Prior Lake American - City supports latest trust-land request - Comments

Not all tribe donations are

gz — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:32:56 -0500

Not all tribe donations are free,as to the extra hockey arena for the Prior Lake Varsity and Youth Leagues,don't they pay for all that ice time and how about all the money made in the snack stand(none going back to the hockey programs) ,isn't that all money lost to the hockey programs? And if you watch a replay of the lakers game on cable wouldn't it be nice to have the LAKER LOGO on center ice instead of the smsc logo.

Federal law states that Dept

Dot_Connector — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:12:25 -0500

Federal law states that Dept of Interior (DOI) makes the decision with input from tribe, county and city on the impact. But some of you may be missing the point. The question is not how benevolent the tribe is but whether it is legal at all for the DOI put land into trust for tribes not recognized by 1934. The SCOTUS decision in Carcier v. Salazar states that is it unconstitutional and after all, we are a nation of laws

Question: Are those reps voting for the trust application voting to break the law?

We could always just give

Rational Thought — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:34:15 -0500

We could always just give them their land back instead ...

When the issue of putting land into trust is not a city, county or state decision, but a federal one, does it really make sense for the city to openly oppose the tribal application and sacrifice or damage what is a quality partnership? Such a suggestion seems incredibly short-sighted.

Even if you take just the contribution of lights at Ryan Park you would have a contribution that would equal about a hundred years of taxes on this specific parcel at $4,000 a year. It seems that the overall communtiy benefit on just this ONE contribution outweighs the tax benefit that the city's opposition may or may not prevent from being taken off the rolls by land going into trust.

The argument that developed

Rick_Keeney — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:59:17 -0500

The argument that developed land not paying taxes is better than undeveloped land not paying taxes is not very persuasive. Its the same argument every developer brings when they come asking for tax breaks, be it by way of putting land into trust, or TIF, or whatever.

Undeveloped fields don't require expensive roads, schools, utilities, and services.

The other problem is once you open the door of letting some developments get by without paying taxes, it turns into a tricky question of how do you decide. Which businesses get the windfall and which businesses and residents get left paying the bill? And once you do it for business A, everybody else wants the same deal.

Those of use paying the taxes just don't think its very fair for others who could otherwise afford to pay to be let off the hook leaving us with an even larger portion.

Richard Keeney for Prior Lake City Council
http://www.richardkeeney.org

So your saying that the

noconfidence — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 07:18:51 -0500

So your saying that the taxes from a bunch of Corn fields, yes corn fields because you know ****** well thats what they would be if the SMSC didnt build casinos on this land, Then what the tribe donates.

I strongly disagree with the

Rick_Keeney — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 08:35:34 -0500

I strongly disagree with the concept that the SMSC contributes (directly, financially) more than they would pay in property taxes. Commercial real estate is taxed based on the value of the improvements and revenue of business use it is put to. The SMSC's current hotel, restaraunts, casinos, fitness center, ice arena, daycare, and convenience store operations would all be paying some hefty property taxes if they were not all built on trust land.

The SMSC is in some sense, just a large business entity that is trying to minimize its tax exposure. To the extent the City of Prior lake has any say in it, for the benefit of the rest of us who do pay property taxes, and for the benefit of local businesses who have to compete against such an unfair advantage, I strongly oppose adding any more land into trust for any reason.

On the "donation" side, its also important to realize that when the SMSC touts that they "paid" millions for local road improvements, my understanding (correct me if I am wrong) is that they picked up the funding by buying the bonds which is a loan, not a donation.

Richard Keeney for Prior Lake City Council
http://www.richardkeeney.org

I very well may have

Rational Thought — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:18:21 -0500

I very well may have misunderstood the Interior's role, as I thought the BIA made the final decision and not the Interior. However, I would still argue that it seems that the Mdewakanton Sioux were recognized by the IRA in 1934 and that the SMSC is a derivation of that, so they should be covered under the Supreme Court's ruling. Then again, I could be reading it completely wrong.

The way land is taken into

Dot_Connector — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:21:41 -0500

The way land is taken into trust is the director of the interior approves/rejects the action. This SCOTUS ruling sets the precedent for all tribes in the US. If you don't believe me, just check the web to see all the feverish activity by tribes through out the US attempting to pass new laws concerning taking land into trust. This ruling definitely applies here no matter how much you may want to think otherwise

Actually, what the Supreme

Rational Thought — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:45:29 -0500

Actually, what the Supreme Court held is that the Director of the Interior's ability to take and hold land in trust for the purpose of providing it to Indian tribes is limited to those tribes that were under federal jurisdiction at the time of the Indian Reorganization Act, which is the 1934 date you found. Considering the process now, and what this case dealt with and legally stands for, it is safe to say that your analysis is pretty much dead wrong.

So you refuse to ignore all

noconfidence — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:13:31 -0500

So you refuse to ignore all the good the tribe does for the local area? Ok since you feel that way I hope the SMSC buy the land pay the property taxes and give no more support to the community. What part of " you cant have it both ways" do you not understand. By the way take another look at you wonderful case you are hanging your hat on, The circumstances are not the same.

I live in the county and

Dot_Connector — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 08:38:10 -0500

I live in the county and attend local schools. But, What don't you get about "it's unconstitutional"

Since you dont live in PL

noconfidence — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 06:48:47 -0500

Since you dont live in PL you cant see all the good that SMSC provides, what is being stated is that they donate more to PL then taxes would generate.

I wonder why the city

Dot_Connector — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 22:07:03 -0500

I wonder why the city council (and for that matter the Scott County board) is debating a subject that the US Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional. In Carcier v. Salazar, it ruled in February of 2009 that the only Indian tribes for whom land can be taken into trust are those that were “recognized” and “under federal jurisdiction” as of “June 1934.” Obviously, the SMSC was not recognized till the 1960’s. I’m not a resident of PL but it certainly seems like a good question to ask the prospective candidates for city office

City supports latest trust-land request

Lori Carlson — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:48:14 -0500

By Lori Carlson, Editor
Before Prior Lake City Council members voted to support the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community’s latest trust-land request Tuesday, Mayor Jack Haugen gave an impassioned speech about the benefits of tribal contributions vs. the potential loss in tax revenue.

Addressing the tribe’s request to place 78 acres of land in Prior Lake into trust status, Haugen challenged Scott County commissioners who opposed the request to consider the benefits of $21.5 million in tribal contributions to area infrastructure and programs over the last four years.