Judging from what residents at public hearings, officials in affected towns and villages, and even a few county legislators have been saying, it seems clear that Cayuga and Seneca county lawmakers should not approve the proposed land claim/land-in-trust settlements with the Cayuga Indian Nation of New York.
Each county is scheduled to vote on the deals next week, basically a month after a surprise settlement proposal was first made public.
The reasons outlined by settlement opponents are valid. This deal gives away far too much to the tribe, it puts municipalities and school districts at considerable risk of losing a fifth of their tax base, and it leverages any returns to the counties on the financial viability of a casino.
We remain in support of the idea of a settlement to mitigate the impact of the inevitable federal decision to take the Cayugas' land into trust. And we remain firm that this deal is not acceptable.
County lawmakers need to reject the program and then ask their attorney working on these talks to start again. Apparently the Cayugas have said there is no room for further negotiation, but we find it hard to believe they would walk away from the table if they knew there was county support for the concept of a deal.
This time, county leaders should do a better job of communicating with the people they represent about the process. They may even want to consider a hearing asking people what, if any, kind of settlement they could accept.
One of the biggest flaws of the settlement proposal now on the table was how suddenly it became public, and how secretly it was handled. This is not a personnel matter that must be kept out of the public. It's a legal matter more than 25 years old that will impact our communities for decades to come.
It's certainly not something that you turn over to one lawyer, and then forget about until he comes back with a deal.
There's no good reason lawmakers can't tell their attorney to work out a better agreement. And they certainly should demand that they, as well as town and village officials directly involved in the 64,000-acre land claim area, be allowed to give more input on what constitutes a fair deal.
The reasons outlined by settlement opponents are valid. This deal gives away far too much to the tribe, it puts municipalities and school districts at considerable risk of losing a fifth of their tax base, and it leverages any returns to the counties on the financial viability of a casino.
We remain in support of the idea of a settlement to mitigate the impact of the inevitable federal decision to take the Cayugas' land into trust. And we remain firm that this deal is not acceptable.
County lawmakers need to reject the program and then ask their attorney working on these talks to start again. Apparently the Cayugas have said there is no room for further negotiation, but we find it hard to believe they would walk away from the table if they knew there was county support for the concept of a deal.
This time, county leaders should do a better job of communicating with the people they represent about the process. They may even want to consider a hearing asking people what, if any, kind of settlement they could accept.
One of the biggest flaws of the settlement proposal now on the table was how suddenly it became public, and how secretly it was handled. This is not a personnel matter that must be kept out of the public. It's a legal matter more than 25 years old that will impact our communities for decades to come.
It's certainly not something that you turn over to one lawyer, and then forget about until he comes back with a deal.
There's no good reason lawmakers can't tell their attorney to work out a better agreement. And they certainly should demand that they, as well as town and village officials directly involved in the 64,000-acre land claim area, be allowed to give more input on what constitutes a fair deal.
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.