A view of the Lytton Rancheria's land-into-trust site in Sonoma County, California. Photo from Lytton Residential Development Environmental Assessment
The Lytton Band of Pomo Indians is generating controversy with a land-into-trust application in Sonoma County, California. Linda Kelly, the manager for the town of Windsor, and resident Whitney Hopkins offer competing views about working with the tribe to address the impacts of its development plans:
Our primary concern was to ensure that no gaming ever occur on this land or an any other land taken into trust in and around Windsor. Town staff worked for at least a year to draft language that would hold up legally with future tribal councils. We are seeking a larger no-gaming area than the current trust land boundaries and a longer term than that afforded by the county MOA, namely in perpetuity. Then we spent time studying our urban growth boundary language — the boundary that the people of Windsor voted on in 1998. The tribe has indicated that the earliest time that a vote for extension of services to the tribe could be held is 2016. The tribe has been preparing the initiative language, and all along the town has expected to hold public discussions once the initiative is submitted. Since members of the tribe are the proponents, they take the lead in preparing the initiative language and schedule. Further, Windsor staff has been discussing the public swimming pool complex offered by the tribe to ensure that it can be financially sustainable into the future. As such, adjustments were proposed to the tribe’s original proposal to achieve a higher revenue potential, and we have conducted independent financial analysis. The question of extending utilities, strengthening of the no-gaming boundary and the aquatic complex are all expected to be part of the ballot initiative. The town’s piece of this process is subject to the voters and is thus ultimately up to the people. We have been advocating for language so that if the tribe doesn’t honor any part of an agreement, we could cut off water or sewer to them.Get the Story:
Op-Ed: Lytton Development Arguments Pro and Con (The Sonoma County Gazette 10/1)
Related Stories
Lytton Band open to change
in housing and development plan (09/22) Editorial: No room for extremism on Lytton Band land-into-trust (09/07)
Lytton Band faces local opposition to land development projects (08/26)
Lytton Band faces opposition to land-into-trust bill in Congress (07/16)
Lawmakers slam county for poor dealings with Chumash Tribe (06/18)
Witness list for House hearing on tribal and Alaska Native bills (06/17)
House subcommittee sets hearing on tribal and Alaska Native bills (06/15)
Lytton Band plans big developments after reaching agreement (03/11)
Lytton Band enters into land-into-trust agreement with county (03/10)
Lytton Band asks voters to approve utility service to housing site (01/16)
BIA still working on Lytton Band's land-into-trust application (11/07)
Lytton Band offers more to community for land-into-trust bid (11/4)
Lytton Band confident of approval of land-into-trust application (08/06)
Lytton Band donates $1M to bolster land-into-trust application (07/21)
Lytton Band makes $10M deposit in local financial institutions (06/09)
Lytton Band spent over $47M on land acquisitions in two years (12/02)
Lytton Band to pay more than $1M to cover land-into-trust bid (06/27)
Land-into-trust bill in California due for consideration next week (06/14)
County worried about Lytton Band land-into-trust application (07/12)
Join the Conversation
