Page 1 of 4
Posted on September 24 at 5:29 p.m.
Some of us may have been sarcastic but what else besides sarcasm have we got left. We have no input to this process and the Chumash, Inc. can do just about whatever they please.
"Regular" Americans can't build a casino or a 12 story hotel in a rural zone. But the Chumash can because they are a "sovereign nation." Well if they are a "sovereign nation," why don't they have Chumash passports when they travel internationally. And why then, as SBKid points out, are there no border crossings when going in and out of the "sovereign nation?"
I also note that there are many impoverished native American tribes in the US but the casino-culture tribes don't seem to be interested in helping them at all. It's all for their corporation.
All in all it seems to be a good deal if you are a member of this elite group.
On 12-Story Hotel by 2016?
Posted on September 24 at 3:42 p.m.
Why are you upset?
After all, the Chumash are simply trying to honor their culture and tribal ancestors.
Twelve story teepees and gambling casinos were part of the culture weren't they?
Posted on August 11 at 1:16 p.m.
Jarvis, I thought that the $400 mil unfunded maintenance backlog was County, not City.
Does the City also have that amount of unfunded maintenance?
On The S.B. Questionnaire: Jim Armstrong
Posted on July 3 at 10:52 a.m.
The City has changed the rules with the recent General Plan Update. Now property owners may get extra units as well as reduced parking requirements if they build smaller rentals versus larger condos. So the incentives are in place; let's see if it helps.
On Santa Barbara's Recovery Blues
Posted on June 9 at 10:40 a.m.
The Chumash group could have built a museum on that property without the property being placed into the BIA trust status and having it removed from the rules and laws followed by all of the rest of us.
By going the route that is being followed, the Chumash corporation will not have to follow the state and county land use laws, they won't have to pay property taxes on the property and improvements and in general they get to do what they want.
If the Chumash were truly an impoverished remnant of the original tribe perhaps this could be justified. But that isn't the case - they are in effect a very rich corporation that reaps a significant income from activities that would otherwise not be allowed in our state. The entire "sovereign nation" facade is a joke and Armenta and the Chumash corporation are using it to maximum advantage.
On Chumash Acquire 6.9-Acre Plot
Posted on June 5 at 8:05 a.m.
Why doesn't the Chumash tribe have it's own police department in it's "sovereign nation?" They seem to want it both ways: totally sovereign when it suits them and part of the USA, state and county when they want something. Isn't having the county sheriff patrolling the Chumash casino similar to having the San Diego sheriff patrolling Tijuana?
On Chumash Chagrined Over Deputy Position
Posted on May 6 at 8:56 a.m.
Is an "air soft gun," which is a kids' toy, illegal now?
Or is it just a felony to bring a toy to the courthouse?
On Man Arrested Outside Gang Hearing
Posted on May 1 at 7:18 p.m.
Why do some state that district elections will increase the number of voters? Increasing voters is a good goal but there is no reason why those same voters that don't vote now will vote in the future.
On Is the Council Too White?
Posted on May 1 at 9:37 a.m.
It is curious that, throughout the city (and the country for that matter), those that identify themselves as ethnic minorities and demand equal "rights" seem to continually self-discriminate by constantly referring to themselves as "xxx-Americans" rather than just "Americans."
That attitude is the underlying rationale for this discussion about district elections so that "xxx-Americans" have the appearance of more representation for their interests that are somehow different and distinct from the interests of just plain "Americans."
And that attitude really doesn't help things in the long term.
Posted on April 28 at 2:57 p.m.
Which side in this conflict has been on record as denying the other the right to even exist? For those that don't know it is the Palestinians.
And as far as the idea of moving Israel to Montana or Baja California, their state exists in the location where it has existed for over 4000 years. Why should they have to move?
BTW, I'm not a Jewish person.
On UCSB Votes Down Divestment from Israel