Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

May 27, 2010


Host: Ted Simons

Glendale Casino Opponents

  |   Video
  • Attorney for the City of Glendale Craig Tindall and Manuel Joseph, Lt. Governor of the Gila River Indian Community, explain their opposition to the Tohono O’odham Nation’s plans to build a resort casino on land in the West Valley.
Guests:
  • Craig Tindall - Attorney, City of Glendale
  • Joseph Manuel - Lt. Governor, Gila River Indian Community
Category: Business/Economy

View Transcript
Ted Simons:
Tonight on "Horizon," hear from those against the idea of putting a casino in Glendale. And I'll talk about the safety of travel to Mexico with a Sonoran tourism official.

That's next on "Horizon."

Good evening, and welcome to "Horizon." I'm Ted Simons.

Another Maricopa County official moves toward filing a lawsuit against sheriff Joe Arpaio and former county attorney Andrew Thomas. Supervisor Mary rose Wilcox filed a notice of claim that's the first step in filing a suit. Wilcox is seeking $4.75 million because of a criminal investigation against her that was later dismissed.

The Tohono O'Odham nation wants to build a casino on land it owns near the cardinals stadium in Glendale. The effort is opposed by the city of Glendale and the Gila River Indian community. Yesterday I spoke with a Tohono O'Odham official about the casino. Here now to address the issue from the other side is Craig Tindall, a city of Glendale attorney, and Joseph Manuel, lieutenant governor of the Gila River Indian community. Thank you for joining us on "Horizon."

Thank you.

Ted Simons:
Let's get right to it. Why should the Tohono O'Odham nation not build a casino on that land?

Joseph Manuel:
Well, two reasons, mainly. To formally introduce myself as I need to, because of my cultural heritage. My name is Joseph Manuel lieutenant governor of Gila River Indian community, and I want to thank you and also want to welcome you to our aboriginal land. This land here that we sit on in Phoenix, 1850s, was executive ordered -- of course we've been here for thousands of years, but our people, the Pimas, have always been here from time in memorial. We were born in these riverbeds, in the salt and gila rivers, and then as legal mains came on, executive orders and then the Indian reservations in 1938, legally, then we became what we were -- salt river Indian community became the Gila River, but we're all relatives in that respect. But your question, to the point, the reasons why we -- our concern is two. One is aboriginal lands that are ours, you know, through the Indian claims commission, and noted very well. And the other is because we really believe that -- and we know that it's going to hurt the compact, the 202 compact and all the Indian tribes and what the promise that was made at that time in 202.
Ted Simons:
OK. From where you sit, the city of Glendale, why should this casino not be built?

Craig Tindall:
Well, there's several reasons. Certainly we respect very highly the community's position with respect to their aboriginal lands. That's very important for us to acknowledge. But from the city's standpoint specifically, this raises a lot of jurisdictional issues, it raises significant issues with respect to our economic base, the infrastructure that we'll have to put in without any compensation to support this very large facility that's going to go in. If the Tohono O'Odham proposal is accepted. So it raises many issues, and in addition it raises social issues with the communities out there. This is different than the other reservation plans who have done a very good job in working with local communities. This is a brand-new reservation on a very small area, and an urbanized area that has a very significant impact on the local community.

Ted Simons:
We had chairman Norris on this week, and I asked him why this particular land and why a casino there. And he said essentially, the United States government made a promise to the nation after the flooded lands and the idea of being able to buy unincorporated land in Maricopa County for economic development, these sorts of things, and they are simply doing what the U.S. government has allowed them to do.


Craig Tindall:
There's a couple issues I have with that. Number one, the government's promise was very specifically premised on several different aspects that are important in this issue, with respect to the land that they would have taken into trust. One of the most important issues is it lies outside the corporate limits of a city or town. This land lies -- is completely surrounded by the city of Glendale on all sides. And it is in the middle of a community. And if you read the gila bend act completely, that's the federal act, it has a much longer title, I'll just say gila bend act, it's easier to remember, but it has very specific aspects to the land that we don't believe this particular parcel qualifies whatsoever to that land. So -- and respect to the promise that the federal government made, I think that what you need to also understand, and what people need to understand is that there is an issue of sovereignty with respect to the state government, and with respect to the local communities. And so just looking at what the promises the federal government made dismisses some of those completely, and I think those are important aspects that should be understood.

Ted Simons:
I want to get back to your initial response regarding ancestral heritage, these sorts of things, and the right of certain people on certain lands to do certain things. Talk to us more about that.

Joseph Manuel:
Well, you know, the Pimas and Maricopas had come in about the 1830s or so, we took them, they came from the Colorado river, and they lived with us. So there's Pima and Maricopas here. And we have always been a giving community, the Pimas. When you look back to Kit Carson's records, the U.S. cavalry, when anyone came through here, you know, regardless, we had to go through the Guatemala Lupe HiDALGO treaty, and the -- of course the finally the acquisition from the United States to Mexico. Everything south of the Gila River was Mexico, and which I live a quarter mile south of the Gila River. So -- but executive orders were made, and they encompassed this whole area from -- as the Pima and Maricopas, aboriginal lands up to -- say east it would be globe, payson, Prescott, Wickenberg, and back down to where, like, Casa Grande is the area, and this was ours, all this time. Again we're river people. We were born in these river beds.

Ted Simons:
I asked chairman Norris about that, because I know that was a concern with your tribe and your nation, and he said that all tribes, all American Indians, Native Americans, in this area are sister tribes. They are all related to the Hohokams, and there's really no distinction as far as he can see that you or at least that some with your tribe were trying to make. How do you respond to that?

Joseph Manuel:
With regard to that , Tohono O'odom again, where chairman Norris is from a desert. They're the desert people. We’re the acumer O’odom We're the river people. And from time and memorial, our people have always lived here. Now, when we talk about HUAGUM, that's been around forever in our language, but it means those that have gone. And if someone passed this morning, a few minutes ago, 2,000 years ago, you have HUAGUM people, your ancestors. And so it's used in a broad sense when chairman Norris is explaining what he's doing. But we -- we shouldn't have to defend ourselves, but ultimately we are, and we have to, because of history. As it presents itself.

Craig Tindall:
If I could just follow up on the lieutenant governor's statement, additionally, the federal government has recognized through the Indian court of claims certain particular areas of Arizona that are recognized as cultural -- and lieutenant governor please step in and correct me, that are culturally designated with respect to the several tribes. In this respect, this particular land is one that's recognized for the community and their members.

Ted Simons:
And yet, again, when I spoke to the chairman about this, public law, 99.503 was referred to on numerous occasions, that was an agreement, that said this 135-acre parcel of land, if they were to purchase it, and they did, that would be part of the settlement. Are they wrong about that?

Craig Tindall:
Yes. The gila bend act, the act chairman Norris referred to, and the number you just used, it doesn't designate any particular parcel land. It allows them to select land within certain areas that meet certain criteria. It's our proposition, it has been from day one, that this land does not meet that criteria.

Ted Simons
Give us an example.

Craig Tindall:
At the corporate limits, that's one of the examples I cited. There is very specifically and it gets comply indicated, we can do an entire show with respect to the water issues that need to be satisfied prior to any land being taken into trust, which have not been addressed whatsoever. And so there's also in the act a requirement that the land be limited in a certain amount of area, a certain amount of areas , the act says three areas, one of which needs to be next to the San Lucy village, down near gila bend. And it's -- again, it's complicated, as the legalities of this matter are, but the -- that particular aspect and what has gone on in the past with respect to the Tohono O'Odham and their use of the Gila bend act would suggest this land does not qualify to meet that requirement whatsoever. So there are several arguments as to why this land doesn't qualify at all, and there's additional arguments as to why this land doesn't qualify with respect to gaming whatsoever.

Joseph Manuel:
Let me give you a little perspective as well. The gila bend act was approved and passed by Congress in 1986. The Indian gaming regulatory act which allowed casinos on Indian reservations to occur, occurred in 1988 two years later. So this Gila Bend act had no vision of casinos or anything like that occurring at all. And, you know, John McCain was a sponsor of that bill, and, you know, we've asked if maybe he could portray the intent. Because, you know, we have, like, governor Jan Brewer, John McCain, senator Kyl, seven Indian tribes that are totally against this at this time.

Ted Simons:
And yet the Tohono O'Odham leadership says that your opposition specifically against this particular effort has all to do with business, has all to do with market share, you're concerned about another casino coming into the urban area, the Phoenix metropolitan area. How do you respond?

Joseph Manuel:
How I respond is twofold. Again, it leads back to my second assertion, that the 202, which occurred -- the proposition 202 which was implemented in 2002, you know, gave those distinctions of what can be a gaming facilities would be on traditional Indian lands and reservations and not in metropolitan areas. There's been attempts by several tribes to do so, but they respected the 202 and backed off shortly thereafter. But, you know this, was the compact in 202, which Tohono O'Odham was a part of, but a year later, 203 is when they purchased the property in Glendale through Rainier development, or -- of some sort, and their assertion that it's Indian claims settlement -- Indian claim settlements refer to the illegal taking of land, and there was never any illegal taking of land. It was because of the damage done, it paint add rock into the community there.


Craig Tindall:
A couple points that -- if I can elaborate on proposition 202 that's important to understand. As the lieutenant governor mentioned, the Tohono O'Odham were a member of the 17-tribe initiatives that supported that initiative to be vote order by the voters. And it was very clear in that, there's statement buys government officials at the time, governor hall at the time, that if this proposition was passed, there would be no new casinos in Maricopa County. And that was supported by the tribe, in fact chairman Miller said specifically that the voters should support 202 in opposition to the other propositions on the ballot so that there would be no neighborhoods in the casinos -- no casinos in the neighborhood. And yet at the time we know that they were actively looking for property and we know they were actively looking for this property well before that initiative got on the ballot. So -- and then it was purchased, it was purchased in an assumed corporate name and held for six years in that name.

Ted Simons:
We don't have time to get into that, though the chairman said the reason they used the assumed name, they were simply doing business and did not want others to know they got $30 million as far as entitlements and they didn't want that to happen because it was a far market value they were worried about. We have very little time left.

Craig Tindall:
That's why they purchased it, not why they held it.

Ted Simons:
He's just doing business, he said, he didn't want everyone to know. Last question, and it's got to be brief. Jobs, economic development, all this as the chairman says, will happen for that area in which Glendale has almost completely surrounds. Why is that a bad thing?

Craig Tindall:
A couple points. The economic development study that they are espousing, we've never seen. Economic studies, economic projections are all based on premises and assumptions and you doe know if they're valid until you test them. We've never seen it evne though we’ve asked for it. We have said to the tribe that if you want to come and develop this as a proprietary development, not as a reservation land or regular development, for economic benefit to your community, that's fine. We would assist you in doing that. We would go forward under that premise and be happy. So they can use that land in another way. And then there's the question of, how much economic benefit will this really have? The tribe has filed papers with the federal government to separate their application for casino from this takings reservation land, yet they've gone forward in the media and said they're still going to have a casino on the property probably in a tented facility. For quite some time given the economic conditions we face. Given that scenario, a lot of what they rely on in the economic benefits aren't going to take place.

Ted Simons:
We do have to stop you right there. We thank you both very much for joining us on "Horizon."

Craig Tindall and Joseph Manuel:
Thank you very much.

Mexico Travel Warning

  |   Video
  • Javier Tapia, Tourism Coordinator for the State of Sonora discusses the safety of travel to Rocky Point and other parts of Mexico in light of a recent travel warning issued by the U.S. Consulate in Nogales, Mexico.
Guests:
  • Javier Tapia - Tourism Coordinator, State of Sonora, Mexico


View Transcript
Ted Simons:
Expand your horizons with the "Horizon" website. To get there, go to www.azpbs.org. Click on the "Horizon" tab at the top of the screen. Once on our home page, you can access many features and help make you a more informed "Horizon" viewer. You can watch interviews by clicking on the video button or by scrolling down to the bottom of the page for the most recent video segments. You can also find out what's on "Horizon" for the upcoming week. If you would like an RSS feed, a podcast, or want to buy a video, that's all on our website too. Want to learn more about specific topics, like immigration or the legislature? You can visit our special web section. Other features include the latest Cronkite 8 poll, our vast collection of links, and a special page for educators. Watch a video and show your support of "Horizon." It's just one click.

A recent U.S. travel advisory warned Americans against driving after dark to rocky point. The advisory referred to unauthorized checkpoints between Lukeville and Puerto Penasco. Here to address those concerns is Javier Tapia, coordinator of the Sonoran tourism commission. Good to have you here. Thanks for joining us.

Javier Tapia:
Thank you.

Ted Simons:
Your thoughts on this advisory.

Javier Tapia:
We are very upset because there's nothing about that in the reality. We are asking the people to go to rocky point safe. We received the advisory, don't go to rocky point because they say it was made by the consulate of Nogales, and we tried to talk to them and they didn't answer, they sent it to us to Tijuana, and the people from Tijuana say that in their advisory they say that it can be dangerous and they are killing people, and nothing happening about that.

Ted Simons:
Have there been any unauthorized stops on highway 8? That you're aware of?

