Press Room

ANOTHER ROADBLOCK FOR GRATON RANCHERIA CASINO

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FEBRUARY 21, 2011

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY: NO EXCLUSION FOR ROHNERT PARK CASINO SITE AS TIGER SALAMANDER HABITAT

Calls casino site "essential for the conservation of the salamander"

ROHNERT PARK, CA: Any hope Station Casinos and its tribal partners, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) had to move the Rohnert Park casino project forward easily were dealt a serious blow by a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

The USFWS issued a revised rule in January that reduced the original proposed habitat from 74, 223 acres down to 50,000 acres, eliminating areas in urban centers and floodplains. The new rule also mentions that the Graton Rancheria casino site might be excluded "in full or in part".

But in its letter, the Center for Biological Diversity has specifically identified the Rohnert Park casino site as "essential for the conservation of the salamander" and "essential for dispersal of the salamanders between the Stony Point Conservation Area and Northwest Cotati Conservation Area", a fact determined by the USFWS itself in earlier studies.

The Center's findings were made in a letter dated February 17, 2011, from the Center for Biological Diversity's Collette L. Adkins Giese, Staff Attorney for Herpetofauna (amphibians), to the USFWS, which had re-opened public comments on the habitat proposal.

The letter asks that the USFWS consult with the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) which has approved gaming on the site, an action that could lead to an adverse impact on critical habitat. Under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), federal agencies are prohibited from taking actions that result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat - something the construction of a large casino would do.

In the Center's Media Advisory of February 17, 2011, Ms. Giese makes the situation very clear, saying, "The Sonoma County population of California tiger salamander is on the brink of extinction, with its few remaining populations isolated by urban sprawl and roads. Full protection of all suitable habitats is the salamander's only chance for survival."

There are over 662 acres of habitat including the trust land and the adjacent parcels, an area that is over one mile long and half a mile wide constituting more than 1% of the entire proposed habitat for Sonoma County.

"The NIGC, the FIGR and Station Casinos never intended to do a serious environmental study at the casino site", said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition (STC101). "Now they are being held accountable for a sloppy study and multiple violations of NEPA, including the full impact of the project on the tiger salamander."

The USFWS proposed the critical habitat after the Center's 2008 lawsuit that successfully challenged a Bush administration reduction of proposed critical habitat acreage from 74,000 to zero. While the USFWS consulted on the FIGR's 254 acre trust land site, it failed to prepare a "Project Impact Map" that would have examined the full impact of the casino on the surrounding area.

"The NIGC, the USFWS and the Department of the Interior all failed in their duty to the public which they serve", said Pastor Worthington. "These agencies have ignored federal law and as a result, they place in jeopardy a helpless animal that they are charged with protecting."

"We'll see them in court", he promised.

A planned lawsuit under NEPA will take two to four years to litigate. All the studies in the casino's environmental impact study, including the tiger salamander study, will be too old to use after February 2012. At this point, the studies will have to be done over again. The tiger salamander is a two year study that must be conducted over two rainy seasons. With litigation and the necessity of new studies, the casino could be delayed another five to seven years.

More information, a copy of the full letter, a history of local opposition to the Graton Rancheria/Station Casinos project and aerial site maps are available on the STC101 Home Page, and follow the effort on Twitter

ENDS

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition ("STC101") is a secular, multi-cultural grassroots organization created in 2003 to address the significant social and environmental issues surrounding a large casino proposed for the Rohnert Park area in Sonoma County by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 12, 2011: 6:00 a.m.

USA TODAY: BAY AREA TIGER SALAMANDER HABITAT INCLUDED IN "TOP TEN" PLACES TO SAVE FOR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Rohnert Park casino site is Ground Zero salamander habitat

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: As reported in USA Today, the Endangered Species Coalition, a U.S. network of hundreds of conservation, scientific, religious, and other groups, has named the San Francisco Bay Area habitats of endangered species as Number 5 on its Top Ten list of places to save. The Coalition’s Scientific Advisory Committee is headed up by Jan Randall, Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University

The report "It’s getting hot out there: Top 10 places to save for endangered species in a warming world", focuses on vanishing habitat due to global warming and human disruption of natural water systems.

This report, which includes habitats like arctic sea ice and shallow water coral reefs, specifically mentions the highly-endangered California Tiger Salamander, an animal that conservationists have been fighting to protect for forty years.

The danger to the Sonoma County tiger salamander from the construction of a casino near Rohnert Park has been the focus of recent news reports and activity by the Center for Biological Diversity. Last month, the Center notified the National Indian Gaming Commission that it had failed to follow procedure required for a federal agency when dealing with critical habitat for an endangered species.

The Rohnert Park casino site and adjacent property planned for a Station Casinos shopping center is almost 400 acres of salamander habitat, making it one of the last, large, continuous pieces of salamander habitat in Sonoma County. Its vernal wetlands provide all four of the habitats the animal needs – breeding, aquatic, upland, and foraging – making it essential for the continued existence of the salamander.

"We’re fighting for the survival of this small, helpless creature, and we’re fighting to preserve the natural beauty of Sonoma County", said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. "This newest report confirms what we’ve been saying for years: the casino site is part of the vanishing habitat for a rare and special creature, and needs to be protected from all development."

"Our legal challenge to the environmental study for this casino is based on sound science. The evidence is growing day by day that the casino site should be protected from development for all time."

ENDS

ANOTHER SETBACK FOR ROHNERT PARK CASINO
Tiger Salamander habitat issue could derail casino construction plans

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: A 6 inch long amphibian may bring down Station Casinos' house of cards before it's even built.

In August of 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity settled a lawsuit with U.S. Fish & Wildlife that resulted in over 74,000 acres in Sonoma County being set aside for the Sonoma County population of the endangered California Tiger Salamander (CTS), a genetically unique variation found only in Sonoma County.

Smack dab in the middle of the proposed critical habitat is the trust land on which the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) and its partner, Station Casinos, plan to build a Las Vegas-style casino.

Those plans have just received a serious setback because of concerns voiced by the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) that the casino's environmental study failed to follow federal law after the critical habitat was proposed in August 2009.

In a letter dated December 8, 2010, from Collette L. Adkins Giese, the Center for Biological Diversity's Herpetofauna Staff Attorney, to the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), the federal agency that conducted the casino's environmental study, Ms. Giese states that there is "abundant evidence" that the construction of the casino is "likely to adversely modify critical (salamander) habitat".

The Endangered Species Act does not allow a federal agency to take action that will adversely impact critical habitat. A conference between the NIGC and Fish & Wildlife should have been held sometime within the last year.

Ms. Giese states in her letter that the conference is "necessary because Fish & Wildlife have not yet analyzed impacts to critical habitat" at the proposed site. This failure to confer is a major oversight on the part of the NIGC and the casino developers.

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition (STC101) put the federal government on notice in March of 2010 with a letter that went to the NIGC and the Secretary of the Interior, advising that the casino site was now proposed critical habitat for an endangered species and requesting that a supplemental environmental study be done.

A second letter to NIGC Chairwoman Tracie Steven in August 2010 asking that the Record of Decision (ROD) on the study be delayed until after the critical habitat issue had been finally resolved in July 2011. Both letters were ignored and the NIGC issued the ROD in October.

