AgdaPkt 2005-07-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Øl-4 GOVERNOR SIGNS NEW INDIAN GAMING AGREEMENTS Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently announced the completion of Indian gaming agreements with the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Yurok Tribe. The governor ascertains that the agreements provide a fair contribution of revenues to the state, provide protections to patrons and employ- ees, and ensure that local communities will be protected and receive compensation to mitigate off-reservation and environmental impacts. The Yurok and Quechan tribes are two of the largest tribes in the California, and the compacts authorize a single casino each at a single loca- tion on their reservations in Del Norte and Impe- rial County, respectively (the 1999 compacts afforded each tribe the right to two casinos). The Yurok Tribe anticipates that its facility will generate $7 million annually in net win from the operation of its slot machines, and the Quechan Tribe anticipates that its new facility will generate around $59 million annually. According to a press release from the governor's office, in each case, the tribes will provide a revenue contribution to the state based on a percentage of their net win from the opera- tion of their slot machines, based on a sliding scale starting at 10 percent. The two compacts are anticipated to provide the state with approxi- mately $7 million in revenue per year. In addition, the tribes have agreed to enter into intergovernmental agreements with their local communities to mitigate impacts on infra- structure, the environment, fire protection, law enforcement, public safety, gambling addiction, and emergency medical services. The compacts must nDW be ratified by the State Legislature and then approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Click here for details of the recently sianed compacts. SAN REMO from page 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . The case involved a challenge to San Francisco's hotel conversion fee. The San Remo Hotel (San Remo) claimed that the fee amounted a taking. At issue before the U.S. Supreme Court, ho\Never, was the extent to which a takings claim cDuld be heard in federal court after a state court had already reached a final decision on the claim. The procedural history was complex. San Remo first filed a claim in federal court. But the federal court held that the state court was the pro.per venue under the "Williamson County" rule, which holds that compensation claims under the Takings Clause should be brought in state court. See Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). San Remo, ho\Never, was allo\Ned to preserve its right to bring a subsequent claim in federal court to the extent that such a claim was different than what could be brought in state court. Fast-forward a few years. San Remo pursued its claim all the way to the California Supreme Court and ultimately lost. Afterwards, San Remo re-filed a claim in federal court that made the same argu- ments already decided by the California Supreme Court. San Francisco argued that there was no difference between federal law and state law on the takings issue, and thus San Remo should be precluded from filing it claim in federal court. The U.S. Supreme Court sided unanimously with the City of San Francisco. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the court, found that federal courts cannot disregard the full faith and credit statute, which prohibits the re-litigation Df issues resolved by courts of cDmpetentjurisdiction. Thus, the federal court was precluded from hearing San Remo's claim because a fully competent state court had already reached a determination. The Supreme Court also upheld its IDng-stand- ing Williamson County rule (as mentioned above that takings claims should be heard in state court). Chief Justice Rehnquist, ho\Never, who had origi- nally signed the Williamson County opinion 20 Continued on Page 7 PAGE 4/PRIORITY FOCUS Visit the league's Official Website--www.cacities.org ~ -r~---~- ~