During the week of this most gluttonous of holidays, we should reflect on the meaning of the event in the context of land use. Most conversations on land use assume the modern-day axiom that there is no further question as to the legitimacy of “Americans” on the soil they call home. The question isn’t so much who owns the property but rather, what will be done to said tract. Yes, the well-worn story of European aggression leading to the wresting of the North American continent from native peoples underlies this query. But where does this narrative stand today?
An intriguing story comes from upstate New York, the home of the Oneida Indian Nation. The Nation has grown in stature, with the aid of profits generated by its Turning Stone Casino and Resort complex just off the New York Thruway, about an hour’s drive east of Syracuse. Its economic strength has also increased its political clout in the region, something that is not always welcomed by the other inhabitants of the area, who make up about 99% of the population. In March, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, held that the Nation, which attempted to reacquire ancestral lands and reintegrate these new purchases into the autonomous lands of their tribe, still had to pay property taxes on these new tracts. The Court reasoned because the Oneidas had waited so long to reassert authority over these lands, they could not use the tax exemption that would typically apply. Moreover, the Court was concerned that if the Oneidas were allowed to reassert control over their recent purchases, the Nation could also claim that it was not subject to local zoning requirements that the non-Nation properties still face.
The decision is not the end of the story. The Nation responded to the adverse decision by filing with the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) an application for the territory at issue to be taken into trust, which would have the same effect as being declared sovereign territory. Senator Charles Schumer has voiced his alignment with the impacted localities against the Nation. “Simply put, where no legitimate land claim exists, the BIA should be very hesitant to reward tribes – and harm counties and municipalities – by placing non-contiguous land into federal trust.”
From a land use perspective, having the localities remain sovereign over the new Oneida lands on its face appears to make sense. Consistency of application is a rule common to the American experience. But doesn’t it seem a little disingenuous to have the Supreme Court and Senator Schumer side with the municipalities on the bases of fair play and other equitable justifications? Who has been harmed more over the course of the last five hundred years? As always, the issue is less about history and more about the almighty dollar. Jealous of the Oneida’s successes, both the local and state governments cringe over the potential tax revenues that would be lost if all of the Nation’s earnings were free from levy. Tax revenues are always a factor in the land use calculus. Municipalities are always on the prowl for the all-important “ratables.”
But in this case, there is more at play than a question of money. Sovereignty and home rule are precepts that municipalities continue to fight to preserve in the face of regionalization. This very same fundamental right is what the Oneidas are seeking. The land use process is part of the self governance equation, and would not be ignored by the Nation, as it has not been on the property that currently falls within the tribe’s control. At this time of year, when we can reflect on the origins of our ritual of turkey and football, isn’t it worthwhile to think about the importance of thanks, and sharing, after all that has come before?
An intriguing story comes from upstate New York, the home of the Oneida Indian Nation. The Nation has grown in stature, with the aid of profits generated by its Turning Stone Casino and Resort complex just off the New York Thruway, about an hour’s drive east of Syracuse. Its economic strength has also increased its political clout in the region, something that is not always welcomed by the other inhabitants of the area, who make up about 99% of the population. In March, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, in City of Sherill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York, held that the Nation, which attempted to reacquire ancestral lands and reintegrate these new purchases into the autonomous lands of their tribe, still had to pay property taxes on these new tracts. The Court reasoned because the Oneidas had waited so long to reassert authority over these lands, they could not use the tax exemption that would typically apply. Moreover, the Court was concerned that if the Oneidas were allowed to reassert control over their recent purchases, the Nation could also claim that it was not subject to local zoning requirements that the non-Nation properties still face.
The decision is not the end of the story. The Nation responded to the adverse decision by filing with the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) an application for the territory at issue to be taken into trust, which would have the same effect as being declared sovereign territory. Senator Charles Schumer has voiced his alignment with the impacted localities against the Nation. “Simply put, where no legitimate land claim exists, the BIA should be very hesitant to reward tribes – and harm counties and municipalities – by placing non-contiguous land into federal trust.”
From a land use perspective, having the localities remain sovereign over the new Oneida lands on its face appears to make sense. Consistency of application is a rule common to the American experience. But doesn’t it seem a little disingenuous to have the Supreme Court and Senator Schumer side with the municipalities on the bases of fair play and other equitable justifications? Who has been harmed more over the course of the last five hundred years? As always, the issue is less about history and more about the almighty dollar. Jealous of the Oneida’s successes, both the local and state governments cringe over the potential tax revenues that would be lost if all of the Nation’s earnings were free from levy. Tax revenues are always a factor in the land use calculus. Municipalities are always on the prowl for the all-important “ratables.”
But in this case, there is more at play than a question of money. Sovereignty and home rule are precepts that municipalities continue to fight to preserve in the face of regionalization. This very same fundamental right is what the Oneidas are seeking. The land use process is part of the self governance equation, and would not be ignored by the Nation, as it has not been on the property that currently falls within the tribe’s control. At this time of year, when we can reflect on the origins of our ritual of turkey and football, isn’t it worthwhile to think about the importance of thanks, and sharing, after all that has come before?
No comments:
Post a Comment