Thursday, May 16, 2013

Riverside County Supervisors Do Pechanga's Bidding on North Fork Rancheria Casino

The Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0 Tuesday to go on record opposing state legislation that would allow an American Indian tribe in Central California to establish a casino on the outskirts of a city, away from its reservation.
In pushing for the stance, Supervisors Jeff Stone and Marion Ashley wrote in a report to colleagues that Assembly Bill 277 would create a "dangerous precedent."
Stone did not attend the meeting and did not vote.
"The proposed compact is the first foothold in an effort to push the limits of off-reservation gaming," Stone and Ashley wrote. "The North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians has lands eligible for gaming but prefers a more lucrative location on the Madera city border."
The supervisors' districts are home to the Pechanga and Morongo casinos, two of the region's most successful gaming venues.
The Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and its portly leader Mark Macarro are well known for violations of civil and human rights.  Macarro was the subject of a recall attempt.  Tribal factions did not like that he hired his wife's company IETAN Consulting without bringing it before the tribe.   


'aamokat said...

What the heck does a casino in central California have to do with the County of Riverside? Noting at all, so Board of Supervisors, do what you were elected and are being paid to do, tend to the business of the County of Riverside and butt out of things that are not in your jurisdiction.

Anonymous said...

But then they won't get those secret cash envelopes...why didn't the Supervisors come down on Macarro when that member was stealing the slot machines and when her son was stealing the tips from the employees.?

Dremel Mcpherson said...

Are you talking about Mark Smith,
or Robert Macarro.

Anonymous said...

I believe it was Jennie Miranda and her son Larry Miranda

Anonymous said...

This flawed essay omits mention of a controlling fact in this matter: The subject reservation wants to set a tribal casino in an area outside its aboriginal territory -- meaning it never had any connection there. Obviously, the tribe here looks only to economic advantage. Further, when the tribes first approached California voters for their approval of tribal gaming, the tribes did so with the understanding that they would keep tribal gaming on their own lands, not put it elsewhere. Finally, the tribes that have a reservation on land far from a gaming market certainly do face a disadvantage regarding establishment of a successful tribal gaming operation on that land. Readers should know, however, that these tribes without tribal gaming receive more than $1 million annually as compensation from California tribes that have tribal gaming.