"Once the NIGC was put on notice of the critical habitat designation, it should have taken the steps required by the Endangered Species Act," said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of STC101. "Instead, they ignored the issue."

"STC101 has been on the front line fighting on the multiple major environmental issues at this casino site," said Pastor Chip. "The federal government has never taken these issues seriously, and they rubber-stamped the casino's environmental study, but we won't stop fighting to protect our community and our environment."

Additonal Information: Failure to properly address the issue of critical habitat could result in another fatal flaw in the EIS, resulting in the court voiding all or part of the EIS. This would mean that a new or a supplemntal EIS would have to be done. The studies used in the Graton Rancheria EIS are only valid for three years after the release of the EIS. If the issue of the critical habitat has not been adequately addressed by February 18, 2012, another Tiger Salamander study would be required. This is a two year study that goes through two complete rainy seasons. A lawsuit against the EIS would be in the courts for three to four years, at which point, all the studies would be too old to use.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 20, 2010: 6:00 a.m.

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION CONCERNED: DID STATION CASINOS MAKE “FRAUDULENT” ALLEGATIONS

DURING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS?
Warns they will be “monitoring the outcome of these matters”;could pull contract

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: In a letter addressed to Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) Greg Sarris and Station Casinos executive Scott Nielson, National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) Chairwoman Tracie Stevens has voiced concerns over certain statements made by Station Casinos during the company’s bankruptcy proceedings.

The letter, dated October 1, 2010, and signed by Chairwoman Stevens, grants approval for Class II (bingo and bingo machines) gambling at the proposed Rohnert Park casino. Listed among three pages of caveats and conditions is the following statement:

“Please also note that the NIGC continues to have concerns regarding allegations made during the (Station Casinos) bankruptcy process and will be monitoring the outcome of these matters. Should a court determine that particular actions made by STN were fraudulent, I or a future Chairperson may choose to void the (Management) Contract pursuant to 25 C.F.R. §535.3.” (See footnote below)

The letter doesn’t elaborate on what the allegations may have been or what Chairwoman Stevens concerns may be.

“If the chairwoman of the NIGC feels it necessary to include this kind of language in this kind of letter, then clearly something is going on”, said Pastor Chip Worthington, Founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition (STC101).

STC101 has sent a Freedom of Information Act request to the NIGC asking for details.

“We’re asking Senator Feinstein and Representative Lynn Woolsey to investigate this matter and help us get to the bottom of it”, said Pastor Worthington.

“The NIGC knows something we don’t know, but if Station Casinos wants to do business in this community, the NIGC has to come clean to us!” he said. “We have a right to know about any concerns our federal government has about fraud and a casino operator. What are they hiding?”

ENDS0 Invalid>false false EN-US >X-NONE

For Immediate Release: Ocotber 6, 2010

CASINO LAND TRUST ACQUISITION NOT A DONE DEAL!

by Pastor Chip Worthington, Founder, Stop the Casino 101 Coalition

The Press Democrat’s October 6^th editorial, "In Trust", assumes that taking the Graton Rancheria casino site into trust is both final and that the casino site is now under the jurisdiction of a new "sovereign" nation, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR). These statements are false and may lead readers to think there is nothing standing between the Graton and a full-blown casino. That is simply not true.

The transfer of title of land to the United States in trust for the Graton Rancheria is just a transfer of title, and nothing more. No more than one property owner selling to another. It does not divest the state or the county of jurisdiction over the site. State and local law, specifically state gambling law and local zoning law, continues to govern the site.

The State of California continues to have primary jurisdiction over all land within its borders. The Federal government has primary jurisdiction over land within the state’s borders only if (1) it reserved such jurisdiction when admitting the state into the Union or (2) if the state Legislature ceded such jurisdiction to the Federal government. Neither of these exceptions applies in this case.

Transfer of title and cession of jurisdiction involve two separate processes. One involves purchasing title from the owner. The other involves cession of jurisdiction from the current sovereign, namely, the State of California. Purchase of title cannot change jurisdiction.

So where that leaves us today is very clear. Politics and money played an important role in how we got here – and local political leadership has a pathway out of this.

FIGR Chairman Greg Sarris originally promised local leaders there would be no casino. When he did, US Rep. Lynn Woolsey sponsored restoration for this group.

But in November of 2000, Senator Barbara Boxer took over the Restoration Act, gave the FIGR gambling rights and pushed the bill through the Senate. In adding gambling back into the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act, Senator Boxer brought the possibility of casino gambling to the Santa Rosa Metropolitan Area, contrary to the will of the voters and contrary to law. And with it the possibility of traffic, crime and degredation of our environment beyond our wildest dreams.

Recent news articles have pointed out that not only did Senator Boxer’s son, Douglas, profit from the Station Casinos-FIGR partnership back in the early 2000’s, but according to Senator Boxer’s campaign, he is still involved with the Rohnert Park casino deal and still stands to profit if it’s built.

The next steps should be clear to our local leaders. The Stop the 101 Casino coalition sued on this issue and our suit was dismissed as premature. Now that the land is in trust, the issue is ripe for our leaders to engage.

State and local authorities not only have the right to enforce their law over this site, they have the obligation to enforce their law so that we can continue to be protected by that law, including CEQA and including the Sonoma County General Plan. State and local officials should object and use every tool possible to enforce our local rights.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 5, 2010

GRATON RANCHERIA MAKES LIGHT OF CASINO PROBLEMS

By Marilee Montgomery

The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria’s (FIGR) Guest Opinion of March 5 talks about how pointless, useless, and maybe even ridiculous it is to allow the residents of Sonoma County the opportunity to voice their opinion on tribal casino projects. They make it sound like local opinion will have no effect on any gambling compact the FIGR might get or their casino plans in general.

The FIGR is, as usual, failing to tell the whole truth.

Getting the compact from the governor is just the first part of a two-step process. The second part is getting the compact ratified by our state legislature. Although the governor may be required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to negotiate in good faith, the state legislature is under no such imperative, and is not required at all to approve any tribal gambling compact.

In 2005, the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians shelved the gambling compact the governor gave them that would have allowed them to have 2,500 slot machines at their casino in San Pablo. Under stiff pressure from the public and Senator Dianne Feinstein and State Assemblymember Loni Hancock, ratification of the Lytton’s gambling compact had no chance in the State legislature. Although the Lytton’s casino is open, it only has bingo machines. It cannot operate slots or table games.

People in this community are legitimately concerned about the problems Class III gambling would bring to the community. The FIGR has continually minimized the social impacts of Las Vegas-style gambling, the increases in costs to local governments, and the impact of 24/7 casino traffic on Highway 101 and local roads.

In exchange for 4,000 jobs, a casino would have following in its wake loan sharks, illegal gambling including illegal sports books, thieves, prostitutes, increased drug and alcohol addiction, as well as ever-increasing numbers of gambling addicts and the resulting child abuse and neglect, spousal abuse, bankruptcy, divorce, embezzlement and suicide. The FIGR’s own NEPA study indicates there is a 43% increase in drug arrests following the opening of a casino.

It seems a stiff price to pay for 4,000 mostly dead-end service jobs.

