
Please call the City of Plymouth (245–6941) or fax (245-6953) and let them know that you do NOT want a MSA negotiated!!!
Return to INDEX
Why NOT Negotiating a MSA = NO Casino!!
The City of Plymouth is on record as not supporting a casino & there is overwhelming citizen opposition to a casino. Despite this opposition, the Tribe & local casino supporters (Concerned Citizens for Public Awareness) have launched a new propaganda campaign to convince local citizens that the City of Plymouth should negotiate a MSA. WHY?
Because the Department of the Interior REQUIRES * agreements between tribes and local governments regarding jurisdictional and land use issues to be submitted as part of the fee to trust acquisition package.
Q.Why is the Tribe desperate to negotiate a new MSA? Q.Why did the Tribe spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend and save the first illegal MSA ? Q.Why does the Tribe's Fee to Trust Application include a MSA with Plymouth listed as Exhibit J? Q.Why doesn't the Tribe just submit its Fee to Trust Application without a MSA? * A March 2005 memo from DOI informed all Regional Directors that the updated March 2005 checklist differed in three ways from the October 2001 Checklist. The second update reads.
No MSA = Incomplete Fee to Trust Application = No Casino
Please call the City of Plymouth (245–6941) or fax (245-6953) and let them know that you do NOT want a MSA negotiated!!!
Return to INDEX
More casino Questions Answered
Q. Does the invalidation of the MSA and the rescinding of the support letter by the Plymouth City Council mean the casino project is dead? Q. Why? Q. Does that mean Plymouth has no say? Q. Is that a significant difference? Q. Is that why the Tribe appealed the Court decision invalidating the MSA? Q. But wouldn’t a new MSA protect Plymouth? Q. Couldn’t we just trust the Tribe to deal fairly with Plymouth? 1. The Tribe commited in October of "03 to fund a study of the costs necessary to mitigate the negative effects of the proposed casino. Never happened! Instead the Tribe engaged in questionable negotiations and consummated an illegal MSA with the City of Plymouth. The MSA has been declared by every court in California to be illegal and of no value to the City of Plymouth.
2. The Tribes claim that they want to be good neighbors is not supported by the MSA which did not provide adequate funding to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed casino according to the Matrix Study which was based solely on information and data provided by the Tribe.
3. The Tribe committed at their recent forum to publish an ad in the Ledger Dispatch that provided the actual size of the proposed casino project. To date no ad has been published.
4. The Tribe claimed at their Forum to have DOI status as a restored Tribe. No DOI decision has been made as to whether they are restored. The DOI has stated explicitly in Federal Court that the Ione Band was never terminated. They were reaffirmed.
5. The Tribe has claimed since 2003 to be landless. There is a long and well documented history at the BIA and DOI that the Ione Band is not landless. Matt Franklin has used the Band's 40 acres near Ione to apply for and receive EPA GAP grant monies.
Q. Are there any other negative consequences for Plymouth and Amador County? Q. What can I do to help? Return to INDEX
Correcting Tribal Misinformation
Q.Is this “Done Deal” the same “Done Deal” presented more than four years ago which investor IKON walked away from?
(remember all those “We are breaking ground in 2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months..” statements made in the past 4 years by the MFIB (Matt Franklin Ione Band). Q.Is the MFIB a landless restored tribe eligible for the restored lands exception in the IGRA as claimed by Matt Franklin at the MFIB’s recent public forum? An example of the capricious nature of these Solicitor's opinions related to the Ione Band is in a brief filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. where the Dept. of Interior admits “while the Tribe's [Ione] petition for recognition was pending, the Department reaffirmed the status of [Ione].... outside the [Part 83] procedures.” A recent brief from the Solicitor's Office to that same Court in the same case states “ Ione's common land base, which it successfully quieted title to, demonstrates that Ione's members lived in a centralized geographic location.” and “This is the same property where they [Ione] have lived continuously and collectively until the present.” ( The property is the 40 acres near Ione)
The Dept. of Interior has admitted in U.S. District Court that the Ione Band has title to land and was reaffirmed NOT restored. If the MFIB is the true Ione Band they cannot be restored and landless according to documents filed by the Solicitor's Office in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C.
Q.Does the City need a new MSA? and Will a new MSA protect the City? Q.Do casinos really benefit the communities where they are situated? In 1996 the U.S. Congress created the U.S. National Gambling Impact Study Commission to review gambling activities throughout the U.S.. In 1999 the NGICS issued its Final Report and confirmed that the U.S.. gambling industry had created: (1) new addicted gamblers (2) new bankruptcies (3) new crime and corruption. The NGICS unanimously called for a moratorium on the expansion of U.S. Gambling.