Javier Tapia:
As we know, no. Not until now, we try to investigate and we went to ask the people to the government to tell us who was the person who said that, where it was, and we cannot confirm that it can be, but until now we don't have nothing. We increase our security, our state security for these days, we can tell you that we increase the security to go on and checking all the highway, and until now they say that they are killing people and until now, we don't have any report that none has been killed in that way.

Ted Simons:
So when the U.S. consulate, with one -- when one of the U.S. consulate said the other would not issue something along these lines, if there weren't specific report, you're saying there are no specific reports of aware of these things happening.



Javier Tapia:
We don't know where they take this kind of issues, and we have them in order to tell us and try -- even -- it's not true. We increase the security in order to have the people secure, and we can offer everybody to go to Rocky Point and they will feel very secure and they will feel very good.

Ted Simons:
The advisory also recommended against driving on highway 8, specifically at night. Is that a wise idea, you think, to stay off the road, or avoid the road at night?

Javier Tapia:
I think it's like many roads, not only in Mexico, but all -- all over the world. If you can drive during the day, it's much better than at night. If you drive with a company or it's much better when you're going alone. That means if you're going alone or you're going at night, it's going to happen something, until now we don't have any problem, and the numbers that we have about security issues in Sonora, they're very, very, very high in security instead of --

Ted Simons:
But you will step up patrols for this holiday weekend?

Javier Tapia:
Yes.

Ted Simons:
I can't let you go without talking about this advertisement, the tourism advertisement that seems to have caught a lot of people by surprise, and some not too pleasantly. We're looking at it right now. “In Sonora we're looking for people from Arizona” with the military fatigues and the whole nine yards. The next day, I think it was the next day or the day after, it was said we're looking for people from Arizona to have a good time in Sonora. Was that the best way to advertise Sonora, do you think?

Javier Tapia:
Well, let me tell you that this was the beginning. We was looking -- and we are looking for the people from Arizona. This guy is not in the military. We tried to catch the attention of the people of Arizona in this moment where you have many things in the press, many, many things. If you put only an ad that invites you to go, the people only in the beach, maybe you won't see very good the ad, because you have many things -- this proposal, this was -- the proposal was to have the advertising in two pages, in the same newspaper together, one and the first one, and the other one next page. Unfortunately somebody made a mistake. We don't know yet if it was the Arizona republic or the agency. But anyway, next day we -- resolve anything, and the first one is to catch the attention of the people. That was the proposal, and it's not a military, it's a camouflage. We're having the state of Sonora many hunting, many watchers, birds, and we try to put that watcher there, and the proposal was very -- to put this guy -- in order to catch the attention. And that's -- that can be controversial because of that. But supposed to be in the next page to have a great time. We're looking people from Arizona in order to have a -- who wants to have a great time.

Ted Simons:
But considering the fallout, we're not going to see that ad again, are you?

Javier Tapia:
No. We didn't consider it anymore. This kind of ad. We're changing the ad. We're putting the next ad is going to be in the states and it’s going to be people, teenager making -- asking for -- go to -- we're are looking for people from Arizona in order to have a great time only in one sheet. But you know, I want to tell you that Mr. Arpaio say that what's incredible, we -- we said that we have -- the next day, and he said less mandate that was incredible that something happen in order to change, mysteriously change and the same people from the newspaper, they say it's out of context because they had the advertising since the beginning.

Ted Simons:
We have time for one more question. I want to know what the mood is right now in Puerto Penasco. And in Sonora. We've got an immigration law that's controversial, you've got this advisory, there's concern about violence in Mexico, drug cartels. What's the mood down there?

Javier Tapia:
Well, right now in Penasco, we have very secure destination. Not only Puerto Penasco, but in all the state of Sonora. We have a very, very good destination. Secure, we have many things to do. You can -- there are many people that they have investment in --

Ted Simons:
and we do have to stop right there. We thank you for joining us, though. Thanks for being on "Horizon."

Javier Tapia:
Thank you.

What's on?

Content Partner:

  About KAET Contact Support Legal Follow Us  
  About Eight
Mission/Impact
History
Site Map
Pressroom
Contact Us
Sign up for e-news
Pledge to Eight
Donate Monthly
Volunteer
Other ways to support
FCC Public Files
Privacy Policy
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Google+
Pinterest
 

Need help accessing? Contact disabilityaccess@asu.edu

Eight is a member-supported service of Arizona State University    Copyright Arizona Board of Regents