A recent report from the Rockefeller Institute indicates that payments from casinos are a bad way to balance a municipal budget. The additional costs caused by a casino in law enforcement, the criminal justice system, the burden on social programs, increased wear and tear on public roads, etc., increase year to year because of inflation, but casino payments in agreements such as the FIGR has with Rohnert Park never increase. The result Is an ever-expanding red bottom line for local government.

The FIGR is being deceptive when it states that the current site is consistent with Rohnert Park’s development plans. The site, currently County land zoned Rural Residential and Agricultural, has the potential to be re-zoned if and when the property is annexed by Rohnert Park, something that will not happen if the land is taken into federal trust for the FIGR.

Even under the Rohnert Park General Plan, there was never envisioned this kind of enormous high-impact project that would attract in excess of 10,000 patrons every single day, using resources equivalent to that of a small town.

Social problems, government budgets and land use are all local issues. The public has never had an opportunity to actually vote on the non-conforming casino project itself or on the agreements with Rohnert Park and the County of Sonoma. Had they been allowed to vote, the outcome would have been much different for the FIGR, because as it well knows, there is overwhelming opposition to this casino.

What the FIGR fears most is a local vote, and that is why they have worked so hard to prevent it.

STUDY FINDS TRIBAL CHAIRMAN GREG SARRIS HAS NO INDIAN BLOOD
Native American author also holds Native American Studies Chair at Sonoma State

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: A detailed genealogical study indicates that Greg Sarris, chairman of the
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria ("FIGR") and noted Native American author, possesses no Native
American blood.

Mr. Sarris claims Native American ancestry through the man he believes to be his birth father, a one-half Filipino man named Emilio Hilario. According to Mr. Sarris, who was adopted in 1952, there is no record of who his birth father was, and Sarris himself has written that his birth mother claimed a Mexican boy to be the father of her child.

But Sarris has declared that he believes Hilario was his father, and that Hilario's mother was descended from a famous Coast Miwok/Pomo medicine man, Tom Smith, and a Marin County Coast Miwok Indian woman named Emily Stewart.

According to Sarris, Smith and Stewart's daughter, "Reinette Smith", married a man called "Sargossa", and it was their daughter, Evelyn, who gave birth to Emilio Hilario. Sarris further claims that Evelyn was from Sonoma County.

Evelyn Sarrgossa was indeed the mother of Emilio Hilario, but records dating back 140 years clearly show that she was not a descendant of Coast Miwok and Pomo Indians, nor was she from Sonoma County or Marin County.

Evelyn was born and raised in Los Angeles. Her mother Reinette Sarrgossa (née Stewart) was not the daughter of two North Coast Indians; she was the daughter of Joseph P. Stewart, a barber from Pennsylvania, and Emily B. Stewart of Maine.

The Joseph P. Stewarts came to California sometime before the 1870 census, and moved to Los Angeles sometime around 1888-1890.

Sometime before the 1910 Census, Reinette Stewart married Arthur Sarrgossa, a cigar maker from Florida. The 1910 and 1920 census rolls shows them living in Los Angeles where they raised a family including Evelyn, who appears on the 1920 Census at age 8. Also shown is Evelyn's sister, Juanita, whom Sarris names in his book, Mabel McKay.

Reinette's mother, Emily B. Stewart, is shown living with the Sarrgossa family in both the 1910 and 1920 censuses. She gives her birth place as "Maine". In fact, from the 1870 Census on, the ages, names and birthplaces of the Stewart & Sarrgossa family members remain consistent, and are easily identifiable.

By the 1930 census, 18 year old Evelyn Sarrgossa is living as husband and wife with Emiliano Hilario, an immigrant from the Philippines. The information Evelyn provides for her parents matches the Sarrgossa family. On June 1, 1930, their first child Emilio (or "Emiliano") was born in Los Angeles where the couple lived. This is the man Sarris claims as his birth father.

"There is simply nothing in the record linking Mr. Sarris to a Native American bloodline," said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. "Our Coalition, which includes Native Americans, believes it's only fair that the government take a hard look at this information, which stands on its own, and determine if Mr. Sarris is qualified to be chairman of the FIGR."

The FIGR requires that members be "an Indian from the Graton, Marshall, Bodega, Tomales, or Sebastopol, California, vicinities". Members of federally recognized tribes are eligible for federal and other benefits.

Mr. Sarris has made a career as a Native American author. He currently holds the Chair in Native American Studies at Sonoma State University, a chair endowed by the FIGR for $1.5 million. His search for his birth father is recorded in his book, Mabel McKay: Weaving the Dream.

STC101 has asked California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-6th Dist.) for a full investigation into the various claims made to government agencies by Mr. Sarris over the years.

NOTE: A synopsis of the genealogy study, a family tree of Emilio Hilario plus census and other records are available online at www.stopthecasino101.com Click on "Greg Sarris' Ancestry". Easy-to-read census details in JPEG format are available upon request. Contact info@stopthecasino101.com
ENDS

January 10, 2010 Guest Opinion Rebuttal: (Note: The subject of this rebuttal, the Cloverdale Smoke Shop, shut down in August 2010, under pressure from state authorities over taxation issues.)

Tribal sovereignty exaggerated and misunderstood

by Marilee Taylor Montgomery

Kyle Nelson’s Guest Opinion, “Tribal sovereignty and Cloverdale's tobacco shop” (January 8, 2010) misses reality by a wide margin. Not only is a tribe not a fully-entitled sovereign nation, the Cloverdale smoke shop not being operated by a tribe and the land in question is not tribal land.Many people have been told by the tribes, their attorneys, and by misinformed public officials that Indian tribes are "sovereign nations" with powers akin to Japan, England, or the United States.

Native American tribal sovereignty is not, as Mr. Nelson states, “similar to that of sovereign nations”. No tribe in this country has the right, for example, to “define its territory”, nor can they “form alliances” with other nations or enter into treaties.

Indian tribes have some qualities associated with full sovereignty, but they are legally “dependent sovereigns”, and have only a limited sovereign status given to them by Congress, which can also take it away.

As recently as 1978, in United States v. Wheeler, the court ruled that "The sovereignty that the Indian tribes retain is of a unique and limited character. It exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance."

Nor does the Constitution give Indian tribes any sovereign rights. In fact, it gives the federal government full and complete authority over Indian affairs.

Whatever rights tribes possess flow only from law as determined by Congress, and those rights may be restricted, modified or removed altogether by Congressional action.

The courts have found time and again that all aspects of Indian sovereignty are subject to Congress: "[I]t is clear that all aspects of Indian sovereignty are subject to termination by Congress.” (Escondido Mutual Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians, 466 U.S. 765, 787 n.30 [1984] ).

Despite what tribes would wish, they are not independent units of government such as is the United States. They are "dependents" of the United States. (Duro v. Reina, [1990] ["dependent status"] Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe, [1978]).

In reality, tribes are slightly more powerful than a county, but less powerful than a state, as evidenced by the fact that tribes must get the permission of the state to conduct Class III casino gambling on tribal land.

While the state may not be able at this time to collect taxes from tribal businesses, the fact is that the federal government does has the power to regulate or tax Indian enterprises, whether on or off the reservation.

