FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 7 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#601612 --- 07/10/07 08:41 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote -NO [Re: bluezone]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Off-reservation casinos face an "uphill battle" with Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthrone in charge, a Bureau of Indian Affairs official said.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#601618 --- 07/10/07 08:49 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: bluezone
... All six nations gave the title of all their land to the British, in exchange for their help in fighting the French.



Why have the tribes not sued the Brit's?
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#601630 --- 07/10/07 09:24 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Daily Policy Digest

State & Local Issues / State & Local taxes

Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Once a gambling enriched-tribe acquires land, the new "reservation" becomes a sovereign nation, exempt from all local and state laws, zoning ordinances, labor rules, environmental reviews, and American rules of due process and fair play in law enforcement, says Jan Golab. In addition, the "reservation" and business built on it, including a casino, has complete tax exemption. This policy erodes the local tax base and reduces government revenues.

Because of the numbers of casinos established in California, this poses a serious problem for the state's struggling economy:


In 2002, revenues from newly built casinos in California soared to $5 billion per year -- but the casinos paid virtually nothing to the state.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Indians must collect sales tax from customers who are not Indians, but nearly all tribal businesses ignore this rule, resulting in the undercutting of competing non-Indian businesses.
Although they pay little in taxes, gaming tribes seek to influence the political process -- spending over $120 million to push their candidates and ballot initiatives in recent years. That is more than George W. Bush spent nationwide to be elected President.

The impact is just as grave in other states, says Golab:


In Oklahoma, $580 million in annual sales and property taxes are lost to Indians in the state.




New York lost $895 million in 2002 by failing to collect taxes on cigarettes sold by Indians.




Because of the erosion of state and local tax base, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has taken on the Indian gaming industry in California and is asking that they contribute 25 percent of their earnings to the state, or approximately $1 billion.

Source: Jan Golab, "Arnold Schwarzenegger Girds For Indian War," American Enterprise, January/February 2004, American Enterprise Institute.

For more on American Enterprise
http://www.taemag.com

For more on State & Local taxes
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/sta/

--------------------------------

Have the Cayugas paid these taxes to NY?
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#601826 --- 07/10/07 04:49 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: grinch
Thanks. A letter is a letter, much as a post is a post. I am seeking some authoritive information that confirms Mr Pettingill's information. I believe what he said in the letter, but would like to see the source reference to confirm his information relative to land into trust. I have read the 1926 Tribunal of Paris resolution and I am aware of how NYS acquired the land.


I was not trying to answer your post but rather just happened to post after your question.

No deal for the tribe.


My post was a bit brusque, it was not meant to be. Sorry about that. Mr. Warren and Mr. Talcott furnished me with information that proofs out my belief. That belief being, there are no federal trust lands in NYS held by Indian tribes. The next time one of those "well" informed public officials tell me differently I will have a reference source to bolster my arguments.

I have read several articles lately where the courts have shot down challenges to trust lands in Michigan lodged by opponents of land into trust. Each seem to have some twist or loop hole that negated the protests. I remain firm in my opinion that is not going to happen in the Cayuga Seneca area and we should say no to this proposal.

I agree with the suggestion to contact your state and federal representatives and state your opposition. Demand they support our interests and not the big money people who are behind this latest proposal. If the vote fails and the proposal is rejected, so what, by agreeing to this proposal it amounts to the same thing as their buying land and applying for trust. You might say the money will not be there if we turn it down, it is my opinion the money promised will not materialize and if it does it will be short lived. We will have given up sovereign NYS land for nothing. The question of limiting the acreage they can declare sovereign is mute. They want 10000 acres, that is ten thousand acres of sovereign NYS land on which they answer to no one. That will only be the beginning of what they want. I do not believe the courts would ever approve that much land being taken off the tax rolls without some form of compensation to the local communities.


For that matter, if you are in favor do that as well.


If people see gambling as entertainment and want a casino on every street corner, lets work towards changing the law so that anyone can open one.

