Page 1 of 1
Posted on August 26 at 8:48 a.m.
Let's try to elevate this discussion. Isn't the problem based on the fact that the Tribe is "sovereign" but totally within the borders of the U.S., CA and SB County? That means that the impacts of what the tribe does on its own land affects everything surrounding. If it puts things in the soil or creates runoff, it can affect everyone's ground water. If it generates traffic, it affects surrounding streets and highways.
Think about similar situations. The Vatican is a sovereign nation surrounded by Italy. If the Vatican bought land in Rome and tried to annex it to the Vatican, there would be an uproar. Or what if Windsor Canada bought up the relatively cheap land in bordering Detroit? Could Canada annex U.S. territory just by buying it?
When the U.S. bought Alaska from the Russians, or the Louisiana Purchase from the French, it was with the seller's willing understanding that annexation to the U.S. was part of the deal. But SB County was NOT party to Parker's sale of land to the Tribe. If Parker had had the authority to sell SB County's and CA's interest along with the land, he could have sold it to China or Germany for a much higher price.
The tribe hasn't made the case of why it can't do everything it wants with this land without annexing it to their nation. If it is to be a sovereign nation it should act like one.
On Chumash Reach Out to County Planning
Join and dance with the Santa Barbara Revels this holiday. Read More
Previous Month | Next Month