Posted on: Sunday, February 17, 2002
COMMENTARY
Do we want 'tribal' casinos on Hawaiian home lands?
By Claire W. Engle
Among the many news stories and letters about legalizing gambling in Hawai'i, no mention has been made of one possible consequence: Legalizing gambling will bring about federal control of both gambling and land in Hawai'i.
For more than 40 years, the state of Hawai'i and the counties have regulated land use through the state Department of Land and Natural Resources and the Land Use Commission, with their associated planning and implementing agencies, and through county ordinances. Hawai'i has taken pride in its statewide land classification system and its land-use management. Legalizing gambling could cause the federal government to override these policies.
In 1988, Congress passed a law that allows indigenous people to operate gambling casinos in a state if three conditions are present: The indigenous group must be designated as a "tribe," the tribe must own land, and the state in which the tribe lives must have made gambling legal in some form. That law was applied immediately by indigenous groups in states where gambling was legal.
States that legalized gambling after the Indian Gaming Act became law found themselves dealing with hitherto unrecognized "tribes" claiming sovereignty over acreage that previously lay unclaimed or undeveloped — and the states had no standing to object as casinos sprang up. Why? Because Congress had granted total authority to the Bureau of Indian Affairs to approve such action — without regard to local control or objection.
At first, media attention was drawn to the phenomenon of new casinos in many states but, because most of these casinos were in rural areas, general interest and outrage didn't last. In urban areas where the local population is directly affected, controversy still rages, particularly in southeastern Connecticut and Southern California. Neighbors of casinos have found their lifestyles changed drastically: noise, traffic, burglaries and robberies are up, land values are down, and fear and anxiety in their own neighborhoods have replaced trust and comfort.
The most frustrating of all realities was that states and towns were completely powerless. Though the law was challenged in nearly every jurisdiction, the federal law was found to supersede state and local land-use regulations and community opposition.
Could that happen here?
First let's consider the Native American recognition bill now before Congress, the "Akaka bill." To calm fears expressed by many that the bill would have an effect on the gambling issue, Sen. Daniel Akaka announced that he had inserted a "no gambling" clause. Although both of our senators say they oppose gambling for Hawai'i, time will pass, our congressional representation will change and the anti-gambling clause can be dropped by federal action. The status that Hawaiians would achieve in the Akaka bill could be modified easily to declare the Hawaiians a "tribe" under the definition of the Indian Gaming Act. Moreover, the existing federal law (1988) would be adjudged to take precedence over the later law (Akaka bill), allowing the "tribe" to build a casino or multiple casinos on lands that it owns.
Aided and financed by powerful outside forces, casinos would likely be built, possibly behind Punchbowl (Papakolea) or on other Hawaiian Homes lands, and the "tribe" would buy, sell or exchange land in order to get prime locations for its casinos. Such lands are considered "extraterritorial" under the Indian Gaming Act— that is, outside the jurisdiction of state and local law.
Typically, these "Indian" casinos pay no property taxes, maintain their own police (security) forces, and in other ways operate independent of local government. Casino operations are contracted to outside corporations and outside investors, who pay the tribe its percentage and operate under federal protection.
Gambling operators who are currying favor with local politicians know that once gambling is legalized, they will no longer need to account to these officials for any "tribe-owned" casino(s), because any remaining vestige of control and oversight will shift to Washington. Thus, any "single-casino" gambling activity intended to operate for the benefit of the state of Hawai'i can expect significant "tribe-owned" casino competition very soon.
Land control and gambling involve all of us. As a longtime citizen of Hawai'i, I consider the action of legislators who vote to legalize gambling to be a betrayal of the public trust of their constituents, who did not send them to the State Capitol to transfer control of any part of Hawai'i to the Interior Department — or to abdicate leadership responsibility by transferring decision-making to the results of a public referendum.
We can avoid all of these problems by refusing to legalize gambling. Any evaluation of the gambling issue is incomplete without considering these consequences.
Claire W. Engle is a former department head for the Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i, specializing in land-use policy, among other areas.
