Sunday, May 20 , 2018, 10:36 am | Mostly Cloudy 62º

 
 
 
 

Doreen Farr and Peter Adam: An Open Letter on Chumash Tribal Issues

Contrary to statements made in the media, the Santa Barbara County Ad-Hoc Subcommittee did not break off negotiations with representatives from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians at the March 3 meeting.

Peter Adam
Peter Adam

Doreen Farr
Doreen Farr

Our goal, as we stated at the end of that meeting, was to formally update the full Board of Supervisors and the general public before scheduling any further meetings. That board meeting will take place March 15 in Santa Barbara.

It is factually incorrect to say that the county refuses to acknowledge the tribe’s status as a sovereign government. The Board of Supervisors has long had an adopted policy that “recognizes and respects the tribal right of self-governance to provide for tribal members and to preserve traditional tribal culture and heritage.”

That does not mean that we must agree to any particular proposal by the tribe that we believe would be detrimental to the county and its residents.

Last fall, the full Board of Supervisors appointed us as an ad-hoc subcommittee to hold open public meetings with both the tribe’s chairman and vice chairman. Our board gave us broad latitude to discuss whatever the tribe wanted.

Initially, we suggested that the talks include all land owned by the tribe, except for the existing reservation. However, after the first meeting the tribe chose to confine discussions to the 1,400-acre “Camp 4” property, and we complied, drafting a detailed term sheet to discuss and provide the basis for an agreement.

Unfortunately, after seven meetings, we have been unable to reach agreement on any of five main issues. Regarding the amount of property to be taken into trust, we proposed what the tribe requested in their application to the federal government as to their stated need of property to provide housing and tribal facilities.

We first offered about 200 acres and then later increased it to 900 acres, even though the tribe had not moved from their position of wanting all 1,400 acres in to trust without providing additional information as to what the rest of the property would be used for.

We provisionally agreed to the term length of the tribe’s gaming compact with the State of California, with a reopener provision. Initially, the tribe seemed to agree, but then came back at our last meeting with unclear language that would allow for the term to be shortened.

On fiscal considerations, the tribe and the county are still far apart with a $1 million difference each year after a 10-year buildout scenario. This huge gap is caused by the tribe’s refusal to accepted methodology used by the federal government for the requested Payment in Lieu of Taxes, even though our calculation is the same.

The tribe has already committed to both Congress and the Bureau of Indian Affairs that there will not be gaming on Camp 4, but they have refused to give the county that same unequivocal statement.

And last, despite our county counsel’s best efforts to repeatedly answer their concerns regarding the needed language on a waiver of sovereign immunity and enforceability clauses, the tribe has refused to agree to them.

In short, we feel that we have been negotiating in good faith to reach mutually agreeable terms with the tribe, including considering canceling the Williamson Act Contract and waiving fees. However, we feel that the tribe has refused to meet us in the middle.

At our last meeting, the tribe introduced a new map of all the properties they now want us to support converting from Fee To Trust. These included not just Camp 4 but approximately 400 additional acres of undeveloped land within and adjacent to the township of Santa Ynez. Both of us were very surprised and concerned by the size and scale of the new proposal as it would carry important consequences for the community and the county.

If the process had included all these items from the very beginning, instead of being confined to Camp 4, our positions on the term sheet would be different. So it seemed an appropriate time to pause and report to the full Board of Supervisors all that had transpired since we were first appointed as an ad-hoc subcommittee and see what suggestions our fellow supervisors might have regarding any of these issues.

The two of us began this process with open minds, believing that some kind of agreement with the tribe might be possible. Short of some signal from the tribe that they are willing to make some concessions on the same value scale that we have made, we are not sure that there is any point in continuing the exercise.

We encourage anyone interested in these issues to attend the March 15 Board of Supervisors meeting in the fourth-floor board hearing room of the County Administration Building, 105 E. Anapamu St. in Santa Barbara. We welcome your comments.

Doreen Farr represents the Third District and Peter Adam represents the Fourth District on the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. The opinions expressed are their own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >