There was never any question that the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs was going to recommend putting land-into-trust for the Oneida Indian Nation, an action that would officially remove properties from the tax rolls.
But it was disappointing to see the amount of Oneida land that the BIA feels should be given sovereign status. In a report issued last week, the BIA recommends placing more than 13,000 Oneida Indian Nation acres into trust.
That's pretty close to the 17,000 acres the Oneidas had sought in their application, and far more than the roughly 1,000 acres local municipalities had argued would be a fair resolution.
We certainly hope the federal Department of Interior, which makes the final determination on this matter, comes down from that 13,000-acre figure considerably.
As much as the BIA claims in its report that its plan is a compromise, the two key bottom line concerns of municipalities are largely overlooked.
First, the amount of land that would be taken off the property tax rolls would be a major blow to local tax bases. The BIA's low-end estimate is that it would cost counties $2.19 million a year. The agency claims that money would be offset by the money Oneida Indian Nation employees pay in income, property and sales taxes. But that refers to an existing funding stream; it doesn't do a thing to mitigate the property tax losses that such a giant land-into-trust approval would create.
The second local concern ignored by the BIA is that this proposal creates a checkerboard of jurisdictions, despite the BIA's claims otherwise. Yes, the checkerboard is not as big as one that would be 17,000 acres in total area, but it still involves 234 parcels sprinkled among other parcels in which the owners are subject to taxes and local laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court had made it clear that this type of patchwork situation is not acceptable, and it's up to the Interior Department to make the decision that truly is in the best interests of all sides.
That's pretty close to the 17,000 acres the Oneidas had sought in their application, and far more than the roughly 1,000 acres local municipalities had argued would be a fair resolution.
We certainly hope the federal Department of Interior, which makes the final determination on this matter, comes down from that 13,000-acre figure considerably.
As much as the BIA claims in its report that its plan is a compromise, the two key bottom line concerns of municipalities are largely overlooked.
First, the amount of land that would be taken off the property tax rolls would be a major blow to local tax bases. The BIA's low-end estimate is that it would cost counties $2.19 million a year. The agency claims that money would be offset by the money Oneida Indian Nation employees pay in income, property and sales taxes. But that refers to an existing funding stream; it doesn't do a thing to mitigate the property tax losses that such a giant land-into-trust approval would create.
The second local concern ignored by the BIA is that this proposal creates a checkerboard of jurisdictions, despite the BIA's claims otherwise. Yes, the checkerboard is not as big as one that would be 17,000 acres in total area, but it still involves 234 parcels sprinkled among other parcels in which the owners are subject to taxes and local laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court had made it clear that this type of patchwork situation is not acceptable, and it's up to the Interior Department to make the decision that truly is in the best interests of all sides.
The Citizens' Say
There are 1 comment(s)
e pluribus unum wrote on Feb 26, 2008 12:54 PM:
They will say these "entitlements are owed them because they gave up land. Land they claim their ancestors never owned because the concept of land ownership was foreign to them.
Our Congress brought this situation on us and just keeps making it worse for all. Poverty on reservations would disappear in a generation if federal recognition of tribes disappeared. "