Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Are you opposed to Indian gaming?
Q: Can Indian tribes make money without casinos?
Q: What is reservation shopping?
Q: What does off-reservation mean?
Q: Where is the best location for Indian casinos?
Q: Why should you care if you have no Indian casino proposed near you at the present time?
Q: Is it a small minority of people that oppose the casinos in the East Bay?
Q: What are legislators currently doing to stop urban casinos?
Q: Are you opposed to Indian gaming?
A. No. We are against the emerging trend by some tribes to seek out and purchase land within incorporated city limits, distant from their historical tribal lands, and having the government put it into trust with the notion that the tribe will build a casino one day.
Q: Can Indian tribes make money without casinos?
A: Indians have the right to support their tribes by operating casinos within the parameters of federal and state law. The United States Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 effectively authorized casino gambling on Indian reservations. In California, Proposition 1A created a process to permit tribes to operate casinos. Unfortunately, exceptions and loopholes in the law have triggered widespread reservation shopping – tribes with or without lands of their own acquiring land within or adjacent to city limits, often far from their own reservations or lands, using outside money to develop huge Las Vegas-like casinos. During the campaign for Proposition 1A in California, the tribes vowed never to build urban casinos. We just want them to keep their promise.
Q: What is reservation shopping?
A: Reservation shopping describes the practice of a tribe seeking to acquire property often far away from their own historical lands to locate a new casino. This has become an even greater concern as some tribes have identified land for their casinos that is in the heart of large urban areas. Frequently, local communities that must bear the tremendous negative impacts generated by a large Indian casino are left with little recourse or opportunity to stop these projects. In many cases, tribes are backed by non-tribal and often out-of-state investors, who retain a share of the casino’s revenues if successfully installed. These investors may “shop around,” approaching different tribes on various reservations to find the best location for a casino. Alternately, investors may consider different parcels of land not part of a tribe’s historical lands to find the potentially most lucrative location and then assist a tribe in petitioning the federal government to take the land into trust as a new reservation for the purpose of installing a casino.
Q: What does off-reservation mean?
A: It means that tribes find and acquire private, non-tribal land as close as possible to existing communities (and prospective customers), often near schools, churches and businesses. Then they ask the U.S. Department of the Interior to take the land into trust for the tribe, effectively rendering it sovereign territory eligible for approvals to conduct casino gambling. Urban locations are favored by tribes, whose traditional lands often are in more remote rural areas. In one case in the State of Washington, a proposed tribal casino is larger than every casino in Las Vegas except the MGM Grand.
Q: Where is the best location for Indian casinos?
A: When California voters approved Proposition 1A to allow Indian gaming, it was done with the understanding that new casinos would be built on reservation lands, not in urban centers of the state. In fact, the tribes promised at that time that this would be the case. The trend now, however, is for recognized tribes (and sometimes tribes pending recognition) to purchase land with outside money (including Nevada interests) and building or planning huge resort-like casinos in urban locations.
Q: Why should you care if you have no Indian casino proposed
near you at the present time?
A: Without strong action in the form of new State and Federal legislation, this trend will continue to escalate and any urban area could be the next target for an Indian casino. More than 200 new off-reservation casinos now are in the pipeline. There potentially are more than 200 additional tribes that could get into the process or have already started applications that have not yet reached the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs. This means that as many as 400 potential new casinos – or more – could be built, including many in urban settings around the nation. There are huge numbers of large-scale investors recruiting tribes and paying for all their expenses to get recognized and approved for gaming.
Q: Is it a small minority of people that oppose the casinos
in the East Bay?
A: Hardly. The coalitions opposing the various proposed casinos around the Bay Area and elsewhere represent many thousands of people in cities and communities all over the state. There’s a huge collective voice out there and our coalition of coalitions represents that voice. A November telephone poll conducted along the I-80 corridor in Contra Costa and parts of Alameda County have found that 72% of respondents oppose plans of Indian Tribes to expand on newly acquired lands and establish Las Vegas-style casinos in the urban Bay Area.
Q: What are legislators currently doing to stop urban casinos?
A: The expansion of urban Indian gaming and reservation shopping throughout California, notably in the East Bay, has grabbed the attention of federal and state lawmakers. At the federal level, Senator Dianne Feinstein has submitted S.113 that specifically would keep slot machines out of San Pablo Casino. U.S. Rep. Richard Pombo’s bill, H.R. 4893, would limit off-reservation casinos. Senator John McCain has introduced bill S. 2078 to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to clarify the authority and regulate Class III gaming. Also, Representative Jim Costa and Representative Dennis Cardoza have drafted amendment H.R. 5125 to tighten regulations on Tribal-State gaming compacts.
State elected officials also have taken action to stop the dramatic expansion of off-reservation Indian casino gaming in California. Assembly Member Loni Hancock’s bill A.B. 2412 would require specific counties to hold an advisory election to allow voters to voice their opinions on urban casinos. Assembly Member Joe Nation’s bill A.C.A 35 would prohibit the Governor to enter into a compact with the tribe for the operation of any tribal gaming activity within city limits unless approved by city officials, the board of supervisors, and the county’s voters.
