Tribe, City at Odds over Casino

USA Today

 

When Arizona's Tohono O'odham Nation bought unincorporated land adjacent to the city of Glendale and announced plans to build a casino and resort on it, the tribe viewed it as fulfillment of a promise made by the federal government in 1986.

That's when Congress passed a law giving the tribe $30 million to replace 10,000 acres of tribal land that had been damaged by flooding after the Painted Rock Dam was built in 1960. "It's an acknowledgment of the U.S. government that they wronged" the tribe, Chairman Ned Norris says.

Glendale Mayor Elaine Scruggs considers the tribe's plans an unwise incursion into an urban area. She says it would preclude the city from developing the site and receiving tax revenue from it, require the city to provide security, water and roads and violate a state law that restricts casinos to "Indian lands of the tribe."

The 54-acre site is more than 100 miles from the tribe's reservation, and she describes its plan as "reservation shopping" — a tribe's purchase of land near a city to maximize a casino's customer base. "The implications are huge," Scruggs says.

The conflict prompted the city of Glendale to file a lawsuit last month challenging the U.S. Interior Department's decision to place the property in trust as reservation land for the Tohono O'odham Nation. The Interior Department declined to comment because of the pending lawsuit.

In a Sept. 24 letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said approval of the trust could create "a giant loophole" that might "significantly expand gaming in Arizona."

Other conflicts

The Arizona case is among several disputes over tribes' acquisition of land for casinos. In Madera County, Calif., the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians is waiting for a federal ruling on a proposal to take 305 acres into trust to develop a casino and hotel resort. The land is 38 miles from the tribe's rancheria.

John Maier, the Mono tribe's lawyer, says opponents use the term reservation shopping to "denigrate" tribes' efforts "to acquire lands for economic development for the benefit of their communities" that also create jobs for non-Indians such as Phoenix trade show company.

In Oregon, the conservation group Friends of the Columbia Gorge opposes plans by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs to develop a casino on land near a national scenic area. Interior Department approval is pending.

"If this casino proposal is approved," says Michael Lang of Friends of the Columbia Gorge, "that means no place is safe." Howard Arnett, the tribe's lawyer, says the town of Cascade Locks welcomes the development.

In some states, other tribes object to fellow tribes' casino expansion plans. Merrill Godfrey, a lawyer for Arizona's Gila River Indian Community, says the federal law allowing the Tohono O'odham Nation to buy new reservation land wasn't intended to let the tribe "cherry-pick casino land and turn it into a reservation. ... The issue here is playing by the rules."

Norris sees it differently. Gila River's objections, he says, are "an issue of market share" in their competing casinos.

Exceptions to the rule

Decisions about the purchase of land outside reservations are made under the 1988 federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. It prohibits gaming on land acquired by tribes after 1988 but includes several exceptions.

Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the Tohono O'odham Nation, says its purchase of the land near Glendale falls under one of those exceptions: The 1988 cutoff doesn't apply if the property acquisition is part of a land claim settlement such as the 1986 law giving the tribe permission to replace its lost land.

Craig Tindall, Glendale's city attorney, says the city's lawsuit argues that the federal government has no right to remove land from the state's jurisdiction. Creating an Indian reservation in an urban area, he says, would create "a very poor precedent."

In July, Salazar announced a review of the way his department makes decisions about putting land into trust for Indian gaming. A series of meetings with tribes across the nation began in September and will end Nov. 18.

Norris says his tribe's proposed casino project would create 6,000 construction jobs and at least 3,000 permanent jobs, some of which would go to Glendale-area residents and Arizona concrete contractors, and bring $300 million a year in revenue to the state. "We're not going to back down," he says.

Scruggs is just as adamant. "This is not about whether we'd like a casino," she says, but about blocking a project that could "affect our community forever."

Thousands of Undocumented Workers Flee Arizona

Reuters

 

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbour Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day labourers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighbouring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighbourhoods in central and west Phoenix/

"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."

LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE

Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.

The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.

Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.

Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.

A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.

While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.

Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.

"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."

Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.

"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.

Economic Impact of Immigrants' Exodus from Arizona Debated

Arizona Republic

 

The exodus of illegal and legal immigrants predicted by some as a result of Arizona's tough new immigration law is expected to hurt a variety of businesses that directly and indirectly cater to immigrant populations.

It is difficult to estimate the potential economic impact, but economists and market analysts agree it could be substantial.

The fallout could cause a decline in sales at retailers and, ultimately, could cause some businesses to go under.

It could push up vacancy rates at older, Class C apartment complexes and retail centers in immigrant neighborhoods. Other businesses that cater to immigrants, such as check-cashing stores and taxi services, also could be impacted.