Top
#602253 --- 07/11/07 04:42 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: grinch]
grinch Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/28/01
Posts: 4617
Loc: New York State
This statement by Floyd and Marge Baker speaks volumes and is one of the reasons many of us are so adamant against allowing Indian nations to establish sovereignty over lands that have not been theirs for hundreds of years.
Excerpt from the Finger Lakes Times Article July 11th 2007

"The most moving statements came from Floyd and Marge Baker, owners of Finger Lakes Returnables in Seneca Falls.

They said that when they first opened, business was initially slow-going, but they were turning a decent profit by 1997 and bringing in $1.1 million a year by 2003; a month after the Nation store opened, cigarette sales alone dropped $25,000. They also lost related sales to customers who bought other items while stopping for cigarettes and/or gas.

"We saw friends of ours in Oneida and Madison counties," Marge Baker said, struggling in vain to hold back tears. "We watched them as they lost their businesses and properties."

Floyd Baker said his property was appraised at $654,000, but sold for $325,000 (in October 2004) because most buyers backed away, citing unfair competition.

He said they spent 15 years building a business they hoped would benefit their children and grandchildren, but that Indian businesses created unfair trade practices, the law was not enforced and they couldn't compete.

"We are supposed to live in a land where all men and women are created equal," Floyd Baker read, saying the Indians want to be reimbursed for land they sold. "We're also native Americans. What the Indian nations are demanding is unfair, unconstitutional and unreasonable.""

To read the entire article go to : http://fltimes.com/articles/2007/07/11/news/news01-02.txt

Top
#602779 --- 07/12/07 07:12 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote-NO [Re: grinch]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#604560 --- 07/16/07 07:25 AM Re: Arcuri Favors Cayuga settlement [Re: bluezone]
Driver8 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/19/00
Posts: 1081
Loc: Seneca Falls
Just heard the Congressman on the radio. He said that he wouldn't support a settlement if the counties don't get on board first, but was pretty clear that he wants them to settle. He said that if the counties don't settle, the BIA will put "unlimited" lands in trust and the counties won't get a dime.

Top
#604725 --- 07/16/07 12:58 PM Re: Arcuri Favors Cayuga settlement [Re: Driver8]
Laker Offline
Member

Registered: 04/13/00
Posts: 239
Loc: SF, NY USA
If the tribe is holding all the cards, WHY do they want to make a deal ????? THINK ABOUT IT . They think the can loose in the courts, that why.

Top
#604728 --- 07/16/07 01:06 PM Re: Arcuri Favors Cayuga settlement [Re: Driver8]
BraveHeart Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 04/12/00
Posts: 17740
Loc: TOV Seneca Falls
Originally Posted By: Driver8
Just heard the Congressman on the radio. He said that he wouldn't support a settlement if the counties don't get on board first, but was pretty clear that he wants them to settle. He said that if the counties don't settle, the BIA will put "unlimited" lands in trust and the counties won't get a dime.


Sounds like extortion to me
_________________________
Wholl drink a toast with me
To the devil and the deep blue sea
Gold drives a man to dream
AMF

Top
#604730 --- 07/16/07 01:15 PM Re: Arcuri Favors Cayuga settlement [Re: BraveHeart]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Vote NO..........

The supreme court did not say that the tribe will get trust land but said that would be the only way for it to sovereign.

It appears that the supreme court offered the statment about trust land as a way to lessen the court lose for the tribes. If the supreme court did not make a statement about trust land then the tribe may have started a riot.

No trust land will be in NY.





.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#604988 --- 07/16/07 09:55 PM Re: Arcuri Favors Cayuga settlement [Re: bluezone]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
The Bureau of Indian Affairs was formed in 1824. But similar agencies had existed in the U.S. government as far back as 1775, when a trio of Indian agencies were created by the Second Continental Congress. Benjamin Franklin and Patrick Henry were among the early commissioners, who were charged with negotiating treaties with Native Americans and obtaining their neutrality during the American Revolutionary War. In 1789, the United States Congress placed Native American relations within the newly-formed War Department.

The current Bureau of Indian Affairs was formed on March 11, 1824, by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, who created the agency without authorization from the United States Congress.

