Can any native-netters shed some light on this and the previous legal
decision? (re: the legality of accessing local/state property taxes
against reservation land). I am not versed in civil or tax laws, but
it has always been my impression that property taxation was levied for
local services. If the reservation is not serviced by local fire, police,
etc., how can they levy a tax? If they can be taxed, does the federal
government owe the state of California (or any state for that matter)
property tax for all the federal property here? If not, what is the legal
justification for the application to reservation land only?
I do not possess enough knowledge to act on this. Not that there is much
I can do individually. Any suggestions for actions beyond letter writing
to the usual disinterested congressional reps? I'll write anyway, but I
need something coherent to say.
WARNING snideness ahead...those without a sense of humor cease reading.
Here in the USA most of the tribes have treaties with the government. I
have only perused a few, but the common theme seems to be "In exchange
for this land we will take care of your needs on a smaller piece of land."
This makes the treaties open-ended. Federal entitlements are not welfare,
but payments for the land bought. Except that you can't have an open-ended
purchase. If it doesn't terminate, it cannot be a purchase. It makes it a
lease. Perhaps it's time to consider 200 million eviction notices for
back-due rent. {-;
john veregge