Senate Bill 1070 takes effect July 29. Arizona's immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally. It states that an officer engaged in a lawful stop, detention or arrest shall, when practicable, ask about a person's legal status when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is in the U.S. illegally.

Despite the expectation of economic fallout, many businesses say it hasn't come yet. Many of those same businesses reported an almost immediate impact after Arizona's employer sanctions bill took effect in 2008.

The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2008, gave the state authority to suspend or revoke the business license of any employer found to have knowingly or intentionally hired an illegal immigrant.

An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants left the state as a result of the bill and some predict another 100,000 could leave as a result of SB 1070.

The impact of employer sanctions was quickly felt by Hispanic supermarkets such as Food City, which saw sales drop, and by retail centers that cater to the Hispanic population, such as Westcor's Desert Sky Mall.

Most of the businesses say they haven't yet seen a similar impact as a result of SB 1070, but note the measure hasn't yet taken effect, and they remain wary.

The apartment market is one area expected to take a hit.

"It could be significant," said Jim Kasten, president of Kasten Long Commercial Group, a Phoenix commercial real-estate brokerage that focuses on apartments.

The company recently surveyed Valley apartment owners and found that 60 percent believed they would be negatively impacted by SB 1070.

There are approximately 90,000 older Class C apartment units in metro Phoenix and about half of those are thought to be occupied by Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal.

Kasten said that increased vacancies could prompt landlords to lower rents even further to attract tenants, which could be detrimental to owners of Class A and Class B apartments as well.

Phoenix commercial real-estate analyst Bob Kammrath said that Class C landlords saw an immediate impact after the employer-sanctions bill was passed.

"They saw vacancies go up, and it became harder to lease up vacant units," he said.

Retail impact

Retail business in heavily Hispanic areas such as southwest Phoenix and downtown Mesa also saw an impact as a result of the employer-sanctions bill, but as of yet haven't seen a similar impact as a result of SB 1070.

"It's too early to tell, but the potential is there," Kammrath said.

He said that while many immigrants left after the employer-sanctions bill was passed, many may have returned because there have been few prosecutions under the law.

Kasten said that much of the impact of the employer-sanctions bill was felt between the time the law was passed and when it took effect.

"The perception of the law was scarier than the actual implications of the law," he said.

If that is the case with SB 1070, it could mean that the impact may not be much greater that what is currently being felt, he said.

Mall operator Westcor saw sales fall off at its Hispanic-oriented Desert Sky Mall in west Phoenix after the passage of employer sanctions, but like others hasn't seen a similar effect as a result of SB 1070.

"We're monitoring it," said Westcor spokeswoman Anita Walker.

Another business that caters to the immigrant population is the Phoenix Park 'n Swap near Washington and 40th streets.

Operations director Susan Barrett said the local swap meet attracts more than 10,000 people per week and caters to a predominantly Hispanic market.

On Wednesday night, which has been dubbed "Hispanic night," Barrett estimated that more than 90 percent of the vendors and customers are Hispanic.

She noted that the business saw an impact after the passage of the employer-sanctions law and also when there have been weekend rallies against SB 1070. But, she added the business hasn't yet seen a direct impact as a result of the new law.

"We're waiting," she said.

Small businesses hit

However, some small-business owners that cater to northeast Phoenix's Hispanic population saw an immediate drop in business since the passage of SB 1070.

Owners say they were already affected because their clientele was more likely to work in industries disproportionately affected by recent economic woes, such as construction. Many are contemplating closing.

"This is just going to make it worse," said Marissa Ruiz, owner of Contact Cellular, on Cave Creek Road. "On every corner on every street, there are empty businesses."

Owner Nick Solomon said business at shops he owns in northeast Phoenix's Palomino neighborhood, such as a laundry and grocery, decreased by 50 percent in the days after the passage of SB 1070.

An official at the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce said it only made sense that the state's small businesses would be affected by the state's new immigration law because many of their customers may no longer be in the state.

"When they leave, the local businesses that may have been catering to them . . . those people have to take a hit. The aisles are just not as crowded, it's a real impact but it's also an impact that has been steadily building," said James Garcia, spokesman for the organization.

Garcia said the chamber hasn't done any statistical research but has heard that small businesses in the Valley have been affected by the policy.

He said people tell him, "I had a restaurant in Guadalupe or I have a place in west Phoenix and it's been a real struggle" and "I've also heard recently, we were talking to one of these people with the ice cream in a little cart say, 'There used to be 35 of us with this small company. Now there are two,' " he said.