Food for thought.

Top
#605158 --- 07/17/07 08:47 AM Re: Arcuri should vote NO [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: Rich_Tallcot
without authorization from the United States Congress.

Food for thought.


If we use the theory that the tribes claim-that the treaty(s) did not have authorization from Congress then all decisions put forth by the BIA should be void.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#605159 --- 07/17/07 08:48 AM Re: Arcuri should vote NO [Re: bluezone]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Is Okla in hiding?
LOL
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#605160 --- 07/17/07 08:50 AM Re: Arcuri should vote NO [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
Why does the "settlement" not include repayment of all the monies that the tribes received for the land over the past 200 years (plus interest)?

LOL
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#605216 --- 07/17/07 10:57 AM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: bluezone]
Josephus Offline
Silver Member

Registered: 08/25/00
Posts: 11561
Loc: NYS
Originally Posted By: bluezone
Originally Posted By: bluezone
... All six nations gave the title of all their land to the British, in exchange for their help in fighting the French.



Why have the tribes not sued the Brit's?

Bluezone, where did you get this information?
_________________________
I don't want my country back... I want my country forward!

Top
#605328 --- 07/17/07 02:37 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: Josephus]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
It's in the National Archives. The Iroquois deeded all their lands to the Brits in 1702 and again in 1726 in exchange for protection from the French.

Top
#606266 --- 07/19/07 08:14 AM Re: Cayuga vote [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32556
Loc: USA
And now the tribe wants to sue the US?
Maybe the tribe should sue the Brits?

July 31 vote NO
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#629783 --- 08/28/07 10:17 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Cayuga County voted tonight and passed the resolution that Seneca County passed out of their tribal committee. Only Cayuga County noted - in their agenda "as amended", thus making it clear that it was rejecting the pending proposal. Only one legislator, Mike Lepak, opposed. It was a good day.

RESOLUTION_______ (8.28.07) CHR-Reject Cayuga Nation Proposal

RESOLUTION TO PROPOSE A CLASS III CASINO IN THE CATSKILLS IN LIEU OF LAND IN TRUST FOR THE CAYUGA INDIAN NATION OF NEW YORK IN SENECA AND CAYUGA COUNTIES AND TO REJECT THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL (AS AMENDED)

BY: MR. FEARON, Chairman, Cayuga County Legislature
MR. LOCKWOOD, Chairman, (Temporary) Cayuga County Native American Affairs Committee

WHEREAS, Seneca and Cayuga counties have been presented with a proposal to resolve pending and future federal trust applications in a settlement which would allow the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York to place in restricted fee status up to 10,000 acres in the claim area, thus making it “sovereign” Indian territory (“the original settlement proposal”); and

WHEREAS, the same proposal provides for the counties to be compensated annually for the loss of tax revenue as land is placed in restricted fee status, such compensation coming from the revenue of a Class III casino to be located somewhere in New York State, presumably in Sullivan County, and

WHEREAS, the Cayuga County Legislature is opposed to the establishment of sovereign Indian territory in their county; and

WHEREAS, the net drop of a casino in the Catskills has been estimated to be $492,000,000 annually; and

WHEREAS, the tribal membership of the Cayuga Indian Nation is reported to be approximately 450; and

WHEREAS, Chapter 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 151.10 and .11) requires an Indian tribe to demonstrate need in order for land to be taken into federal trust, and

WHEREAS, evidence has been presented to the Cayuga County Legislature which appears to indicate that the Cayuga Indian Nation currently occupies certain acreage within Western New York; and

WHEREAS, a Class III casino in the Catskills is estimated to provide the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York with a net drop of over $1,000,000 per tribal member annually; and

WHEREAS, there would therefore be no need for the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York to have any land placed in trust for it in Seneca and Cayuga counties if it operated a Class III casino in Sullivan County; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that Cayuga County Legislature proposes that the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York be allowed by the State of New York to operate a Class III casino in New York State (Sullivan County) through a valid State Compact; and be it further

