American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Tribal Casino Rules Revisited

More news stories on Indians

A.D. Pruitt and Peter Grant, Wall Street Journal, Sept. 21, 2009

The Obama administration may make it easier for Indian tribes to build casinos on land far from their reservations, a move likely to spur a wave of new casino development.

The Interior Department, which runs the Bureau of Indian Affairs, is reconsidering a Bush administration directive requiring that off-reservation casino sites be within commuting distance of the reservation. Many tribes, struggling with high unemployment and poverty on their reservations, are looking to casinos for jobs and other economic benefits.

{snip}

About 22 Indian casinos on non-reservation land exist, and about 20 tribes have off-reservation plans in the works.

The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs of Oregon wants to develop a casino along the Columbia River Gorge, and the St. Regis Mohawks has plans for a site in the Catskill Mountains, about 350 miles away from the tribe’s reservation—not within the required commuting distance—but less than a two-hour drive from New York City.

{snip}

Indian casinos can be particularly problematic when they run into financial trouble. One example: Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, which is in talks with lenders to restructure an enormous debt load.

Moody’s Investor Service has warned that lenders have limited recourse because, under U.S. law, they can’t seize Indian casino assets in the case of a default or bankruptcy.

{snip}

About 300 casinos have been developed by tribes since a watershed U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1987 that greatly loosened state restrictions on such operations. In 1988, Congress said tribes could develop off-reservation casinos that were in the best interest of the tribe and not detrimental to the local community.

Casino.jpg

Casino at Niagara Falls operated by Seneca Indians.

Original article

(Posted on September 21, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Odoacer wrote at 6:11 PM on September 21:

Normally I agree with what I read here, but not in this case. How is deregulation a “handout”?

2 — Anonymous wrote at 11:47 PM on September 21:

In response to #1 Odoacer, reservations are autonomous. What Indians do on their reserverations is their business. But when Indians are given rights and privileges off their reservations that are not available to others then it is a HANDOUT.

3 — underdog wrote at 6:35 AM on September 22:

I rather suspect that any arguments pro or con on this issue are moot in today’s tapped out economy.

4 — Anonymous wrote at 11:06 AM on September 22:

It pays to be considered a downtrodden, oppressed minority in today’s America.

5 — concernicus wrote at 7:00 PM on September 22:

As far as I am concerned the American Indians can have whatever they want. They even have the right to ask us to leave.

6 — Anonymous wrote at 8:11 PM on September 24:

I personally don’t see anything wrong here. Indians were here, inhabiting 1% of North America, first. In my opinion, they are entitled to 1% of the land in North America, however not the other 99%.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search