Post by blackcrowheart on Jan 24, 2006 21:11:55 GMT -5
www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096412330
Let the games begin
Posted: January 24, 2006
by: Tom Wanamaker / Indian Country Today
Public hearings shed light on NY politicians
Who can "create" sovereignty?
Members of the BIA's eastern regional office came to central New York in early January seeking local input on the Oneida Indian Nation's application to put 17,370 acres of land into federal trust. They got an earful.
Hundreds of local residents packed the auditoriums at Vernon-Verona-Sherrill and Oneida high schools to voice their opinions on the nation's application. Supporters and opponents of the land-trust plan stated their cases loudly - often rudely interrupting each other with boos and catcalls.
Employees of the Oneida Nation turned out in force, outnumbering by at least a 2-to-1 majority supporters of the so-called Upstate Citizens for Equality. UCE bills itself as a ''taxpayers group'' or a ''landowners group'' but directs its rhetoric solely at Indian tribes while saying nothing about Albany's fiscal malaise and outrageous taxes. Although the group gets considerable attention in the area media, its proportion in the crowd is likely more indicative of its true level of local support.
Many of the nation's supporters carried slogan-bearing signs, one asking, ''What leaders are here to represent us?''
Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert certainly was not. An aide announced that Boehlert was in Antarctica to ensure that taxpayer money for global warming research was being properly spent and accounted for. Federal hearings on an extremely important and contentious issue are happening in his district, but ''Sherry'' instead travels to the other end of the Earth.
Several state and local politicians did show up to contribute their two cents. Unsurprisingly, and almost to a man, they spoke against the application. Most bemoaned the idea of ''checkerboarded'' jurisdictions that would somehow cause ''chaos'' and ''disruption,'' but nobody offered an example of such disruptive chaos. The BIA moderator did observe that nation-owned land amounts to 1.34 percent of the total landmass of Oneida County and 1.57 percent of Madison County. If placing such a miniscule proportion of these two counties would cause so much disorder, the two counties can only be teetering on the point of collapse today. Who voted for these people? Whom do they represent?
The local politicians complained of the nation's ''unfair competitive advantage,'' but failed to address the tax breaks and utility credits doled out under New York's loophole-ridden Empire Zone program. Nor did anyone speak out against local real estate giant Pyramid Co.'s far-fetched plan to build a gigantic shopping mall/resort destination in nearby Syracuse in return for 30 years of tax-free status. Of course, there was only passing mention of the Oneida Nation's generosity, through philanthropic contributions to area charities, the creation of college scholarships for area students, and voluntary Silver Covenant grants to local school districts and municipalities in amounts surpassing the taxable value of tribally owned lands in said jurisdictions.
Rather than simply echoing the skewed logic of the Supreme Court's City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York decision, perhaps these power-hungry local politicos should instead do their homework - which would teach them about ''checkerboarded'' Indian reservations out West and how they operate, with neither ''chaos'' nor ''disruption,'' in conjunction with neighboring governments.
Instead of designating more tax-free Empire Zones, as the city of Oneida did to a 50-acre plot within its boundaries one day before the first hearing, the local jurisdictions can simply acknowledge Oneida Nation sovereignty, as the federal government does. Then, they could happily accept the nation's Silver Covenant donations and move on in a spirit of cooperation instead of jealousy and animosity.
Many of the local ''leaders'' said that they seek a ''fair'' negotiated solution. Yet the nation has willingly negotiated for years and, in 2002, proposed a ''fair'' solution that was accepted by the state and by Madison and Oneida counties. Although that deal fell apart due to a lack of federal support, it wasn't for a lack of trying on the nation's part. Yet when local leaders talk about ''fair,'' they seem to mean that the nation must completely submit to local authority. Although it's not at all clear that they understand the concept of assimilation as it pertains to an Indian tribe, this is apparently what they want - hardly a ''fair'' solution.
Casino sovereignty
Of all the half-truths and distortions put forward by the anti-nation crowd, one took the proverbial cake. State Assemblyman David Townsend, a Republican, insisted that the state Legislature can create Indian reservations and said that legislation is pending to create a ''footprint'' reservation underneath the nation's Turning Stone Resort and Casino, by which the state will ''protect the sovereignty of the casino.''
What? According to Dictionary.com, sovereignty is defined as: ''Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state; royal rank, authority, or power; complete independence and self-government; a territory existing as an independent state.'' Since when can a casino have sovereignty?
