Once again Third District Supervisor candidate Bruce Porter is calling for
a renewed effort for us taxpaying citizens to settle our differences with
the Chumash in a “win-win-win scenario” but I can find no practical solutions in his naive proposal.
Exactly where has Mr. Porter been since he moved to the Santa Ynez Valley 15 years ago when it comes to the trbe’s unbroken history of bad faith negotiations? And doesn’t he understand that no agreement with
the tribe will be enforceable?
What part of “win-win-win” does he envision? All I can see is “win” for the
tribe, “lose” for us taxpayers, and “lose” for the recipients of property tax funds: namely school districts like the one for which he is President.
And what part of fee-to-trust does Mr. Porter expect the Tribe to agree to
renounce to make his proposal more realistic? Would you give up your
right to take your property off the tax roles in perpetuity?
Shouldn’t the tribe feel insulted by Mr. Porter calling fee-to-trust “training wheels” and a “crutch” when it yields millions of dollars a year to their personal wealth?
And what do his ardent supporters and contributors, like Supervisor
Lavagnino and Andy Caldwell think of his chiding the tribe to re-calibrate how they relate to the “overall community”?
Making an agreement with the tribe is not some neighbor to neighbor
agreement.; a deal with the tribe is always a zero sum game where they
win and we lose.
Mr. Porter is tragically naive and under informed in thinking otherwise and the Valley cannot afford to have him represent us as our next Supervisor.
John K. Poitras