Station Indian casino deal prompting backlash

Terence Chea

Friday, July 25, 2003 | 10:58 a.m.

SONOMA, Calif. -- In a hayfield on the northern edge of the San Francisco Bay, an Indian tribe wants to regain a parcel of land from its past -- and pave its future with profits from a big casino.

Backed by a Nevada gambling company, they have courted powerful politicians and made plans to build a gambling resort with 1,900 slot machines and 200 hotel rooms along a narrow highway that carries tourists to California wine country.

The proposal has touched off a fierce battle that pits nearby residents against 600 Miwoks and Pomos who make up one of 23 federally recognized tribes in California alone that are seeking to build casinos on off-reservation land. Three have already been approved.

Critics of so-called "reservation shopping" have enlisted Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and other leading politicians in a campaign to slow the growth of Indian casinos. And that has alarmed Indian groups, who say the very concept of tribal sovereignty is at stake.

The tribe says its proposed casino, just 30 miles from San Francisco, will create jobs, attract tourists and help them improve their lives.

"This proposal represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for our members to achieve self-reliance," said tribal Chairman Greg Sarris, who lives in Los Angeles and teaches literature at Loyola Marymount University.

But three years after Californians voted to loosen restrictions on Indian gambling, a growing number of Sonoma residents are saying "Cows, Not Casinos." They fear the gambling complex will clog traffic, hurt business, damage fragile wetlands and shatter a carefully cultivated ambiance in a region known for its elegant wineries and bed-and-breakfast inns.

"None of us realized when we voted for gaming that it would directly impact our lives," said Toni Rothschild, standing behind the counter of her crafts store in the nearby city of Sonoma.

Many states that allow tribal gambling have had conflicts between casinos and nearby residents. In California, their expansion has been particularly dramatic -- since voters approved state ballot measures to allow more Indian gambling in 1998 and 2000, 54 casinos have opened on tribal lands.

The Indians say the casinos help create jobs, send students to college, build quality housing and strengthen tribal governments and economies.

"It's become the only source of revenue that has worked all over the country," said Jacob Coin, who directs the California Nations Indian Gaming Association.

But increasingly, local governments complain that tribal casinos don't comply with local and state regulations, operate with little oversight and use services without paying taxes.

"There's a growing backlash against tribal gaming and tribal governance," said Cheryl Schmit, director of Stand Up For California, a group that wants tougher regulation of casinos. "After the 2000 vote, we became a full-service gaming state. I don't think citizens thought that's what we were becoming."

Coast Miwoks and Southern Pomos farmed and fished the land north of the San Francisco Bay for hundreds of years, but they lost their tribal status in 1958 during a nationwide push to assimilate American Indians.

The tribe reorganized as the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria in the 1990s and regained federal recognition in December 2000 under a bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

The tribe had promised Boxer it wouldn't enter the casino business -- Sarris even testified as much on Capitol Hill. But after scouting opportunities in wine-making, cheese production and organic farming, the tribe decided gambling was its best ticket to a better life.

In April, the tribe announced it would partner with Las Vegas-based Station Casinos Inc., which paid $4.3 million for 321 acres of ranchland and bought options on another 1,679 acres. Station already operates a big casino near Sacramento for another tribe.

The Graton Rancheria has asked the federal government to put the land now at issue in trust.

To negotiate the casino contract, the tribe hired consultants including Darius Anderson, one of the state's most powerful lobbyists; former White House spokesman Chris Lehane; and lawyer Doug Boxer, Sen. Boxer's son.

But opposition has mounted. Supervisors in Sonoma, Napa and Marin counties have passed resolutions opposing a casino. Residents have formed a coalition called No Las Vegas on the North Bay to organize letter-writing campaigns, petition drives and community forums.

Feinstein and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma, introduced twin bills that would subject the casino plan to environmental and community review and give the federal government more power to derail such projects.

Environmentalists say the casino will hamper a 30-year effort to restore the area's wetlands, and that the site lacks fresh water and wastewater capacity.

"It's as damaging as it can get from an environmental point of view," said Marc Holmes, the Bay Institute's baylands restoration manager.

Residents fear the casino will create traffic jams on Highway 37, which already slows to a crawl on weekends, commute hours and race days at the nearby NASCAR raceway. They also worry about its impact on long-standing local efforts to limit development and preserve open space.

The tribe says the casino will give businesses a boost. But opponents believe it will compete directly with local restaurants, shops and hotels.

The tribe has offered to pay $160 million over 20 years to lessen the impact on traffic, law enforcement and the environment, and set aside 1,600 acres for wetland restoration and hiking trails.

At Feinstein's request, the tribe is looking at alternative sites in Sonoma County, but is still moving ahead with the Sears Point plan.

"Environmentalism and conservation," tribal Chief Sarris said, "has always been part of our heritage."