While tribes as an entity are not subject to federal taxes, corporations and businesses separate from a tribe certainly are. In fact, as recently as December 3, 2009, the Crow Creek Sioux tribe in South Dakota had 7,000 acres of reservation land auctioned off by the IRS to pay back taxes from a non-tribal business entity.

In the case of the Cloverdale smoke shop, in an open letter to the community, the Cloverdale Band of Pomo Indians has disavowed any connection with the smoke shop, and has affirmed that the business is not located on tribal land. (The Cloverdale Band has no land in trust at this time.)

The smoke shop land is individual trust land held for an individual Indian, not a tribe, making the smoke shop not a tribal business at all, but a privately-owned enterprise.

What this means in terms of the smoke shop in Cloverdale is that, if it hasn’t already happened, federal taxes on the tobacco products sold there - a perhaps state taxes, too - may well become due in the future, making the smoke shop a sort of Russian Roulette for its owners.

At some point, the Cloverdale smoke shop may have to pay the piper after all.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
November 4, 2009: 6:00 a.m.

SONOMA COUNTY CITIES JOIN IN CASINO LAND LAWSUIT
Petaluma, Sebastopol, Cloverdale file Amicus in federal court

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: The cities of Petaluma, Sebastopol and Cloverdale have weighed in on the casino land-to-trust lawsuit filed last year by Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and 10 other plaintiffs.

The cities filed in the Ninth District Court of Appeals as Friends of the Court in the matter of Stop the Casino 101 et al v. Salazar et al, citing concerns about the impact of federal trust land on local planning.

The cities argue the importance of local land use planning and the problem if Indians can buy land and exempt it from that planning. This has become a hot-button issue across the country as Native American tribes jockey for position in cities and towns for more lucrative casinos.

More and more, federal trust lands have imposed unwelcome and non-conforming development on local governments which are left footing the bills for infrastructure, social programs and law enforcement.

"We're very grateful that these cities have shown such vision and leadership", said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. "Federal land grabs like the Graton Rancheria land wreak havoc on local government's efforts for orderly, planned growth, and these cities get that."

Sonoma County is facing close to 800 acres of trust land acquisitions by four different Native American groups, with two of the properties, Cloverdale and Rohnert Park, having land within city limits.

If placed into trust, all the land will be removed from local tax rolls and will no longer be subject to local law, including taxation, planning and building codes.

Across the nation, the trend is for casino tribes to place more and more land in trust as they accumulate more wealth, often to the detriment of the local governments. This has sparked numerous lawsuits by city and state governments nationwide.

"Our landmark lawsuit gives back to the people and the state the rule of local law" said Pastor Worthington. "We're very pleased and gratified by the support of our local city governments."

ENDS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
October 26, 2009: 6:00 a.m.

                                       APPEAL MOVES FORWARD IN ROHNERT PARK CASINO CASE
                                                       State law vs. federal takeover core argument

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: An appeal is moving forward today in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition et al v. Salazar et al.

In this David versus Goliath case, Sonoma County residents have taken the federal government to court to try to stop a massive casino from being built in their small university town.

"This case is about the little man versus big government," said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and one of the plaintiffs. "The federal government thinks it can come into our town and walk all over us, but we have rights, and we're standing up for them."

At issue is who controls this California state land -- the federal government, or local and state officials responsive to the needs of local residents? In their appeal, plaintiffs are asking the court to decide whether local citizens directly affected by the actions of the federal government have the right to ask federal courts to review those actions.

The appellate attorney for most of the plaintiffs is Elliot L. Bien of Novato. "These residents have every right to pursue their case in the federal courts," he said. "It is not even disputed that the intended casino project threatens their near-by homes and businesses with substantial harm, and threatens the quality of life they enjoy in this area."

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and a bipartisan array of 10 other Plaintiffs believe that they should have a voice in any project affecting local growth. Taking the land into federal trust would deprive them of that voice and deny them the benefits and protection of state and local law, including local zoning regulations and local General Plans.

"The casino proposal tramples on local General Plans and on years of work to coordinate the transportation and water supply needs of the region," said Petaluma City Councilman Mike Healy, another plaintiff.

Tribal casinos are increasingly attempting to push into the more lucrative markets in cities and towns, such as the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and their partners, Station Casinos of Las Vegas, are trying to do in Rohnert Park.

The proposed casino site near Highway 101 is at the epicenter of the three most populous cities in the Sonoma County: Santa Rosa, Rohnert Park and Petaluma, which together contain approximately one half of Sonoma County's total population.

"There should be no local growth without a local voice", said Pastor Worthington. "This casino will be stopped, and it will be stopped in the courts."

ENDS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

June 18, 2009: 6:00 p.m.

FEINSTEIN, HUFFMAN GET DELAY OF CASINO LAND TRUST TRANSFER

Appeal filed in precedent-setting lawsuit

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Thanks to the efforts of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and California State Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D- 6^th District), there will be no immediate land-to-trust transfer for the Graton Rancheria casino site in Rohnert Park.

Government attorneys have notified the attorneys for the plaintiffs in Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, et al v. Salazar, et al that the trust transfer will be delayed until the conclusion of the Appeals process, which could take between 1 1/2 to 3 years. The Notice of Appeal was filed in Court this morning, June 18.

Taking the land into trust by the federal government is a necessary step in order for a Native American tribe to operate a casino. At the present the casino site is not owned by the FIGR, but is owned by SC Sonoma Development, LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Station Casinos of Las Vegas.

“We’re very thankful for the help of Senator Feinstein and Assemblymember Huffman, and we’re pleased that the federal government recognizes the importance of allowing the Appeal process to play out,” said Pastor Chip Worthington, Founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. “This is a fair and equitable decision.”

Assemblymember Huffman has recently introduced AB 1443 that seeks to provide guidelines for California’s governor when negotiating tribal gambling compacts. The bill will allow the affected community to vote on the issue, and calls for meaningful mitigation agreements with local governments, including counties adjacent to the casino host county.

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Salazar argues is that the Federal government has no power to displace state law. When the Federal government buys land, state law continues to govern the site. If the Federal government wants sovereignty over the site, it has to obtain state consent. The Federal government is trying to avoid that in this case. When the Federal government holds lands for Indians and has held the land since before the state was formed, no consent is needed because the Indian sovereignty predates the state’s sovereignty. In that case, the state never had sovereignty. But when Indian land is bought after the state was formed (150 years after in this case), there is no Indian sovereignty and the Indians do not gain sovereignty unless the state consents. This vindicates the interest of the local community with a legal theory, and is a view supported by two recent Supreme Court decisions (Carcieri v. Salazar and Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs)

ENDS

COURT GIVES NARROW RULING IN FIRST STAGE OF NORTH BAY TRIBAL CASINO LAND CASE

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: A federal court judge ruled today to dismiss the land to trust lawsuit brought by Sonoma County residents against the Department of the Interior for a casino site in Rohnert Park. An appeal is planned.

9^th District Judge Susan Ilston ruled only on a technicality, the narrow issue of the plaintiff's "standing", deciding that the community does not have "constitutional standing" to challenge the land to trust acquisition because the Plaintiffs have not yet suffered an "injury" from the government's decision to take the land into trust.

The judge did not rule on the core arguments of state's rights issues and the historical legitimacy of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR).

"The Graton Restoration Act, an Act of Congress, has had the inadvertent effect of stripping this community of all the rights normally available to communities in our position. That, in my mind, is an injury", said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition.

"Without realizing it, the court has allowed big money corporate interests to triumph over the hard-working people of Sonoma County, and we will not tolerate it," he said. "This is just the first stage of this lawsuit. Now we go on to the higher courts."

And the higher courts may be more open to the arguments raised in this lawsuit. A recent United States Supreme Court ruling, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs that came out only days after arguments were heard on the Rohnert Park case, clearly supported the core argument of state sovereign control of land within its borders.

In that ruling, the Supreme Court said that Congress lacks the power to diminish state sovereignty over land within a state's borders. The ruling reflects the Court's four year trend discrediting claims by Indian tribes to sovereignty over state lands.

There is a sixty day appeals period. The recent Supreme Court rulings make a successful appeal a probability.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
January 22, 2009: 6:00 a.m.

NORTH BAY CASINO FEDERAL LAWSUIT RAMPS UP
Amended Complaint asserts state sovereignty, questions legitimacy of Graton Rancheria

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Attorney Stephan Volker has filed an amended complaint on behalf of Sonoma County residents against the federal government that significantly alters the legal landscape for the case against the Rohnert Park casino.

The lawsuit is in response to the request by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) to take 254 acres of land into trust, thus removing it from state and local control. If that should happen, the FIGR could be allowed to open a Class III gambling facility next door to Rohnert Park.

The lawsuit asserts that the proposed casino site has been governed by California law ever since the state was admitted to the Union. The land has never been an Indian reservation.
"The feds have no right to take land away from the land of the State of California and our complaint proves that," said Pastor Chip Worthington, Founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition.

Under the Constitution, when the Federal government takes title to land, it does so like any other owner, unless the state cedes its jurisdiction over the land. Until then, the land remains under state and local control, and therefore, a Class III casino would be illegal.
The lawsuit also, for the first time, seriously questions the history and status of the old Graton Rancheria, upon which the FIGR was restored. Indian reservation or trust land means "land the title to which is held in trust by the United States for an individual Indian or a tribe." (25 C.F.R. § 151.2(d) )

But as the official record makes crystal-clear, Graton Rancheria was neither a reservation nor was it ever held in trust, nor was there ever anything resembling a tribe there, claims made by the FIGR on numerous occasions to the public as well as to the federal government and state, county and local governments..

In fact, when the Graton Rancheria was created, it was not public land but was private land governed by the State of California. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) recognized that such lands remained under state jurisdiction unless the state ceded jurisdiction to the Federal government.

The record clearly shows that no tribe ever occupied the Graton Rancheria, but only a handful of individuals from around the state, including a man who was part Shasta Indian. When Congress authorized the distribution of the Graton Rancheria to its residents in 1958, the Congressional Report stated that the Indians on that rancheria had never organized as a tribe. There was no tribe to terminate - and thus, no tribe to "restore". The Indians who lived on the Graton Rancheria were not ousted from the land. They were given the land for free after voting to do so.

"Selling our representatives in Washington on the myth that Graton Rancheria was home to a tribe of any kind was one of the greatest snow jobs in U.S. history", said Pastor Chip Worthington, Founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. "The government was lied to over and over about the authenticity of FIGR by FIGR representatives. As a result, our government has "restored" a tribe that never existed. And now they can open a casino."

A PDF copy of the Complaint is available upon request. Please email Marilee@stopthecasino101.com

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: The construction of a massive 720,000 sq. foot $1.4 billion tribal casino in the North Bay community of Rohnert Park appears less likely as Station Casinos of Las Vegas continues it long, downhill financial slide.

Station Casinos is the “money man” for a casino proposed by the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) that would be the largest casino in Northern California. However, the poor economy has taken its toll on Las Vegas’ once seemingly endless supply of cash.

Station Casinos recently posted its Third Quarter results that show a net loss of $23.5 million, bringing the company’s net loss over the past nine months to a whopping $75.7 million. This is a far cry from the over $42 million in net profits the company showed for the same period in 2007.

Last week, the company announced that it would seek debt relief with a cash infusion of $400 million to $500 million from either minority share holders the Fertitta family or majority share holder Equity Capital LLC. Upon release of this news, CreditSights, an independent credit analysis firm, commented on the move saying that Station Casinos “has its back to the wall”, and Moody’s Investment Services downgraded Station Casinos credit rating from “poor” to “highly speculative”.

Colony Capital LLC is also bleeding money from its Atlantic City casino, Resorts Atlantic City. That property is saddled with $360 million in debt, has fallen behind on its debt payment, and there are rumors of bankruptcy.

Even Station Casinos’ Thunder Valley Casino, which it manages for 24% of the profits, has seen a downturn in business sufficient to prompt the casino to halt construction on its expansion, and to scale down that expansion, with the United Auburn Indian Community citing the declining economy as the reason

Analysts now anticipate that it will years for the gambling market to recover. Given the multiple legal challenges the casino faces, coupled with the serious economic problems Station Casinos is experiencing, the Rohnert Park casino appears less and less viable.

“Back in 2003, Station Casinos may have been told this was a done deal, but it never was”, said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, “It seems that they underestimated the will and determination of the people of Sonoma County.”

July 24, 2008: 6:00 a.m.

“DIANNE’S CASINO”: MARIN COUNTY COUNSEL REVEALS FEINSTEIN BROKERED LATEST CASINO DEAL BETWEEN MARIN &, SONOMA COUNTIES & INDIAN TRIBE

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: At the Tuesday (7/22/2008) meeting of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, Marin County Counsel Patrick Faulkner let slip that U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) brokered the latest deal with a North Bay casino tribe and the counties of Sonoma and Marin.

This statement, caught on video and witnessed by STC101 spokesperson at the Marin meeting, Frank Egger, confirmed a comment by Sonoma County Counsel, who, on Monday, told a Rohnert Park resident that "one of the senators" would be “willing to carry a bill” to change the language of the Restoration Act of the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) so that all future trust acquisitions, but not the current casino site, would be subject to the Secretary of the Interior's discretion.

On Tuesay, both Sonoma and Marin supervisors approved agreements with the FIGR that were virtually identical in content on exactly the same day, with only minimal notice to the public.

This is the second deal that the Senator has brokered to further the building of an enormous casino just outside the City of Rohnert Park. It was Senator Feinstein who, in 2003, brokered the secret deal that allowed the FIGR to stay safe and sound at the Rohnert Park site.

At that time, the Senator’s husband, Richard Blum, owned a controlling interest in Perini Corp., a construction firm that has done billions of dollars of work for the casino industry, including the building of Thunder Valley Casino, a tribal casino near Sacramento built and managed by the FIGR’s partner, Station Casinos Inc. of Las Vegas, which opened in 2003.

The Senator’s 2003 deal with Greg Sarris, Chairman of the FIGR, was that if the FIGR moved its casino site from the original Highway 37 site near the Marin/Sonoma border, she would not obstruct the acquisition of any future site, a promise she apparently continues to keep.

When STC101 Founder Pastor Chip Worthington went to Washington in 2003, he told Joel McFadden at a meeting in the Senator’s office, that he knew about the deal.

