"California voters settled the question of casino gaming back in 2000 -- or so it seemed. Proposition 1A authorized the governor to negotiate gambling pacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for "federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California."

The words "on Indian lands" are the key to Prop. 1A. This made it clear that gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands. Voters endorsed this bargain, approving Prop. 1A with 65 percent of the vote.

But today the spirit of this proposition could be violated by major casinos proposed around the state on lands that are not "Indian lands" -- some of which are more than 100 miles from tribal headquarters.

This is "reservation shopping," in which tribes from rural areas seek federal approval to acquire lands in trust in densely populated urban areas.

The goal: To put casinos where the most potential gamblers are -- even if it disregards the will of California voters.

Richmond voters made it clear in an advisory vote on Nov. 2 how they feel about these things, overwhelmingly rejecting Measure U, which would have put a 4,000-slot casino at Point Molate.

Proponents tout casinos as major economic engines for depressed cities. But the voters of Richmond know the reality is far different. They know such projects threaten to turn the Bay Area into a cluster of Nevada-style mega-casinos that would burden state and local government services well beyond capacity."

Get the Story:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Must stop reservation shopping once and for all (The Contra Costa Times 11/29)

Related Stories:
NIGA opposes amendment to curtail land-into-trust for gaming (11/19)
Lobbyists worried about a rival land-into-trust fix on Capitol Hill (11/16)