Side issue kills land-claim deal
Mar. 11, 2000

By R. PATRICK CORBETT
Observer-Dispatch

FORT MYERS, Fla. — In the end, land-claim mediation talks foundered on a side issue.

On the central question of just how the Oneida Indian Nation should be compensated for land taken from it in the late 1700s and early 1800s, negotiators came very, very close to agreement, according to details released in federal court here Friday.

But the negotiations over the past year became an umbrella for a host of other concerns between the Oneidas and their neighbors. One of them — the state’s lawsuit against the Oneidas over a gambling machine that has similarities to outlawed slot machines — became the sticking point Friday that killed the mediation.

Judge Neal P. McCurn ordered an end to the talks because, as a disappointed settlement master Ronald Riccio told him Friday, “The talks have extended into areas not necessary to settle the land-claim dispute.”

Riccio had recommended to McCurn in a document made public Friday that an impasse be declared.

Among the other issues that became part of the talks:
:
* Whether and how to collect sales taxes on sales to non-Indians on Oneida land

* Whether or not the Oneidas should pay property taxes on their land.

* The role of New York State Police on Nation land.

* How to resolve future disputes between the Indians and non-Indian government about land use, building and environmental regulations, hunting and fishing and public safety issues.

Arlinda Locklear, the attorney for the Wisconsin branch of the Oneidas, shared Riccio’s dismay the talks did not succeed.

“This is not what we had hoped for,” she said.

Discussions in court Friday showed the attorneys for the different parties had been close to agreement on the key issues of money, land and jurisdiction:

* Money: The Oneidas and the two counties had been offered a $500 million pot. The proposed split was $250 million for the Wisconsin Oneidas, $200 million for the Oneidas of New York, $25 million for the Thames Band of Oneidas of Canada and $25 million to be divided between Oneida and Madison counties to make up for lost revenue in other parts of the settlement
.
Only the Thames Band of Oneidas was unhappy with the plan. Attorney Carey Ramos said the Canadian Oneidas represent a third of the remaining Oneidas and should get a proportionate share of the money.

* Land: All parties agreed there would be no eviction, ejection, or trespass damages against any private non-Oneida residents in the claim area.

There was discussion but no agreement on how much land the Oneida Nation of New York would be allowed to purchase from willing sellers for a New York Oneida reservation. The counties wanted the reservation capped at 25,000 acres. The reservation would have included a number of separate parcels.

The Wisconsin and Thames Band Oneidas wanted about 1,000 acres of land in the state, outside the new New York reservation, but within the original Oneida territory between Canada and Pennsylvania.

The location of the land and the uses that would be permitted on it were not settled.

* Jurisdiction: The three Oneida factions agreed the Oneida Nation of New York would have jurisdiction in the New York reservation.

Locklear sounded hopeful early in the day when she declared, “We have a conceptual agreement on 90 percent.”

She said that was especially significant because, “in 10 previous years (of negotiations with New York state), not a single dollar or an acre of land was put on the table.”

Negotiable proposals do not make a settlement, though, and the state’s intransigence on the gaming lawsuit proved an insurmountable road block.

McCurn was unwilling to entertain further negotiations on that point and ordered an end to the settlement process.