McFadden was visibly shaken, and begged Pastor Worthington not to go public with the information, to which Pastor Worthington, out of courtesy to the Senator, agreed.

The Senator’s strategy appears to be, the further north the casinos go, the better it is for the wealthy residents of Marin County and for the Senator’s home town, San Francisco.

Last year, the Senator cut a deal with Lytton Band of Pomo Indians that prevented the tribe from opening a 2,500 slot machine casino in San Pablo. The Senator commented at the time that her legislation “…ensure(d) that a major Nevada-style casino will not be built in the Bay Area in the near future.”

But her deal with the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians (San Pablo casino) has had the effect of driving the Lyttons back up Sonoma County in Windsor, where they may indeed go for the Class III casino they were denied in San Pablo, on 60+ acres of Windsor land they plan to put into trust.

“Make no mistake, this is a class struggle”, said Pastor Worthington. “Marin County is the acknowledged cash cow for the Democratic Party in California. One the other hand, us Sonoma County folks are the rubes and the hayseeds. She is using Sonoma County as a dumping ground.”

For the past five years, Senator Feinstein’s office has received innumerable requests from Sonoma County residents to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act, as she had done for the Highway 37 site. This most likely would have prevented the construction of a casino on the Rohnert Park site.

Now Senator Feinstein is ready to amend the Graton Restoration Act, but only for future land acquisitions so that Marin County will be protected from a casino; The Rohnert Park site will not be affected.

“This is the grossest betrayal of trust, and a terrible blow to all of the Senator’s loyal supporters here in Sonoma County, many of whom have continued to hope that she would help them with this problem”, said Pastor Worthington. “The Senator’s behavior is reprehensible, sneaky, self-serving and conniving.”

“We face serious environmental and social impacts from Dianne’s Casino that all the money in the world cannot solve”, said. “For the Senator to put the selfish interests of herself and elite Marin County residents and the casino developers over the grave concerns of her Sonoma County constituents is unforgiveable.”

“Dianne’s Casino has been the result of one backroom deal after another, and the people of Sonoma County are tired of being ignored and lied to by their elected officials.”

ENDS

PEOPLE CRY FOUL TO SONOMA, MARIN SUPERVISORS' BACKROOM DEAL WITH CASINO TRIBE

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Sonoma County citizens learned Monday afternoon that the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, acting in collusion with the Marin County Board of Supervisors, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), and possibly a Senator, planned a vote Tuesday on a deal that would keep Sonoma County from protesting the FIGR's recent land-to-trust decision.

The deal ostensibly would prevent the FIGR from building a second casino, presumably to spare Marin County the specter of an Indian casino. Also, any future trust acquisitions would not be mandatory, as has been the case with the FIGR for five years, but ONLY if the current trust acquisition in Rohnert Park does not occur. In other words, if the lawsuit filed on June 3 to stop the trust acquisition for the Rohnert Park casino site is successful, all bets are off.

As word spread of the deal, Rohnert Park residents were especially enraged because Supervisor Tim Smith, who represents the majority of Rohnert Park residents in District 3, would not even be in town for the vote, thus disenfranchising the community most affected by the proposed casino.

Earlier this year, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors refused to allow County citizens to vote on the casino issue. In his recent remarks to the Press, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Chairman Mike Kerns acknowledged the widespread opposition to the Rohnert Park casino. A vote by the people on the casino could have made this current agreement by the Board more difficult for it to justify.

In the past, Sonoma County's supervisors have been quick to point out that the FIGR's casino is federally regulated and there was nothing that could be done at the local level. Now the Board seems to be contradicting itself, and apparently now believes that federal Indian policy and law can be regulated on a local level. In reality, tribes can easily nullify local agreements and even state agreements. Something as simple as a change of tribal councils, or a change of mind, coupled with a sympathetic federal judge is all a Native American tribe needs to back out of any agreement it might make with local government. In fact, an agreement signed by a tribal chairman can be overturned by the tribal council.

A tribe may take land into trust for a stated purpose, such as "housing", but is not bound to abide by the stated purpose. Under federal regulations, even the Department of the Interior cannot tell a tribe how it can use its land. It's unlikely that the agreement, which includes restrictions on building on trust land newly-acquired by the FIGR, would be enforceable in federal court. It is also unlikely that a federal judge would enforce an agreement that denies the FIGR its right under California law to a second casino.

"This is what happens when the realities of tribal governments and tribal trust land are not understood by local governments", said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino101 Coalition. "Once these local agreements get into federal court, it's virtually impossible to enforce them, especially if the court perceives the tribe has given up too much."

Sonoma County's excuse for pushing for a vote on Tuesday seems to be that they have a self-imposed deadline for taking action against the land to trust decision of May, 2008, but no quick deadline exists in federal law..

"Under federal law, the County has up to six years to protest the land to trust acquisition, and the lawsuit filed by our group has ensured that the decision will not be finalized until it has gone through the courts. There is absolutely no emergency situation here, where this must be voted on immediately, and the Board does a disservice to Sonoma County voters to pretend that there is", said Pastor Worthington

Even Governor Schwarzenegger has had two recent run-ins with balky tribal governments that have affected his gambling compacts. In April, the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California's ruled in Rincon Band v. Schwarzenegger, et al., that California's present compact negotiation requirement of "net revenues" paid into the state's general fund in exchange for additional gaming devices was illegal. The compact had already been entered into. The tribe changed its mind, and went to federal court instead.

More recently, a loophole in the compact with Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation has allowed that tribe to miss its first $30 million payment under its brand-new compact, one of four approved by voters in November. The tribe failed to have its tribal council sign off on the compact in 2006 as they had agreed.

In 2000, FIGR Chairman Greg Sarris told Congress that they would not build a casino if restored. The Senate Indian Affairs Committee refused to allow the FIGR to give up that right, and put gambling into the FIGR Restoration Act. Four months after the Secretary of the Interior signed off on the FIGR's restoration to federal status, the FIGR announced its plans to open a casino.

Sonoma County faces a potential five more casinos in the coming years: two in Cloverdale (two competing factions of Cloverdale Pomo), one in Windsor (the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians), and a second casino in Petaluma for the Dry Creek Band of Pomo Indians.

The FIGR trust land lawsuit currently in the courts has the potential to stop all future casino land acquisitions in California.

June 11, 2008

LAWSUIT FILED ON ROHNERT PARK CASINO LAND TO TRUST DECISION

Citizens seeks to stop massive North Bay Nevada-style casino project

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: A lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco on Friday, June 6^th seeks to put the brakes on the mammoth casino proposed for the Rohnert Park area. The Complaint, filed by East Bay Attorney Stephan C. Volker, challenges the recent decision by former Bureau of Indian Affairs Assistant Secretary Carl Artman to take 254 acres next to Highway 101 into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR).

The plaintiffs in the action include Stop the Casino 101 Coalition (STC101), a grass roots organization, and a broad cross section of concerned citizens across partisan lines.

If successful, the lawsuit will prevent the Rohnert Park site from being taken into trust, a necessary step in order for the FIGR to operate a casino of any kind. Friday’s Complaint cites the constitutional issues surrounding federal trust land acquisitions in the State of California, and the harm that a casino would cause the plaintiffs and the community.

