Tribe’s Plan to Build Off Reservation Brings Protests

In what would be a first for the state, an Indian tribe in Northern California has received federal approval to acquire a parcel 65 miles from its reservation to build a high-end housing development.

But the deal has triggered protests from local leaders as well as from state and federal officials who are upset because the Hopland Band of Pomo Indians could use their sovereign status to skirt local land-use regulations at the site.

Foes, including a neighboring tribe, argue that the plan could be the start of a new movement in California, which has rarely seen tribes attempt to acquire land far from their home reservations.

The regional office of the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs gave its approval for the deal late last month, but the county and state attorney general have appealed the decision.

The Hopland band, which already runs a casino featuring more than 300 slot machines and a bingo parlor near U.S. 101 in Mendocino County, has been trying since the mid-1990s to get permission to develop a 321-acre parcel amid rolling pastureland near Petaluma on the southern flank of neighboring Sonoma County, an hour’s drive to the south.

Once envisioned as a master-planned community, the development was scaled back dramatically to meet federal environmental rules and now calls for just a dozen two-story luxury homes, which would be offered to well-heeled purchasers on long-term leases. Tribal members would not reside there.

Though hardly high density, the development has some foes worried that the tribe might switch gears once it has control of the land. They fear a casino or some other project unacceptable for the area, which is now dominated by horse farms and dairies.

“This allows developers to use the shield of sovereignty to do what they’d not otherwise be able to do--build without the scrutiny of local governments,” said Bruce Goldstein, deputy counsel for Sonoma County. “There’s a concern that the 12 homes could turn into 200. Once the land goes into trust, our ability to regulate it is extremely limited.”

Cheryl Schmit, co-director of the anti-gaming group Stand Up for California, agrees.

“They could build a casino, a housing tract, a power plant, a nuclear waste facility,” Schmit said. “Tribes can build with impunity, at their whim, disregarding statutes and ordinances that protect the environment and the quality of people’s lives.”

Hopland tribal officials and their attorney would not return repeated phone calls for comment. Officials at the BIA said the 600-member tribe has given assurances that it is not looking to expand its gaming operations, but rather wants to get into other business ventures to help its people.

“They already have a casino, and now they’re looking to diversify, so they’re not totally dependent on gaming,” said Ronald Jaeger, the BIA’s regional director. “This is just another way to get an annual, stable revenue coming in to the tribe.”

Any switch in the development plans after the tribe has control of the land would go back before the BIA and have to pass muster with federal environmental reviews, Jaeger said. “It doesn’t give them any advantage.”

The appeal, meanwhile, will go back to Interior Department officials in Washington and could stretch as long as a year.

“It’s a long way from a done deal,” Jaeger said.

Though such a move is unusual in California, tribes in several other parts of the United States have petitioned to get federal permission to take control of far-flung land for development.

In Minnesota, the Schakopee Mdewaketon Sioux purchased property off the reservation for an industrial park, but the deal was blocked by protests from local residents. And a legal battle is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court over efforts by a casino-owning tribe in Connecticut to acquire land to expand their resort.

“This sort of thing is worrisome because of the effect it has on communities,” said Guy Martin, an attorney who has represented local governments around the country in disputes with tribes over land use. “It forces communities to confront an entity that parachutes in and doesn’t have to comply with state and local requirements.”

But others say such gripes ignore the horrific treatment Native Americans endured during development of the country. As recently as 1961, the Hopland tribe saw its 2,000-acre reservation essentially sold out from under it by the federal government. Today, the tribe has little more than 100 acres under its control.

“Somehow, when Indians have nothing, nobody seems to mind. But when tribes try to do something, everyone gets upset,” said George Forman, a Marin County attorney who practices Indian law. “Any tribe that’s trying to diversify and establish a bigger base in its historic territory, I say bravo and more power to them.”