'Trust' decision on R.P. casino on hold

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has decided to hold off on taking the land in Rohnert Park planned for a casino and resort complex into federal trust, pending the results of a legal appeal being filed by opponents of the project.

The bureau, part of the U.S. Department of the Interior, announced on May 7, 2008 that it was taking the land into federal trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

“They took the first step by making the announcement, but they now have agreed to postpone taking it into trust until pending litigation is resolv-ed,” said Assemblymember Jared Huffman, who, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, requested the postponement. “We’re very pleased, and now we will wait to see what the courts have to say.”

In April, Judge Susan Illston of the 9th District Court in San Francisco threw out a lawsuit that was filed by East Bay attorney Stephan Volker on behalf of the Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and some of its individual members, including attorney Mike Healy of Petaluma. The lawsuit, which was filed on June 6, 2008, within the allowable 30-day period for a challenge, contested the Department of the Interior’s decision to take the 254 acres of land in Rohnert Park into trust and claims that the proposed casino would cause harm to the plaintiffs, who all live in the south county.

Illston threw the suit out because she agreed with the defendants and the tribe 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.

The appeal, filed by attorney Elliot Bien of Novato on behalf of the original plaintiffs on June 8, asserts that Illston erred in her decision.

“We believe that she erred in deciding that defendants don’t have the legal standing to present our legal arguments, and I believe we can be successful in our appeal,” Healy said.

Attorneys from the Graton Rancheria tribe will be meeting with personnel from the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice to try to persuade them that the land should be taken into trust at this time. If tribal attorneys are successful, the plaintiffs’ attorneys would have an opportunity to file for an injunction.

Meanwhile, Huffman has amended a bill, AB 1443, that authorizes the governor to consider the presence or absence of local support when negotiating gaming compacts on Indian lands. The bill stipulates that the governor may consider the degree of support through an advisory vote in the county or counties in which the tribe’s land is located and/or through one or more intergovernmental agreements enforceable in state court that include provisions to mitigate the impacts of the casino.

The intergovernmental agreement would be executed by the tribe and the incorporated city, or city and county, in which the land is located. It also would be executed by the tribe and each county that is contiguous to the county in which the land is located and is likely to be substantially impacted by the casino, as determined by the county’s board of supervisors and set forth in a measure specifying the nature of the anticipated impacts.

“I’ve done a lot of due diligence on this bill because I wanted to come up with something that has a good chance of passing,” Huffman said, adding that the bill could be presented to the Legislature in a couple of weeks. “This bill weighs local support and opposition, and could be very, very relevant in determining whether or not tribes will get a compact agreement with the governor.”

Healy is pleased that Huffman’s bill is moving forward and that the BIA has put its decision on hold.

“These are two pieces of very good news. We really feel as if the tide has shifted in our direction,” he said.

But if Huffman’s measure passes, it remains unclear whether or not the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors would approve putting an advisory measure on the casino on a ballot. Last year, two members, Mike Kerns and Mike Reilly, supported putting a measure on a ballot, but the other three members did not. Three of the five board members need to approve before a measure is placed on a ballot.

On Nov. 4, two new board members — Efren Carrillo and Shirlee Zane — were elected, and both support such a measure. But continuing board members Valerie Brown and Kelley, who did not support the measure, have not indicated that they have changed their minds, and Kerns said that he no longer supports the measure, citing its expense, the county’s rising unemployment rate and the ailing county budget.

Kerns also said at the time, “I can’t see the wisdom of putting a measure on a ballot that has no legal impact,” and it is unclear if the passage of Huffman’s bill would carry enough weight for him to change his mind. Kerns could not be reached for comment.

(Contact Dan Johnson at dan.johnson@arguscourier.com)