The Seattle Times recently profiled the growing economic impact of development on the Tulalip Reservation in Snohomish County. While that impact has been generally positive both for the county as a whole and of tribal members themselves, there are a couple of glaring irritants in the article.
One, a pet peeve: the tribe is referred to as a "sovereign nation," when in fact tribes are actually "domestic dependent nations." There are notable differences. They do have certain rights of self-governance, but if they were true sovereign nations for example, tribal members wouldn't be eligible to register to vote in local, state, and federal elections as the Tulalips, and other tribes, actively encourage members to do.
Second, the article spells out the more visible problem with the Tulalips: they're not always the best neighbors. Though they are cited by the Snohomish County Economic Development Council as the largest current developer in the county, they don't pay for infrastructure improvements in the way of impact fees and mitigation like any other developer would have to do. The result? For one, traffic around Quil Ceda village is a nightmare. Anyone who has ever suffered in the traffic parking lot of what passes for arterials near the two freeway interchanges serving the Tulalips' main development and Marysville knows exactly what I'm talking about.
Kim Halvorson, declared candidate against John McCoy, is among those quoted in the article as being critical of the approach the Tulalips have taken. McCoy has an odd and conflicted dual-role as General Manager of Quil Ceda Village and state legislator. Moreover, I've heard from Democrats and Republicans alike he can be abrasive and difficult to work with.
In contrast, I've worked with Halvorson on the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission and can attest she will mount the sort of energetic effort needed to knock off McCoy. Plus, she'll have a better shot in this non-Presidential election year than she did in 2004. Will that solve the problem of how the Tulalips do business? Probably not. But it sure wouldn't hurt.
It's also no surprise that they favor the company of Dhimmicrats. After all Dhimmicrats are the original enablers, co-dependants, and hustlers.
Can Halvorson make any difference? Doubtful, but if I lived in her district I'd throw in with her just out of principle.
Now, as to the "surprise" of urnalists at the slimes not knowing the difference between sovereign vs. domestic dependent nations, well, you know the slimes ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 29, 2006 04:23 PMsorry--i'm not 'guilty' when reminded of settling the west & our alleged 'evils' against the natives; they, like other special groups, have had plenty of time to get their act together in America; prosperity is great--good for them--but eternal guilt-payments and special breaks are not good for taxpayers; let them stand & survive on their own like any business;
Posted by: Jimmie-howya-doin on July 30, 2006 07:48 AM
The Tulalips are on the north side of the state and my tribe is on the south side so although I send out Tulalip headlines to my Cowlitz Country News list every day, I don't follow their issues all that closely. But all you have to do is Google "Tulalip" and "taxes" to get the facts.
In 2005 the state legislature considered House Bill 1721, which would have given the "Tulalip Tribes a portion of sales tax revenues that are collected at the tribes' Quil Ceda Village and now go to the county." As Tulalip legislative policy analyst Tracie Stevens explained, "a county estimate in 2003 that said the county was providing only $20,000 to $30,000 in services out of the $1.7 million in tax revenues it was receiving" from Quil Ceda Village. ( Snohomish County stands to lose $1.7 million in 2006 in sales tax from Quil Ceda Village, Daily Herald, March 29, 2005)
Other cities get a share of sales tax revenues, but because the Tribes operate under federal regulation Quil Ceda Village is a federally chartered city. The county has therefore refused to share, House Bill 1721 died in the Senate and, consequently, the Tribes have had to continue to cover the shortfall out of their own budget. (Tulalips' bid for share of sales tax dies in Senate, Seattle PI, April 6, 2005)
Hence, if "traffic around Quil Ceda village is a nightmare" it's not because the Tulalip aren't paying.
Meanwhile, an article in the August 2006 Herald Business Journal, Tulalips giving back to community, answers the question of "where" all the contributions have gone:
A long line of grateful people from a variety of 150 community charitable groups and police, fire and emergency departments paraded to the plaza at the Tulalip Tribes' amphitheater in Quil Ceda Village last month to receive $2.2 million in checks ranging from a few hundred to several thousand dollars.
Even more impressive is the fact that total contributions for all 14 years of tribal giving were announced for the first time: $22 million. From 1993, when the tribes' first small casino provided $297,823 in community giving, to 2006, when $2.2 million was shared, the Tulalip Tribes have worked to foster partnerships and good working relationships with their neighbors.
Despite that, I remain proud to join Michael Medved in saying that I am not a victim.
The tribes have not stopped any more projects over water and fishing rights than the tree huggers and enviro nazis. I deal with tribes all the time and when thier reserved rights conflict with those of neighbors in my experience they have been more than willing to work with the developers over issues of mitigation and relief and are more reasonable than most non tribal government agencies.
Posted by: dennis on July 30, 2006 02:37 PMAs one of the chief shills for the Cowlitz effort to ram a monster casino down our throats here in Clark County, communication after communication, emanating from you, whines and snivels about racism and how bad you people have it.
While YOU may not be a victim, (which would certainly be a bulletin to all of us in Clark County) you ARE bound and determined to turn the people of Clark County into victims with your reservation shopping tactics.
Your tribe's efforts to buy local politicians by laundering money through out-of-state organizations or bastardizing in-state environmental groups speak for itself.
Victims? Maybe not.
Victimizers? Absolutely.
The worst domestic decision in the history of America was made by the Jackson administration: the relocation of the Cherokee and their allies. It set up the first dependent class and established in the minds of the Western tribes that the American Way, which the Cherokee had been successfully adopting, was not to be trusted.
Posted by: Jericho on July 30, 2006 03:45 PMPerhaps it's time to look at compensating non-tribal communities who are forced to respond to tribal interests that sue over water and land use questions that would have otherwise been approved in the Federal, State or County regulatory environment the rest of us have to operate in.
Posted by: Violin Music on July 30, 2006 06:09 PMPosted by: Frank Fishbourne on July 30, 2006 10:40 PM
Because it's the only effective means they have for opposing us, they post defamatory content on The Columbian website. Because they're cowards, or because they're like hoodlums who commit crimes in the shadows, they post anonymously there, too.
It never occured to me that any of them would actually monitor Sound Politics, else I'd have spent the day working on my next round of posts for my tired old site, The Backlash!, which still manages to get about half the amount of traffic that The Columbian does.
Remember the tribes also are burdened with enforceing Federal Clean Water and Endangered Speices Act provision in the waters on, near, and affecting water reserved for reservations.
Posted by: dennis on July 31, 2006 08:05 AMOn a few occasions I have found myself working for developers whose actions needed tribal approval or acceptance and I have found the tribes to be reasonable in their actions.
One of the critical things that we non Indians fail to appreciate is that Indians are place based and land and a place are vital to them. In the lowlands of the Puget Sound water is one of the key elements of their cosomology so they take these issues very seriously.
That being said we are fast reaching a point were tribal issues and the issues of the large society are going to conflict more and more often and with greater consequences. Sometimes tribes are insensitive and foolish in their attempts to extend sovereignty and rights and that just angers people and some tribes like the Tulalips are worse than others.
My message to tribes for years has been figure a way to get along with those around you particularly in urban areas or things will get very difficult, and do not live entirely off gaming that horse is going to be taken away at some point. The history of US Indain relations is one of convienience whenever it is conveinient to screw the Indian the US will do it.
Back to the water issue as I said there are lawyers in Seattle whose entire practice is water law and WA is a fairly good state for water law, NM is a disaster. The issue with the two tribes and the water does not surprise since many tribes are doing things to hamper others in order to maintain their positions. Some of the tribes have learned some of the lessons of capitalism incorrectly and live them out in ways that are open to criticism.
Posted by: dennis on July 31, 2006 11:49 AMI worked for Erv Hoglund when McCoy first ran in 2002. We lost by 500 votes in this super-left district after attacks that we were racist. Sorry, we tried.
Halvorson, I'm afraid, is a bit of a flake. She lost to McCoy in 2004, and I'm guessing she'll lose again.
Posted by: Bigreddog on July 31, 2006 12:38 PMHistorical revisionists drive me bonkers.
The treaty with the Tulalips (Treaty of Point Elliott) was NEVER ratified by Congress. It was merely ratified by the Senate. No treaty between Indian nations, tribes, bands or pueblos and the U.S. government prior to the abolishment (1871) of Indian treaty-making was EVER ratified by the full U.S. Congress. That's why the U.S. House of Representatives initiated a law that abolished Indian treaty-making.... they felt left out of the loop.
As for the Treaty being a U.S. Statute, how can that be? A U.S. statute is a law that started as a bill and is passed by the full Congress. I have not been able to find any evidence that this Treaty is a U.S. Statute.
What's the number of the Statute, Dennis? Inquiring minds want to know.
To Rod:
The "charitable" contributions given by the Tulalip Tribes are mandatory under the gaming compact between the Tribes and the State. In lieu of paying any taxes to the State, they are supposed to give 2% of all Class III gaming revenues to both city/county agencies (impacted by their casinos' operations) and tribally selected non-governmental organizations that apply for contributions.
Of course, the State has no way of monitoring the Class III gaming revenues within a Tribal casino, so it's anybody's guess as to what the 2% should add up to.
Too bad we're not in Connecticut. The lawmakers there were pretty darn smart.... 25% gaming tax direct to the State.
To Violin Music:
The Tulalip Tribes don't need to actually sue anyone anymore. They just have to threaten suit. Such as the delay in the Boeing pier at Mukilteo and the "tiff" over the new 41st St. freeway interchange in Everett.
In exchange for backing away from their objections, the Tulalips received a package of goodies from Everett, including water rights.
We now refer to Everett as South-Tulalip.
Posted by: Rez Rat and proud of it on July 31, 2006 08:01 PM
Ronald Reagan had it right, I think, when he chose to think of tribes as being similar to states. States do engage in businesses but they don't pay taxes to other states. Counties run businesses, too, but don't pay taxes. Tribes run businesses, but don't pay taxes. Why not? Because the "profit" is put back into the system. In the case of tribes, the National Indian Gaming Association lays out the federally mandated use of gaming profits on its Indian Gaming Facts page.
Do all tribes adhere to the requirements? Human nature being what it is, I doubt it. Are some tribal administrations corrupt? Absolutely. Unlike the King County Administration, which runs the cleanest, purest most pristine Elections Commission in the country.
That was a joke.
There are no states inside the boundaries of other states. That's constitutionally illegal. Guess the framers of the Constitution foresaw the dangers of such a scheme. Guess the Congress of 1934 (setting up multiple race-based governments within a state) wasn't quite as smart as the original bunch of guys.
What business is WA State operating in another state? What business does ANY state operate in another state? Name one. Just one. I only ask because I can't think of any, and I find the idea interesting.
I agree with Jimmie.... life is difficult enough even without this notion of racial/cultural original sin. The people who did it and the people it was done to are all dead and buried. Let it go and let's all move forward as modern, forward-thinking Americans. The diversity we all bring to the "melting pot" should make us stronger, not weaker.
What I don't understand is why the bulk of American citizenry allows the U.S. Congress to enact race-based statutes that keep Indians under different laws than the rest of us. If some of those laws applied to the ordinary citizen in this country, there would be a mass uprising that would descend on Washington D.C. in a heartbeat.
Have any of you actually read Title 25 (Indians) in the U.S. Code? All of it? Parts are so paternalistic that any foreigners reading it would probably think American Indians are ignorant and totally incapable of standing on their own two feet.
Of course, such is not the case. I have found that Indians are basically just the same as everyone else. How sad that tribal-affilliated Indians are forced by Congress to be under federal laws that are different from the laws other citizens are living under.
Reminds me of the book "Animal Farm". Remember the barnyard slogan that was changed from "All Animals Are Equal" to "All Animals Are Equal, But Some Are More Equal Than Others"? Everyone in the U.S. who is NOT under the weight of Title 25 should thank their lucky stars that they are in the "more equal" category.
"What business is WA State operating in another state? What business does ANY state operate in another state? Name one. Just one."
The question presumes I suggested or implied as much. I did not, and I do not know of any such businesses.
"There are no states inside the boundaries of other states. That's constitutionally illegal."Obviously.
Equally obvious is that thinking of something that is complex in terms of something that is simple is a reasonable and effective technique, and it is not the same thing as a legal mandate or any other logical or legal absurdity to which Rez Rat might attempt to reduce it.
Prior to the 1980s, tribes were made more dependent than ever by federal policy while being robbed of any measure of the sovereignty crucial to national identity. Reagan wanted to craft a federal-Indian relationship in which the tribes would be treated much the same way as state governments. -- Unleashing the Spirit: The Reagan Administration's Indian Policy, by Jason Manning, The Eighties Club: The Ronald Reagan Resource, 2001
In my opinion, Reagan had it right.
"What I don't understand is why the bulk of American citizenry allows the U.S. Congress to enact race-based statutes that keep Indians under different laws than the rest of us."
It's not about race but property rights. The recognition and enforcement of property rights as a legal principle allowed Bill Gates to establish a special relationship with the federal and state governments, called a corporation. This corporation created more relationships called copyrights, trademarks, service marks and patents. He has the right to pass these special relationships to his heirs, thereby making them de facto American aristocrats. Some leftists say this is a bad thing. I am not a leftist.
I am a Conservative who, as a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe, inherited a special relationship with the federal government.
"Have any of you actually read Title 25 (Indians) in the U.S. Code? All of it? Parts are so paternalistic that any foreigners reading it would probably think American Indians are ignorant and totally incapable of standing on their own two feet."
Yes I have, not all but most of it, and you're right it is extremely paternalistic. Vine Deloria, Jr. wrote extensively and bitterly about the presumed incompetence of America's "pets."
"How sad that tribal-affilliated Indians are forced by Congress to be under federal laws that are different from the laws other citizens are living under."
We are? How? Let me save time by pointing out that you're referring to tribal members who live on reservations. The majority of "tribal-affilliated Indians" in America do not live on reservations.
Rez Rat's numerous errors are understandable as they are based on pervasive but generally false stereotypes.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 2, 2006 09:16 PMDidn't mean to offend.... I obviously did not understand the property rights point you were originally trying to make.
When I referred to Title 25, I was thinking along the lines of certain sections in the Indian Child Welfare Act. I don't think there is any similar law for any other people in the U.S..
Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but I think parts of it apply to all who are tribally affiliated, not just those who currently choose to live on reservations. Maybe I'm getting forgetful in my old age, but don't I remember the courts using this law to rip adopted Indian children away from the only families (both non-Indian and Indian) they have ever known in favor of placing them on reservations with strangers?
To those of us who are "outside" these laws, it would seem that the Bill of Rights has taken a leave of absence.
Maybe this is because the bulk of America still stubornly holds on to a belief in individual rights, while the laws of Congress that affect Indians are largely aimed at maintaining traditional, cohesive cultural groups.
One federal government + two systems of law-making = two groups that may never understand each other because of the difference in the laws. The government is playing a very dangerous game that pits groups against each other.
For instance, when the average wage earner learns that the income tax coming out of his paycheck would be less, but it's not, because one of the reasons is that Indians working in tribal businesses (casinos, shops, whatever) on reservations pay no income tax and probably never will?
The taxpayer-funded federal grant money slated to buy computers for Indian households (yes, I thought that was a great idea), but was re-directed by tribal government to help build communication infrastructure at a tribal shopping mall. Still no computers.
The taxpayer-funded federal housing grant money that time and time again goes to buy expensive trinkets and cruises and houses for tribal big-shots.
A taxpayer funded tribal police force with a Cadillac Escalade as one of the police cars.
Do you expect the average taxpayer to be happy and understanding with the government about this? After all, the government is a conduit for the distribution of money collected mainly from average taxpayers.
Although what I have written here is true, it will probably generate another round of name-calling from you, Rod, yet again turning what could have been a meaningful discussion into the whys and wherefores of government policy actions into a meaningless mess.
With that in mind, this will be my last post. Try to spend my tax money wisely, my man.
Posted by: Rez Rat and proud of it on August 3, 2006 09:20 AM"When I referred to Title 25, I was thinking along the lines of certain sections in the Indian Child Welfare Act. I don't think there is any similar law for any other people in the U.S..Perhaps my understanding is wrong, but I think parts of it apply to all who are tribally affiliated, not just those who currently choose to live on reservations. Maybe I'm getting forgetful in my old age, but don't I remember the courts using this law to rip adopted Indian children away from the only families (both non-Indian and Indian) they have ever known in favor of placing them on reservations with strangers?"
To my knowledge Rez Rat is right, there is no law similar to the Indian Child Welfare Act that applies to non-Indians in the U.S. But the Family Court system employs a legal principle called "the best interests of the child" which, in practice, has been misused to inflict far greater injury.
The way in which this legal principle has been employed has destroyed countless thousands of American families. I don't know of its origins but I do know that it was used early on by feminist lawyers to drive a wedge between fathers and their families and to increase the need for government aid to support women whom they had "liberated" from the "oppressive" institution of marriage.
Shulamith Firestone must be proud.
The underlying rationale for both the best interests of the child and the Indian Child Welfare Act make sense. But it takes wisdom to employ rational principles prudently. Unfortunately, the family court system is called upon to adjudicate far more complicated and highly charged cases than it has the capacity to handle without resorting to processes that are better utilized in factories than courtrooms. Consequently reasonable principles end up inflicting almost as much if not more injury than they prevent.
"To those of us who are "outside" these laws, it would seem that the Bill of Rights has taken a leave of absence.
Maybe this is because the bulk of America still stubornly (sic) holds on to a belief in individual rights, while the laws of Congress that affect Indians are largely aimed at maintaining traditional, cohesive cultural groups."
Prove it.
"One federal government + two systems of law-making = two groups that may never understand each other because of the difference in the laws. The government is playing a very dangerous game that pits groups against each other."
Does every state, county, city, municipality and commonwealth in the United States employ the same system of law making? I kind of doubt it. But Rez Rat's real point, I think, is that the government is pitting Indians and non-Indians against each other. Rez Rat explains:
"For instance, when the average wage earner learns that the income tax coming out of his paycheck would be less, but it's not, because one of the reasons is that Indians working in tribal businesses (casinos, shops, whatever) on reservations pay no income tax and probably never will?"
That's a lie:
The U.S. Tax Court has ruled that income earned by a tribal member working for a tribal corporation on tribal land was not exempt from federal taxation even if the income would be exempt in the hands of the tribe itself. — Individual income of tribal members not exempt from federal taxation, Dubray v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue U.S. Tax Court, No. 7547-02 (December 13, 2004
What about state income tax?
Under federal law, if a Tribal member resides on Tribal lands and earns his or her income while working in a job on Tribal land, then this individual is not required to pay State income tax. If Tribal members work or live off the Reservation, then they must pay full State taxes the same as non-Indians. — Tribal Chief Phillip Martin, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Open Letter To the Honorable Members of the Mississippi State Legislature, 1 OCT 2001
So if Washington had a state income tax, then members of tribes who lived and were employed on their tribe's reservation would be exempt from it. Members of tribes also do not pay state sales tax on their reservations. But since most Indians in Washington State do not live on reservations, most of us pay all the same taxes as everybody else.
The following might be true but Rez Rat indulges in the age‑old practice of generalizing a vaguely described particular event to condemn the whole:
"The taxpayer-funded federal grant money slated to buy computers for Indian households (yes, I thought that was a great idea), but was re-directed by tribal government to help build communication infrastructure at a tribal shopping mall. Still no computers.The taxpayer-funded federal housing grant money that time and time again goes to buy expensive trinkets and cruises and houses for tribal big-shots.
A taxpayer funded tribal police force with a Cadillac Escalade as one of the police cars."
To some degree things like that happen every day in every community throughout the land, so let's assume that somewhere this happened. Feminists did that with men — e.g., "All men are rapists, that's all they are." — and I was among those who early on accused them of sexism for it. Were Rez Rat making such a generalization about Asians, Blacks or Caucasians would there be any doubt that it was racist?
Hold that thought.
As near as I can determine Rez Rat is referring to a problem that the Tulalips had in their housing program:
SEATTLE - The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is pleased to announce that it has finalized a settlement agreement with the Tulalip Tribes to resolve performance problems HUD found in the Tribes' use of federal Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds. — HUD SETTLES WITH TULALIP TRIBES TO CORRECT PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS WITH INDIAN HOUSING BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM, October 19, 2005
The Tulalips had a huge problem with a few corrupt individuals who took advantage of the reduced regulation of HUD that began in 1992 under HUD Secretary Jack Kemp. They got caught in 1996, and it cost them years of close scrutiny, audits and sanctions.
What they put in its place I don't know, but does it do to generalize about all of Indian country or even about the Tulalips forevermore because of it? Any Republican who answers yes can explain how they intend to generalize about Republican Administrations and Republican lobbyists.
Among them you will not find me, because there are flaws to find in all human institutions. Once found we take corrective action and move on. To not move on but to condemn the institution forever because it is an Indian tribe would be … what Rez Rat seems to want. To me that seems racist, but I could be wrong.
"Although what I have written here is true, it will probably generate another round of name-calling from you, Rod, yet again turning what could have been a meaningful discussion into the whys and wherefores of government policy actions into a meaningless mess.With that in mind, this will be my last post. Try to spend my tax money wisely, my man. Posted by: Rez Rat and proud of it on August 3, 2006 09:20 AM"
I have proved that Rez Rat lied about income taxes. And here Rez Rat has told another lie with the assertion that I have called them names. Their lies and stereotyping of Indians exposed, rather than respond with factual rebuttal they resort to accusations thereby portraying themselves as victims.
To be victimized is to be a victim, but not victims-in-perpetuity, which is how Rez Rat wishes to be treated, and what we choose not to be.
Posted by: Rod Van Mechelen on August 4, 2006 08:54 PM