Chumash defend annexation plans

No need to fear land acquisitions, speakers say
2011-09-17T00:45:00Z Chumash defend annexation plansBy Dave Bemis/Associate Editor Santa Maria Times

Tribal leaders have “a moral obligation to acquire land for the long-term survival of the tribe,” and converting private property into sovereign tribal land does not result in a loss of local control, according to speakers at a public meeting Friday night on the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians’ reservation.

About 200 people in the Samala Showroom of the Chumash Casino and Resort heard Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta describe the tribe’s intentions for the 1,400-acre “Camp 4” property at the corner of Highways 154 and 246 in Santa Ynez.

They also heard several other speakers describe the history of Indian law and sovereignty, the history of local Indian housing and the federal environmental review process that governs development on a reservation.

The Chumash want to add the “Camp 4” property, about 2 miles east of the casino, to their 138-acre reservation either through the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ fee-to-trust process or by direct federal legislation.

Opponents say their resistance isn’t to new housing but to expansion of the reservation because once land becomes sovereign tribal property, activities there become exempt from local and state taxes and local planning and zoning laws.

They want the tribe to develop the land as private property through Santa Barbara County’s planning, zoning and environmental review rather than through the federal government’s processes.

On the contrary, “fee-to-trust is local control,” Armenta told the audience.

A flyer handed out at the meeting elaborated: “Fee-to-trust is about returning lost land to the tribe and returning it to the local control of the one government that was in place long before the present county government or any nearby city government existed.”

Other panelists were Carl Artman, a law professor at Arizona State University and former assistant secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs; Executive Director Dave Schaffer of the All Mission Indian Housing Authority; and Assistant Director Kevin Bearquiver of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Pacific Region.

The tribe bought the 1,400 acres, which is about the size of Solvang, in April 2010 to build housing for its 140 members and their descendants, Armenta said.

“No, absolutely, we are not building a (second) casino on Camp 4,” he added.

The tribe has not worked out the details of its housing plans, but those will be decided eventually by all 140 members acting as the tribe’s General Council, he added.

Federal oversight of environmental impacts, through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is just as stringent as state review through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), several speakers insisted, and both processes include public comment.

“I’m sure we’ll be back before the Board of Supervisors” as the tribe tries to work out an intergovernmental cooperative agreement for developing the property, Armenta said.

“The tribe genuinely believes that you are eventually going to be comfortable with the process (of development through fee-to-trust) and become supportive,” he said.

According to Schaffer, the 2010 U.S. Census showed the tribe having 140 enrolled members and 1,300 descendants.

Armenta said there isn’t enough room on the tribe’s current reservation, about 30 percent of which is hillside or creekbed, to accommodate the tribe’s housing needs.

Friday night’s meeting was scheduled in reaction to a similar one Aug. 26 at the Solvang Veterans Memorial Building sponsored by opponents of reservation expansion: Santa Ynez Valley Concerned Citizens, Women’s Environmental Watch, Preservation of Los Olivos and Preservation of Santa Ynez.

Speakers at that meeting told the standing-room-only crowd of more than 400 people to organize politically to stop any potential expansion of the reservation and to anticipate the worst possible impacts on any land that is annexed. 

POLO has posted documents on its website (, including letters from federal, state and county government officials, pertaining to the tribe’s previous fee-to-trust efforts to bolster their arguments against this one.

In response, the tribe has created a new website,, where they have posted their arguments in favor of taking more land into trust.

Copyright 2015 Santa Maria Times. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. whoiam
    Report Abuse
    whoiam - September 19, 2011 6:49 pm
    After reading this article about the meeting at the Chumash casino I must comment on the concept of "local control." If I read correctly, the Chumash consider their tribe the ONLY local control in Santa Barbara County.
    This concept shows just how far fetched their logic is.
    The museum and cultural center could have been built many years ago if that was in fact what they really wanted on the 6.9 acres obtained long ago.
    The idea of housing might be fine but what about the 1000 acres not addressed. It makes one wonder. Golf course? country club? hotel? The possibilities are endless.
    Report Abuse
    CONCERNED - September 17, 2011 12:37 pm
    the United States is one nation - not two. It concerns me that the Chumash are trying to put more of our US soil into their "sovereign" nation, exempt from taxes and zoning laws. The Chumash have been deceptive in the past: remember at first they said there would be no alcohol at the resort/casino. Then it was ONLY in their restaurants. Now they are trying to get approval to serve it in their showroom and eventually throughout the casino. I do not see other nations allowing past occupants to purchase land within their country and declaring it a sovereign nation. This is a dangerous annexation plan that could destroy our United States.

Civil Dialogue Policy for Commenting on

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Comments can only be submitted by registered users. By posting comments on our site, you are agreeing to the following terms:

Commentary and photos submitted to the Santa Maria Times ( may be published or distributed in print, electronically or other forms. Opinions expressed in's comments reflect the opinions of the author, and are not necessarily the opinions of the Santa Maria Times or its parent company. See the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Our guidelines prohibit the solicitation of products or services, the impersonation of another site user, threatening or harassing postings and the use of vulgar, abusive, obscene or sexually oriented language, defamatory or illegal material. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classification. It's fine to criticize ideas, but ad hominem attacks on other site users are prohibited. Users who violate those standards may lose their privileges on

You may not post copyrighted material from another publication. (Link to it instead, using a headline or very brief excerpt.)

No short policy such as this can spell out all possible instances of material or behavior that we might deem to be a violation of our publishing standards, and we reserve the right to remove any material posted to the site.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick

Activate subscription button gif

Follow Us

Featured Businesses

View More...

Online e-Edition

Read your newspaper online, anytime, anywhere!

Read today's Santa Maria Times print edition at any time from any computer. Your local news and information at your convenience!

Read | Subscribe


Featured Ads