A request by the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians for federal legislation to annex 1,400 acres of tribal-owned land near Santa Ynez recently drew the attention of Santa Barbara County 3rd District Supervisor Doreen Farr.
Farr met with a staff member for U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-Thousand Oaks) on March 9 in an attempt to improve communication between the two offices. In a previously written letter to the congressman, Farr said she was “strongly opposed” to Gallegly sponsoring any bill that would transfer the land, located near the intersection of Highway 246 and Armour Ranch Road, into tribal trust.
“If it goes fee-to-trust, then we lose any kind of involvement or discretion in the decision-making on it,” Farr later told the Sun.
Tribal leaders approached Gallegly last year to ask him to introduce the bill. Gallegly responded by telling the tribe it would need the support of Santa Barbara County supervisors before going ahead with the process.
Farr said she was “disappointed” the conversations had gone on without her knowledge and said locals would want to have their say in any kind of development on agricultural land, whether the tribe was involved or not. The tribe bought the acreage last April from Fess Parker Enterprises for a reported $40 million. Before partnering with the Chumash, Parker had planned to develop the land into a resort hotel, upscale homes, and two golf courses, but the deal fell through in 2005, due in part to complaints from Santa Ynez Valley residents.
If approved, the fee-to-trust process would move the land from county jurisdiction to the tribe’s authority, making it tax exempt and free from planning regulations. According to Farr, the process was designed to allow economically struggling tribes the opportunity to obtain more land, either because the land they had wasn’t sufficient or was of poor quality. With casino gaming as a source of revenue, Farr said, the Santa Ynez Band doesn’t qualify.
“It seemed to me that they didn’t fit what I thought the regulations were for a fee-to-trust to be appropriate,” Farr said. “When you take property out of the community process, it not only affects the community’s ability to comment on what is built, but it also takes it off of the property tax roles, and that’s a significant financial impact.”
Tribal leaders have voiced their intention to disallow gaming on the land, but could still add gaming at their existing location by moving housing on the reservation to new property, Farr said.
Tribal spokeswoman Frances Snyder had no comment on the issue.
This article appears in Mar 17-24, 2011.