Townsend attempted to draw a convoluted parallel with the Shinnecock Nation, whose federal recognition status is currently in dispute. He claimed that in 1703, ''New York state'' created a reservation for the Shinnecocks on Long Island. But New York did not become a state until the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1783, eight decades later. If anyone ''created'' the Shinnecock reservation, it was the royally chartered colonial government in power at the time, acting as an agent of the British sovereign.
With a functioning government that is centuries older than the dysfunctional one sitting in Albany, the Oneida Nation already enjoys both inherent sovereignty and a treaty-based relationship with the federal government. Under the U.S. Constitution, Albany does not have the standing to grant sovereignty to an Indian tribe, much less to a tribally owned business.
Indeed, if Albany intends to extend the same ''protection'' to the Oneida Nation as it has to the rest of upstate New York - Albany's financial chicanery and oppressive taxation have driven people and industry out of the region for decades - it is doubtful that the nation would be interested.
Outside one of the hearings, an Upstate Citizens for Equality sympathizer complained to a TV reporter about the vocal mass of nation employees inside.
''These aren't the residents,'' he fumed. ''You put that on the air. This isn't reality.''
What? Just where, sir, do you think the nation's 4,500 employees live? Are they bused in from Canada or Pennsylvania every day? Or are they your hard-working neighbors who pay federal, state and local taxes while buying homes and spending their salaries in the local economy?
Who represents whom?
In his remarks to the BIA panel, Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter listed the nation's numerous positive contributions to the regional economy, after which he noted ironically that many find it ''convenient to blame the nation'' for the region's economic problems.
''Why is it OK for others to get tax exemptions and not the nation?'' Halbritter asked. ''Place the land into trust or settle the land claim. We've proposed answers.''
In the end, while many of the local representatives paid lip service to the Oneida Nation's prowess as an economic engine, the question ''What leaders are here to represent us?'' proved poignant.
Are the political leaders in Albany and central New York really interested in working with the Oneida Nation? Or are they content to expand their authority where federal law says it doesn't belong and serve the narrow-minded interests of a small but vocal minority?
Let the games begin
Posted: January 24, 2006
by: Tom Wanamaker / Indian Country Today
Public hearings shed light on NY politicians
Who can "create" sovereignty?
Members of the BIA's eastern regional office came to central New York in early January seeking local input on the Oneida Indian Nation's application to put 17,370 acres of land into federal trust. They got an earful.
Hundreds of local residents packed the auditoriums at Vernon-Verona-Sherrill and Oneida high schools to voice their opinions on the nation's application. Supporters and opponents of the land-trust plan stated their cases loudly - often rudely interrupting each other with boos and catcalls.
Employees of the Oneida Nation turned out in force, outnumbering by at least a 2-to-1 majority supporters of the so-called Upstate Citizens for Equality. UCE bills itself as a ''taxpayers group'' or a ''landowners group'' but directs its rhetoric solely at Indian tribes while saying nothing about Albany's fiscal malaise and outrageous taxes. Although the group gets considerable attention in the area media, its proportion in the crowd is likely more indicative of its true level of local support.
Many of the nation's supporters carried slogan-bearing signs, one asking, ''What leaders are here to represent us?''
Republican Rep. Sherwood Boehlert certainly was not. An aide announced that Boehlert was in Antarctica to ensure that taxpayer money for global warming research was being properly spent and accounted for. Federal hearings on an extremely important and contentious issue are happening in his district, but ''Sherry'' instead travels to the other end of the Earth.
Several state and local politicians did show up to contribute their two cents. Unsurprisingly, and almost to a man, they spoke against the application. Most bemoaned the idea of ''checkerboarded'' jurisdictions that would somehow cause ''chaos'' and ''disruption,'' but nobody offered an example of such disruptive chaos. The BIA moderator did observe that nation-owned land amounts to 1.34 percent of the total landmass of Oneida County and 1.57 percent of Madison County. If placing such a miniscule proportion of these two counties would cause so much disorder, the two counties can only be teetering on the point of collapse today. Who voted for these people? Whom do they represent?