Attorney for the Plaintiffs Stephan C. Volker said, “The Bureau of Indian Affairs jumped the gun by attempting to transfer title to this poorly planned site even before completing its Environmental Impact Statement. Operating a casino at this site poses huge environmental impacts, including massive traffic congestion on Highway 101 and over pumping of local wells. BIA has thumbed its nose at the public by attempting to end run the laws that protect the public from needless environmental harm.”

“We believe that the action of the federal government to entrust this real property in the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria will be at the expense of the citizens of Sonoma County”, said Michael Erickson of Petaluma, one of the plaintiffs and Chairman of the Sonoma County Republican Party. “The casino threatens to change dramatically the quality of life and local culture of Sonoma County; yet even the State of California is being shut out of the process, let alone the voices of the people who actually live here.”

The FIGR has special privilege that allows it to have any land it wishes in Southern Sonoma County and all of Marin County taken into trust upon demand. No other tribe in the country enjoys this special privilege. Despite repeated requests by local governments and area residents, Senator’s Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA) and Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-6^th Dist) have steadfastly refused to enact legislation that would take away that special privilege.

“We are in the position we are in because our federal elected officials have stood by the casino developers instead of the people of the North Bay”, said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of STC101. “All we’ve ever asked for is a level playing field for us and for the FIGR, the same as any other community or tribe in the United States has.”

“We are appalled at the lack of leadership by most of our own elected officials, as well as by the heavy handedness of the federal government”, said Mr. Erickson. “We’re taking matters into our own hands, and we promise a vigorous fight in both the halls of justice and in the court of public opinion.”

May 21, 2008

LAND TRUST DECISION WILL GIVE ROHNERT PARK CASINO FEDERAL WATER "SUPER-RIGHT"
Trust decision poses grave threat to Sonoma and Marin County water supplies

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: The federal government’s recent decision to take land into trust for the Rohnert Park casino will give the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) the ability to assert a federal water “super-right” that will threaten the water supplies of local cities and area residents.

Native American tribes are entitled to “super-rights” over water supplies affecting their reservations. They are allowed under current law, as much water as is necessary for “the original intention of the reservation”, in this case, a 760,000 square foot casino with a 12 story hotel tower.

The FIGR’s plans to assert their federal water right shocked members of the Sonoma County Water Coalition, a consortium of Sonoma County water interest groups with over 20,000 members. Bob Rawson, who is a member of the Friends of the FIGR, addressed the coalition February 27, 2008, to present information from the FIGR on water issues, and take back the coalition’s concerns to the FIGR.

Rawson stated that the FIGR intended to assert its federal water right when the casino site was taken into trust, and would not hesitate to exercise it’s “super water right”; the FIGR would simply commandeer water rights from existing stakeholders.
He was adamant that anyone who tried to stop the project on the basis of the lack of water would simply be trumped by the superior rights the tribe enjoys. In a follow-up email to Water Coalition members, Rawson actually referred to this federal water right as the FIGR‘s “trump card”.

Once the FIGR asserts its federal water right, all the cities and the county will be drawn into a protracted legal process that will impact its water supply. The courts or the mediators will decide who is allowed to pump from the groundwater basin and how much annually can be pumped, and tribal water rights are given precedence over all others under a 1908 Supreme Court ruling.

The casino’s environmental impact study has been underway since March of 2004. In light of Mr. Rawson’s remarks, the recent decision to take the casino site into trust before the release of the final Environmental Impact Study (EIS) and the approval of the FIGR’s contract management with Station Casinos, makes sense from the perspective of the casino developers. It will allow the FIGR to assert its federal water right in advance of the release of the EIS, thus making the water element in the EIS easy: the casino will be able to take as much water as it wants.

“East Bay MUD has already instituted water rationing, and the water situation at North Bay reservoirs is shaky because of the need to release water for salmon migrations, “ said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. “A federal water right means that Sonoma and Marin residents may not be able to take showers or flush their toilets, all for the benefit of selfish Las Vegas interests who want to make money off our misery. “

“And of course“, he added, “We‘ll all be asked to conserve water - all but the casino, which won‘t be subject to state or local regulations.”

The aquifer that would serve the casino is severely over-pumped, and as a result, the casino site and the surrounding area is sinking at the rate of ½ inch per year. More over-pumping could result in the collapse of the aquifer (see below).

Shortly after the February meeting of the Sonoma Water Coalition, Assistant Secretary-BIA Carl Artman was in the Bay Area. It was Artman who, on April 18, approved both the FIGR’s trust application and one of Station Casinos other tribal casino projects, the Mechoopda, in Chino.

May 7, 2008

Graton Rancheria Reservation Shopping Will Not Work in Rohnert Park
Feds announce plans to take casino site into trust

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) plans to take the Rohnert Park casino site into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR), according to an announcement in today’s Federal Register.

Taking the land into trust would not change anything, however. The land remains under state jurisdiction. It has been under state jurisdiction since the state was formed over 150 years ago, and it remains that way. Any assertions to the contrary are wrong.

“This has always been about Station Casinos finding Native Americans in urban areas in order to open casinos in favorable locations“, said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. “ This blatant reservation shopping won’t work here, though”

The issue of state sovereignty was brought up in an August 21, 2007, letter to Governor Schwarzenegger from Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-6^th Dist), who raised the following points:

--During California’s 150 year history the land in question was never considered Indian land. Short of the State formally ceding jurisdiction to the federal government, the State will retain jurisdiction and the land will remain subject to state law.

--The site in question has never had the key characteristics necessary to recognize tribal sovereignty and to deprive the state of its jurisdiction. The Indians have not had historic and continuous sovereignty, the local community never considered it Indian land, and it does not represent a separate and distinct community.

Prohibitions on casinos and casino games make no sense if Indian tribes can buy land in urban areas and exempt their patches from state law. The voters supported Proposition 1A because it was supposed to limit Indian gaming to their historic Indian lands. Stations Casinos cannot buy a parcel and turn it over to a tribe so both of them can build a mega-casino.

The Governor cannot negotiate a compact with the FIGR to allow casino gaming on this land unless the state Legislature takes the extraordinary step of ceding jurisdiction over the parcel to the federal government. The federal government cannot take any steps to approve casino gaming on this land under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act unless the state Legislature cedes jurisdiction over the parcel to the federal government.

“The people don’t want this casino, the local governments don't want it, and it’s an environmental nightmare, “ said Pastor Worthington. “If the FIGR and the BIA assert the right to have an Indian casino in Sonoma County in violation of state law, such a move would be quickly challenged.”
ENDS

February 21, 2008

NORTH BAY COMMUNITY GROUP SUPPORTS COUNTYWIDE CASINO VOTE

Vote would target all Sonoma County Commuter Casinos

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Stop the Casino 101 (STC101), a pro-community group working to prevent construction of a mega-casino near Rohnert Park, has urged its membership to support a countywide advisory vote that would target not only the Rohnert Park casino, but any and all casinos proposed for the county.

The countywide measure, which could be on either the June 3 or Nov. 4 ballot, would specifically mention casinos currently proposed in Rohnert Park, Cloverdale, south Petaluma and a site off of Highway 37 that Station Casinos bought as a possible alternate site for the Rohnert Park casino.

STC101 feels that such an advisory vote would afford Sonoma County residents more protection from becoming the Commuter Casino Capital of the Bay Area. Currently, Sonoma County is threatened by three casino projects along Highway 101 - Rohnert Park, Cloverdale, and Dry Creek.

"These commuter casino projects would clog Highway 101 with tens of thousands of vehicle trips daily, bringing transportation in the region to its knees and polluting our air, " said Pastor Chip Worthington, founder of STC101. " These are vehicles that for the most part would otherwise never come to Sonoma County, all carrying casino patrons who would spend their time and money only at the casino, not at local businesses. They’re a losing proposition for Sonoma County."

Sonoma County voters recently rejected the "Big Four" gambling compacts by a margin of 64%, the highest "No" vote in the state, a vote widely interpreted as a rejection of casino expansion.

There is also at least one more Sonoma County tribe that has been recommended for restoration, the Mishewal Wappo Tribe of Alexander Valley, although it is unknown if the Mishewal are actively seeking restoration. If restored, however, they would be eligible under federal law to seek a casino.

Under California’s gambling compacts, each tribe is allowed two casinos. Sonoma County currently has one tribal casino. With three federally-recognized tribes in Sonoma County, there is the potential for up to six casinos.

Restoration of the Mishewal Wappo tribe would potentially add two more casinos, for a total of four to eight casinos in Sonoma County’s future.

Graton Rancheria could, under its restoration act, build a casino in Marin County if they so chose.

ENDS

February 6, 2008

SONOMA COUNTY REJECTS GAMBLING PROPOSITIONS BY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY

Highest "NO" vote in state

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: The Sonoma County and Marin County voting results rejecting California Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97, the Indian Gaming Compact referenda, are a vivid reminder that this region does not want any more tribal casino gambling.

All four referenda were rejected in these counties. Sonoma County came in first in the state with the highest percentage of NO votes against all four referenda, 63.7% across the board, with Marin County casting the third highest NO votes at 59%. San Francisco County was second in the state with 60% against.

Sonoma County has one existing tribal casino, and is facing two more: a 729,000 square foot casino proposed for the outskirts of Rohnert Park and a project of unknown size in the town of Cloverdale.

Said Pastor Chip Worthington of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition, "Clearly tribal casinos are a hot button item FOR THE REGION, not just Sonoma County or Rohnert Park. Clearly, opposition to the Rohnert Park casino has NOT diminished with time, and clearly, it is NOT limited to a ‘small, vocal minority’, as the casino developers have often charged. In fact, clearly, we are the majority. It’s time for Sacramento to start listening ."

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition is a grass roots organization founded in 2003 to prevent the construction of the Rohnert Park casino.

ENDS

January 16, 2008:

FEDS SAY ROHNERT PARK’S $200 MILLION DEAL WITH CASINO TRIBE "DOES NOT APPLY" TO NEW CASINO SITE

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Rohnert Park’s once-sweet deal with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) for $200 million over twenty years apparently does not apply to the current site purchased by Station Casinos in 2005.

Buried in the environmental report for the proposed Rohnert Park mega-casino, in Section 4.7, page 8, is the stunning statement that " ...the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding with Rohnert Park) does not apply to the Wilfred Site...." .

The environmental report, prepared for the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC), goes on to say that "... it is assumed that it (the MOU) will be renegotiated with similar terms as for a casino on the (original) Stony Point site.".

The Wilfred site, purchased in 2005 by Station Casinos of Las Vegas, is identified in the report as the one for which the FIGR has made a fee-to-trust application, and on which they propose to build a massive Las Vegas-style casino.

STC101 has also learned of a September 8, 2005, document from City archives discussing the land purchase and stating that "The tribe is willing to amend the MOU to reflect the realities of the new site (Wilfred)...." The document appears to be from the FIGR to the City of Rohnert Park. This document will be available on our web site by this afternoon.

No new negotiations have taken place since the new site was purchased in August of 2005, for a record $100 million, and an ad hoc committee set up by the city to deal with the casino has been dissolved.

STC101 has long contended that the FIGR’s agreement with the City of Rohnert Park was "site specific" to the old Stony Point Road location, and that the new Wilfred site was not within the four corners of the agreement, thus making the agreement void. This appears now to have been confirmed by the NIGC’s own report.

"The question is, did the City see this statement when it reviewed the DEIS last Spring?", said Pastor Chip Worthington, Rohnert Park resident and founder of Stop the Casino 101 Coalition. "More importantly, why is the City the last one to admit what everyone else has known for two year - that the MOU isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on."

Renegotiating the MOU for the new Wilfred site might prove problematical. The old site was located one mile west of Rohnert Park’s Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but the new 65 acre footprint site is located within the UGB which is covered in the city’s General Plan. and the casino project does not conform with the General Plan.

Copies of the documents referenced are available upon request. Email is best.

ENDS

December 12, 2007

SONOMA COUNTY CITIES ASK GOVERNOR TO TABLE GRATON GAMBLING COMPACT TALKS

Environmental process, land issues of Rohnert Park casino must be decided first

SONOMA COUNTY, CA: Four of Sonoma County’s cities thus far have written Governor Schwarzenegger asking that he not engage in any gambling compact negotiations with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (FIGR) at this time, with more cities expected to follow suit.

Citing issues ranging from the fact that the FIGR does not own any land to land status to the ongoing, extensive environmental review of the proposed casino site, the cities of Santa Rosa, Petaluma, Cotati and Sebastopol have urged the Governor to suspend any gambling compact negotiations that may currently be underway.

In his November 7 letter to the Governor, Santa Rosa Mayor Bob Blanchard cites a common concern for the integrity of the environmental review process, stating, "We have expressed significant concerns about the potential impacts of the (casino) development on traffic circulation, emergency services and law enforcement. We strongly urge you to let the full environmental process take its course before considering the merits of this project and negotiating a gaming compact."

Adding fuel to the fire is the failure of Caltrans to include casino traffic in the improvements planned to Highway 101 in Marin County and Sonoma County. In a recent letter to Caltrans regarding the Novato Narrows project, Assemblymember Jared Huffman raised the question of whether the traffic capacity improvements currently projected by Caltrans are overstated.

According to Mr. Huffman’s letter, the Rohnert Park casino could generate between 27,000 to as high as 68,000 additional car trips each day, depending on the number of slot machines the casino may be allowed to have. The number of slot machines a tribal casino is allowed is one of the things determined in a gambling compact.

Senator Migden has expressed similar concerns, stating in a recent letter to the Editor of the Petaluma Argus-Courier that "The traffic, the hassle and the increase in out-of-town gambling interests will not improve the quality of life for Rohnert Park residents or surrounding communities. This spring, I successfully fought for $80 million in state funds for Highway 101 Novato Narrows improvements just to keep pace with current traffic demands! To me it would be simply madness to exponentially increase traffic in this area."

Sonoma County governments have been very proactive in opposition to the Rohnert Park casino since the beginning; eight of the County’s nine cities and the County of Sonoma itself have passed Resolutions opposing the project. Former Petaluma City Councilman Mike Healy has asked that Sonoma County citizens be allowed to vote on a non-binding advisory measure on the Rohnert Park casino.

Copies of all letters and Senator Migden’s letter to the editor are available upon request.

ENDS