« Hupp wins big... | Main | Classic Hypocrisy--Daily Star Style. »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Great reporting Greg

Prof. Clinton has been skeptical about this casino for some time. The Judges hearing the cases, however, have not. Also, in reading about the history of this, it appears that the federal government had an easement for flooding, but when that flooding rendered the land valueless, there arose a substantial claim relating to title. Perhaps Prof. Clinton needs to examine the facts of the case a little further, or be subjected to a little socratic questioning rather than the pablum that the Republic spins out there. While criticizing the Republic's coverage, you fail to note that the Republic editorial page has taken a position against the casino on repeated occasions. Perhaps their existing advertising relationships play a role? Where are your cynical accusations now???

I think I have to go with Professor C on this one. I am sure he based his thoughts on more than just the AZ Republic. I bet he read the Gila Bend Replacement Act which compensated Tohono O'odham for injuries to land. The legislation did not address any claims to title, probably because if they existed they were flimsy. Good job Greg.

More precisely, Travis, the "Gila Bend Indian Lands Replacement Act", the replacement of lands destroyed by flooding as a result of federal action-- in fact caused by the trustee of Indian Lands. It is a very hard and twisted road to make an argument that this has nothing to do with a land claims settlement.

The 1986 Gila River Act was a settlement for MONEY, paid as damages for the inverse condemnation of tribal land, periodically flooded by backwaters from Painted Rock Dam. The tribe was authorized to do what they wanted with the money as long as it was for economic development. If they bought land within any of the three named counties they could apply to bring it into trust and make it part of the reservation. This was 2 years before the very specific IGRA was enacted providing no gambling would be allowed on land acquired by an Indian tribe after Oct. 1988. The Glendale land was no exception to that law because it was NOT the settlement of any disputed land (title) claim, the land titles and ownership were never in dispute, and it was not land elligible for gambling because it was acquired well after Oct. 1988.

The comments to this entry are closed.