Casino suit nixed; appeal mulled

<p>Members of a local coalition might appeal a federal judge’s decision last week to dismiss an amended lawsuit they filed in January that sought to prevent a casino and resort complex from being built in Rohnert Park.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>“An appeal is one of the options we are considering,” said Petaluma City Council member Mike Healy, one of the plaintiffs. “Obviously, the judge’s decision represents a setback, but represents just one round of a 15-round fight.</p><p>“My fellow plaintiffs and I are evaluating our options.”</p><p>Another option they are discussing is filing a lawsuit based on the environmental impact report, which was released in February. The Rev. Chip Worthington, founder of the coalition as well as a plaintiff in the rejected suit, has described the EIR as “inadequate” and “fatally flawed.”</p><p>“This is under discussion as well, but it’s premature to say if we will file a lawsuit,” Healy said.</p><p>The suit that was rejected was filed by East Bay attorney Stephan Volker on behalf of the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and some of its individual members, and challenges the U.S. Department of the Interior’s decision to take 254 acres of land into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. The suit also asserts that the proposed casino would cause harm to the plaintiffs, who all live in the south county.</p><p>Judge Susan Illston of the 9th District Court in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on April 22, agreeing with defendants and the FIGR that because the plaintiffs have not alleged that they have suffered any injury, they have no standing in the case, and therefore the court has no jurisdiction.</p><p>“The tribe is happy with the outcome of the court decision, and honors the opportunity for all members of the community to address their concerns regarding Graton Rancheria,” said Greg Sarris, the tribal chairman, in a prepared statement.</p><p>Illston responded to several claims in the lawsuit.</p><p>“Defendants and the Tribe argue that plaintiffs’ first set of allegations — that plaintiffs will be injured by environmental degradation as a result of the construction of a casino complex — fail to articulate an injury in fact because the alleged injuries are speculative. The Court agrees,” Illston wrote. </p><p>She also states that Secretary Dirk Kempthorne’s decision to take the land into federal trust did not indicate authorization of the casino project (Ken Salazar has replaced Kempthorne, and has taken his place as a defendant in the lawsuit).</p><p>“The Secretary’s April 18 (2008) approval explicitly stated that while the Tribe intends to build a casino on the parcel, the Secretary’s acceptance of the land into trust did not authorize the project. To the contrary, the Tribe will have to adhere to the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,” Illston wrote. “Until the requirements are met, the Tribe has no authorization to operate a gaming facility on the parcel and the environmental impacts that plaintiffs fear cannot occur.”</p><p>The plaintiffs claim that previous legislation protects them from suffering harm from the land on which the proposed casino is to be built. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act, allows local governments to establish agricultural preserves, and they may offer to owners of the land the opportunity to enter into annual, renewable contracts that restrict the land to open-space use for at least 10 years.</p><p>“The Williamson Act expressly provides that a city or county may sue to enforce a Williamson Act contract,” Illston wrote. “Plaintiffs cite no provision establishing that individuals have the right to enforce the contracts simply by virtue of owning property in the same city or county as the ... land.”</p><p>The plaintiffs also contend that under the Graton Indian Restoration Act, only Indian-owned land can be accepted into trust. The FIGR collaborated with Station Casinos in Las Vegas to buy the property for the Rohnert Park casino.</p><p>“Plaintiffs read this provision to mean that the only eligible land is Indian owned fee land and conclude that this parcel, which is in fact owned by a subsidiary of a Nevada-based casino operator, cannot qualify. The statute, however, simply does not provide that only Indian owned fee land is eligible for trust status,” Illston wrote.</p><p>(Contact Dan Johnson at dan.johnson@arguscourier.com)</p>