-2-
RESOLVED, that in return for the right to operate a Class III casino in New York State the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York would forever relinquish its right to apply for land to be placed in trust or restricted fee status or otherwise become sovereign in the counties of Seneca and Cayuga; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Congress of the United States ratify an agreement between the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York, the State of New York, and the counties of Seneca and Cayuga to this effect; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the Cayuga County Legislature rejects the original settlement proposal. (as amended)

George C. Fearon, Chairman Cayuga County Legislature
____________________________________________

Raymond E. Lockwood, (Temporary) Cayuga County Native American Affairs Committee

____________________________________________
_________________________
http://www.citizensalliance.org

Top
#630557 --- 08/29/07 07:36 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: Rich_Tallcot]
justaxme Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/31/05
Posts: 2351
Loc: On top?
How likely is it that the Feds will give land in Seneca and Cayuga Counties to the indians? Or is it more likely that they will give them one chunk of land in the Catskills or wherever to build a casino.

Do you think the Feds will let the indians cherry pick the best locations in Seneca and Cayuga Counties and then allow them tax free zones to drive existing businesses out of business AND a Casino somewhere else?
_________________________
I'm Justaxme, and I approved this message.

Top
#630638 --- 08/29/07 09:11 PM Re: Cayuga settlement vote [Re: justaxme]
Rich_Tallcot Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/19/03
Posts: 5565
Loc: Greeneville, TN
Originally Posted By: justaxme
How likely is it that the Feds will give land in Seneca and Cayuga Counties to the indians? Or is it more likely that they will give them one chunk of land in the Catskills or wherever to build a casino.

Do you think the Feds will let the indians cherry pick the best locations in Seneca and Cayuga Counties and then allow them tax free zones to drive existing businesses out of business AND a Casino somewhere else?


I expect the feds will approve one location - they don't want checkerboard reservations either. That location could be anywhere and may not even be in the old land claim area. Trust applications have nothing to do with the land claim, although the tribe dragged it's land claim arguments out in the application. I expect whatever is approved will be rejected in the courts. Anything challenged cannot be granted trust status while it is being challenged.

And then, there's Texas. I always liked Texas.

LONESTAR STATE
----------------------------------------------------------------
NO TO CASINOS Fifth Circuit rules for state
by Christine DeLoma


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the Secretary of the Interior has no power to allow gambling, in this case the Kickapoo Indian Reservation, over the objection of the state. The decision is a victory for Texas in the latest round of litigation designed to keep casino gaming out of the Lone Star State.

Indian tribes are sovereign only to the federal government on their lands, meaning that a state can regulate conduct on a reservation only when Congress says it can.

Gambling on Indian lands is illegal under federal law unless a tribe enters into a compact with the state where the gambling occurs and under what conditions.
An exception to the compact requirement occurs if a federal court rules that a state has negotiated in bad faith. Then a state has to enter a mediation process with the Secretary of the Interior, who has authority to impose a compact on the state.

There’s one catch — the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that under the 11th amendment to the U. S. Constitution Congress cannot force states to submit to a lawsuit from the tribes.

So the current Secretary of the Interior was working on mandatory mediation procedures, even absent a finding from the federal courts that a state has negotiated in bad faith.

Texas sued, challenging these procedures, and the appeals court has issued a judgment for the state, agreeing that the federal government exceeded its authority.

What makes the decision complex is that each of the three judges on the panel wrote an opinion. Writing for the court, Chief Judge Edith H. Jones held that the secretary exceeded his authority, and that unless Congress acts, a state cannot be compelled to enter the secretary’s mediation procedure. Her opinion would make it easy for Texas to keep out gambling. She explicitly states that a state’s refusal to allow Class III (casino) gambling would be bargaining in good faith.

Judge Carolyn Dineen King concurred in the judgment, but not in Jones’s opinion. She did, however, agree that the secretary of the interior exceeded his authority.

Judge James L. Dennis dissented, arguing that the regulations were within the secretary’s authority to adopt. Dennis questioned whether Texas had negotiated in good faith, arguing that the state allows some types of Class III gaming (the lottery) but will not negotiate a compact with the Indian tribes.

Top
Page 7 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >