Land-claim pact weak on details
Feb. 24, 2002

OD editorial

The spirit of cooperation that led to public announcement Feb. 16 of a proposed land-claim settlement is to be lauded. If only the same were true for the details of the pact itself.

A review of the agreement’s provisions raises serious questions about the deal’s fairness and logic. While a lifting of the land-claim cloud from over residents’ heads in western Oneida County and eastern Madison County is desirable, this isn’t the best way to do it.

The proposed deal contains a “sales-tax equity” proposal that involves neither sales tax nor equity. It includes a $100 million tax stabilization fund for Madison and Oneida counties that could well become one more slush fund for politicians to spend public money unwisely. And it wrongly leaves unanswered critical questions about casino gambling in New York state, questions that affect not only economic development but the quality of life.

Further, the plan leaves out two key parties — the Wisconsin Oneidas and the Thames Band of Oneidas in Canada. The deal on the table is clearly favorable to the New York Oneidas. That’s not a recipe for ultimate success, as the two sister tribes’ complaints already demonstrate.

These issues should be revisited by the parties involved if the state and feeral governments, a federal judge and the three Oneida branches are to have any chance of all approving a deal. Here’s a closer look at the issues:

Sales-tax equity: A longstanding frustration for non-Indian retailers around the claim area is the built-in advantage Oneida Nation-owned retail outlets have when it comes to selling products, including gasoline and cigarettes. The non-Indian businesses charge state and local sales taxes. The Indian businesses do not.

That’s why it’s been possible for gasoline to be purchased for a dime or more cheaper at SavOn stations than at a Mobil or Citgo. For all the unrest generated by the Oneidas’ claim, the lines for gasoline at SavOn stations demonstrate that residents aren’t going to overlook a bargain.

The newly proposed deal supposedly will change all that. The Oneidas would increase their prices to put their products on an even playing field with the products sold by non-Indian businesses. Sounds good, right?

Wrong. This is a windfall for the Nation, plain and simple. The Nation won’t be collecting sales tax to be used for the greater good of the region — for road repairs, for example. It would be adding money to its own coffers without any real penalty.

Sure, they might lose some business, but SavOn stores are professionally run and often centrally located. They won’t go out of business. As for local residents, they wind up losing the bargains they’ve enjoyed.

The parity agreement isn’t about leveling the playing field or helping the New York state taxpayer. It boosts the Oneidas, who make little real sacrifice on this point.

There is no requirement for how the Oneidas would even allocate their extra money. New York state should instead insist that Indian tribes here and elsewhere begin collecting the state sales tax. George Pataki backed away from this issue, fearing violence, when he tried to push it in the late 1990s. Through negotiations, he should reassert the need for Indian businesses to play on a truly level field when it comes to taxes.

$100 million fund: The agreement would cap Oneida Indian land purchases at 35,000 acres, with land bought only from willing sellers. Otherwise, land would be taken off the table as an issue, with the Oneidas giving up their claim to 250,000 acres they’ve sought since the 1970s. To help Madison and Oneida counties deal with the loss of taxable property through Indian land purchases, the deal would create a $100 million fund — half coming from the Oneidas, half from the state.

At first blush, that’s hard to argue with. Yet the recent experience with the tobacco-industry settlement money shows cause for concern. That money was supposed to help fund health programs. Instead, Oneida County and many other counties tossed the money into its general fund, taking care of government spending headaches but failing to address the core purpose of smoking prevention.

Almost certainly, the $100 million tax stabilization fund would see the same fate. Local counties would find reasons to spend the money instead of doing what’s right by taxpayers. At the very least, this deal should include detail on just how all this money would be handled.

Casinos: Pataki and Nation representative Ray Halbritter say casinos were not a consideration in this deal. That’s hard to swallow. The hottest issue in the corridors of power in Albany is casinos. A law passed last year would allow new casinos to be built in Niagara Falls and the Catskills. Since running a casino is akin to owning a U.S. Mint printing press, Indian tribes are scrambling to get in on the action.

The Oneidas are no exception. Their spokesman last week as much said so. The ease with which the casino deal fell together in recent weeks raises questions that there is some deeper benefit coming later for both sides. Allowing the Oneidas to build a Catskills casino would be a boon to the tribe and also could help spur economic development in that part of the state. But the state should not be in the position of apparent favoritism toward one tribe. Nor should it be pushing gambling as an economic panacea. The social costs of gambling are high, and as Turning Stone Casino in Verona has demonstrated, the economic benefits do not extend far beyond the casino walls.

The other Oneidas: The 19th century began with the Oneidas living as one tribe. But, as happens sometimes with families, events led to a split. Today, the New York Oneidas are the smallest of three Oneida tribe branches. They do not always see eye to eye with the Wisconsin and Canadian branches.

That’s one reason this deal came down the way it did. The Oneidas would not be granted land that they’ve sought. That might be fine for the New York Oneidas, who are here already, but it’s disappointing to the other branches. The Wisconsin Oneidas, in particular, have indicated they would like a “footprint” of land on which to resettle in New York state. Halbritter, though, appears to want none of that, since the repatriation of Wisconsin Oneidas here would challenge his authority or dilute his power base.

This might not matter except that the Wisconsin Oneidas and the Thames Band of Oneidas are parties to the land-claim suit. Without their backing, it’s hard to imagine U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence Kahn giving his blessing to an out-of-court settlement.

Pataki deserves credit for making progress; it was almost odd to see Pataki and Halbritter together on one stage Feb. 16. There is a long, hard road to haul, however. Completing the journey no doubt will take more talk, more compromise.