The local politicians complained of the nation's ''unfair competitive advantage,'' but failed to address the tax breaks and utility credits doled out under New York's loophole-ridden Empire Zone program. Nor did anyone speak out against local real estate giant Pyramid Co.'s far-fetched plan to build a gigantic shopping mall/resort destination in nearby Syracuse in return for 30 years of tax-free status. Of course, there was only passing mention of the Oneida Nation's generosity, through philanthropic contributions to area charities, the creation of college scholarships for area students, and voluntary Silver Covenant grants to local school districts and municipalities in amounts surpassing the taxable value of tribally owned lands in said jurisdictions.
Rather than simply echoing the skewed logic of the Supreme Court's City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York decision, perhaps these power-hungry local politicos should instead do their homework - which would teach them about ''checkerboarded'' Indian reservations out West and how they operate, with neither ''chaos'' nor ''disruption,'' in conjunction with neighboring governments.
Instead of designating more tax-free Empire Zones, as the city of Oneida did to a 50-acre plot within its boundaries one day before the first hearing, the local jurisdictions can simply acknowledge Oneida Nation sovereignty, as the federal government does. Then, they could happily accept the nation's Silver Covenant donations and move on in a spirit of cooperation instead of jealousy and animosity.
Many of the local ''leaders'' said that they seek a ''fair'' negotiated solution. Yet the nation has willingly negotiated for years and, in 2002, proposed a ''fair'' solution that was accepted by the state and by Madison and Oneida counties. Although that deal fell apart due to a lack of federal support, it wasn't for a lack of trying on the nation's part. Yet when local leaders talk about ''fair,'' they seem to mean that the nation must completely submit to local authority. Although it's not at all clear that they understand the concept of assimilation as it pertains to an Indian tribe, this is apparently what they want - hardly a ''fair'' solution.
Casino sovereignty
Of all the half-truths and distortions put forward by the anti-nation crowd, one took the proverbial cake. State Assemblyman David Townsend, a Republican, insisted that the state Legislature can create Indian reservations and said that legislation is pending to create a ''footprint'' reservation underneath the nation's Turning Stone Resort and Casino, by which the state will ''protect the sovereignty of the casino.''
What? According to Dictionary.com, sovereignty is defined as: ''Supremacy of authority or rule as exercised by a sovereign or sovereign state; royal rank, authority, or power; complete independence and self-government; a territory existing as an independent state.'' Since when can a casino have sovereignty?
Townsend attempted to draw a convoluted parallel with the Shinnecock Nation, whose federal recognition status is currently in dispute. He claimed that in 1703, ''New York state'' created a reservation for the Shinnecocks on Long Island. But New York did not become a state until the Articles of Confederation were adopted in 1783, eight decades later. If anyone ''created'' the Shinnecock reservation, it was the royally chartered colonial government in power at the time, acting as an agent of the British sovereign.
With a functioning government that is centuries older than the dysfunctional one sitting in Albany, the Oneida Nation already enjoys both inherent sovereignty and a treaty-based relationship with the federal government. Under the U.S. Constitution, Albany does not have the standing to grant sovereignty to an Indian tribe, much less to a tribally owned business.
Indeed, if Albany intends to extend the same ''protection'' to the Oneida Nation as it has to the rest of upstate New York - Albany's financial chicanery and oppressive taxation have driven people and industry out of the region for decades - it is doubtful that the nation would be interested.
Outside one of the hearings, an Upstate Citizens for Equality sympathizer complained to a TV reporter about the vocal mass of nation employees inside.
''These aren't the residents,'' he fumed. ''You put that on the air. This isn't reality.''
What? Just where, sir, do you think the nation's 4,500 employees live? Are they bused in from Canada or Pennsylvania every day? Or are they your hard-working neighbors who pay federal, state and local taxes while buying homes and spending their salaries in the local economy?
Who represents whom?
In his remarks to the BIA panel, Oneida Nation Representative Ray Halbritter listed the nation's numerous positive contributions to the regional economy, after which he noted ironically that many find it ''convenient to blame the nation'' for the region's economic problems.
''Why is it OK for others to get tax exemptions and not the nation?'' Halbritter asked. ''Place the land into trust or settle the land claim. We've proposed answers.''
In the end, while many of the local representatives paid lip service to the Oneida Nation's prowess as an economic engine, the question ''What leaders are here to represent us?'' proved poignant.
Are the political leaders in Albany and central New York really interested in working with the Oneida Nation? Or are they content to expand their authority where federal law says it doesn't belong and serve the narrow-minded interests of a small but vocal minority?