--------start------------
LAND-STATUS ISSUE PUTS FUTURE OF ONEIDAS' CASINO IN QUESTION
This is the last part of a three-part series [sorry, somehow I missed the
first two parts -pjc]
By William Kates, Associated Press
Verona - The doors to the Oneida Indian Nation's new $10 million casino will
swing open on July 20, but a crucial question remains over the status of the
land the gambling hall stands on.
The issue could affect not only the future of the Turning Stone casino,
but of other Native American gambling ventures, experts say.
The Oneidas built Turning Stone on a 235-acre tract they purchased from
a non-Indian farmer about 15 miles from their 32-acre territory.
The 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act allows Indian nations to
offer games of chance on "Indian lands." Such territory is generally defined
as land restricted from sale by the federal government, or Indian land "held
in trust," which means the government owns it.
The Oneidas' casino site falls under neither category, making Turning
Stone the first Indian gaming operation on non-Indian land.
Is it legal?
"It's a matter that needs to be resolved because it has interesting
ramifications," said Michael Cox, general counsel of the National Indian
Gaming Commission. "It could open a whole new way for Indian tribes to get
into gaming and have a major impact on where their gaming operations are
located."
The Oneidas argue that the casino site is part of the 300,000-acre
area recognized in a 1985 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"All this land goes back to the original Oneida reservation established
by Congress, which the Supreme Court has said wsa illegally taken from us by
the state of New York," said Ray Halbritter, the Oneidas' federally recognized
representative.
The U.S. Department of Interior passed on the land-status question when
Thomas Thompson, acting assistant secretary for Indian affairs, approved the
Oneidas' gaming compact in early June.
However, Interior spokesman Robert Walker noted that the department
recognizes only the 32-acre reservation as Oneida land.
The state, meanwhile, took the position during gaming compact negoti-
ations with the Oneidas that the land-status issue was a federal matter, said
Paul Veillette, the state's chief negotiator.
So, by default, the question has been left up to the recently empowered
National Indian Gaming Commission.
Although the commission's job is to review tribal gaming ordinances and
casino management contracts, Cox said the land question needs to be resolved.
"It is an issue we are going to look into," Cox said. "We can't just
not decide it."
Halbritter said the Oneidas interpreted the Interior Department's deci-
sion not to address the land status question as a green light for their plans.
The gaming commission is overextending its authority by taking up the issue, he
said.
"They are essentially a new commission. It's natural for them to try
to expand their role and assert their independence," Halbritter said.
Cox disagreed.
"The approval of the compact is in no way approval of the site," he
said.
The commission has until mid-December to decide a management contract
submitted for Turning Stone. Cox said it will consider the land-status ques-
tion at the same time.
Although the commission has the authority to close the Oneidas' casino,
Cox said he hoped the matter could be settled through negotiation.
"We are not interested in testing our authority," Cox said.
The case is further complicated because a branch of Oneidas that relo-
cated to Wisconsin in the early 19th century also could share ownership of the
land under the New York Oneidas' argument, Cox noted.
The Wisconsin Oneidas, who run their own casino, are not opposed to the
New York casino and deny the accusations of their New York brethren that they
want a share of casino profits. The two branches have also been at odds over
the land-claim issue but recently agreed on a unified proposal, which is now
in the hands of Gov. Cuomo.
---------end--------------
submitted by Pat Crowe, SUNY at Buffalo