Q. Should the City Council, when faced with intense pressure from the Tribe, its investor and a small vocal uninformed minority of affected citizens consider negotiating a new MSA? Return to INDEX
Questions Answered at The NCIP Casino Forum
On March 31, 2007 NCIP hosted a Forum at Plymouth City Hall for the purpose of informing the public on the current status of the casino proposed by the Franklin-led Ione Band of Miwok Indians. Factual answers by local representatives cleared the air over controversial questions about the proposed gambling casino.
Q. Does the Tribe need the Municipal Services Agreement to get a Casino? Q. Does the MSA protect the City by adequately mitigating the negative impacts of the proposed casino? Q. Does the County want the Plymouth Casino to be moved from the City to the County so the County will get all the mitigation money and the City will get nothing? Q. Why is the County suing the Department of Interior, Secretary Kempthorne, and Secretary of Indian Affairs Carl J. Artman? Q. Can anything be done to require the BIA and Department of Interior to consider local governments and community input? “It has become increasingly apparent the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission within the Department of Interior has interpreted the statute in a manner which cuts local communities out of the decision-making process…” “ There are multiple layers of government impacted when land is newly taken into trust for gaming purposes, and I want to make sure that state and local entities have a voice in the matter.” Congressman Dan Lungren
Q. Does the Tribe own any of the parcels identified in the fee-to-trust application? PLEASE SEND LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS LEGISLATION TO CONGRESSMAN LUNGREN ASAP! Return to INDEX
No Casino In Plymouth (NCIP) thanks you for your positive response and questions resulting from our first newsletter distributed recently. Our second newsletter is designed to provide background information, answer your questions and keep you informed of recent developments concerning the proposed casino in Plymouth.
Detailed information related to the proposed casino can be found on our website nocasinoinplymouth.com. You may submit any casino related questions to P.O. Box 82, Plymouth, Ca. 95669, or email at citizens@nocasinoinplymouth.com
Please plan to attend a public forum March 31st from 1:00 pm to 3:00 pm at Plymouth City Hall. Several elected representatives, government officials and attorneys experienced with the fee to trust process for gambling and the many negative impacts of gambling will speak on the issues related to the proposed casino and answer any questions that you may have.
MUNICIPAL SERVICES BACKGROUND:
1. At the request of the Franklin led Ione Band of Miwoks a Municipal Services Agreement (MSA) including a Letter of Support clause, was negotiated with the City of Plymouth and approved in February 2004 by a Plymouth City Council that had 3 council members under recall for supporting the casino proposal.
2. While the Plymouth City Attorney has stated on the public record that he did not negotiate or participate in the preparation of the MSA he did address a 9 page email to the former Mayor that identified many of the serious issues with the MSA including the very California Environmental Quality Act issues over which the City was to be successfully sued.
3. The City Attorney’s comments and those of the public were ignored and the MSA was approved at a special
Friday night meeting called with only 48-hour notice. The Council approved the MSA despite overwhelming opposition from the City residents and the community.
4. All Council members who approved the MSA were recalled or not re-elected.
5. Amador County and No Casino in Plymouth successfully sued the City for not complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Amador County Superior Court ordered the City to rescind the resolution approving the MSA and to withdraw its letter of support of the casino project.
Q. What is the current status of the MSA? Q. Is the MSA important to the Franklin led Ione Band ? Q. Why is the MSA and City support so important to the Franklin led Ione Band? Q. Does the City of Plymouth need the MSA now to protect the City later ? Q. How can you support Amador County and the State of California in their opposition to the casino? Return to INDEX
This is the first in a series of newsletters for residents of Plymouth and the greater Plymouth community designed to answer questions concerning the proposed Casino and provide brief factual updates on current developments. Detailed information and any referenced source material can be found on our website “nocasinoinplymouth.com”.
NCIP is planning to hold a public forum in the spring to address political, legal, and other issues in connection with this project. Speakers and exact dates will be announced in the next issue. We invite you to submit questions that express your concerns and we will do our best to provide honest and accurate answers in future issues. Email: citizen@nocasinoinplymouth.com mail: P.O. Box 82, Plymouth, CA 95669
Phone: (209) 245-6115
QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Q. Is the Casino a done deal? Q. Has the Tribe bought land for the Casino? Q. Has the Tribe filed an Application? Q. Is the Application likely to be accepted? Q. Is it likely this Application will be challenged? Q. What is the Plymouth City Council doing? Q. What can you do? Stay involved! Your City Council needs your support and encouragement. Attend City Council meetings! Speak your mind! Contact the Plymouth City Council and Amador County Board of Supervisors to thank them for their commitment to your community and urge them know to continue to fight for No More Casinos in Amador County.
Contact info:
Plymouth City Council Congressman Dan Lungren Arnold Schwartzenegger Amador County Board of Supervisors Brian Oneto, 5th District Supervisor Return to INDEX
This page, and all its contents, are
Copyright (C) 2003 by Citizens for No Casino In Plymouth (209) 245-6115. If you find any factual inaccuracies on this Website – contact NCIP for correction. |
