By Art Campos, Sacramento Bee
Passage of Proposition 1A by California voters Tuesday will have no significant effect on a casino being proposed in Placer County by the United Auburn Indian Community, both opponents and supporters say.
Representatives for both sides said approval of the proposition was a foregone conclusion and that it would play no role in whether the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs approves or rejects a casino off Highway 65 near Roseville, Rocklin and Lincoln.
"What Proposition 1A did was lift the cloud that was hanging over Indian country," said Doug Elmets, spokesman for the United Auburn Indian Community. "Once and for all, the voters have stated that gaming on Indian land is legal in the state of California."
Proposition 1A also defined the type of gaming allowed in the casinos. Slot machines, heretofore illegal, will be permitted.
Elmets said the United Auburn Indian tribe will seek to place 2,000 slot machines in the proposed 200,000 square-foot building.
He said the tribe, consisting of about 60 Miwok and Maidu Indians, is awaiting a review of documents submitted to the bureau about whether the 58-acre site at Athens and Industrial avenues should be placed under federal trust and allowed to have a casino.
Brian Swearingen, chairman of the opposition Citizens for Safer Communities, said he was "hoping for a miracle" that Proposition 1A would be defeated so Nevada-style gaming on Indian land would be illegal.
"We had so such luck," he said, "but we anticipate that our fight all along is with the Bureau of Indian Affairs - not with Proposition 1A."
Maureen Dudley, a member of the opposition group, said Proposition 1A legalized certain Class III gaming at Indian casinos, but "it doesn't approve any particular site for the gambling. Only the BIA can approve the site."
Dudley said she felt it was significant that 56 percent of Placer County voters opposed Proposition 1A in Tuesday's election.
"That tells me that there's not strong support for gambling in Placer County," she said.
Proposition 1A's approval didn't change the stances of Rocklin, Roseville and Lincoln on the nearby casino. All three city councils remain opposed to the project.
Carlos Urritia, Rocklin city manager, said his council didn't object to the type of gambling allowed under Proposition 1A or the concept of gaming on Indian land.
"What we took issue with was the proximity of the proposed casino to large residential areas," he said. "The question was whether the casino is compatible with the adjacent neighborhoods. We felt it wasn't."
Mayor Harry Crabb of Roseville and Mayor Don Noyes of Lincoln echoed Urritia's sentiments. Crabb said he will continue his efforts to place the casino elsewhere in Placer County.
Also unchanged in the face of Proposition 1A is the status of an agreement between the United Auburn Indians and county supervisors.
The agreement was approved in December and provides for the county to receive millions of dollars in mitigation for the impact of the casino.
The agreement calls for the tribe to pay for road improvements, hiring of five sheriff's deputies, programs for problem gambling and financial support for the count's open space project known as Placer Legacy.
"The memorandum goes significantly further than Proposition 1A in mitigating any off-reservation impacts," Elmets said.
Copyright © 2000, Sacramento Bee
