Does valley group want harmony with tribe?
2/27/05
By Travis Armstrong
Oh, please.
That was one of my first thoughts when a PR guy from Los Angeles, hired by a group of people in the Santa Ynez Valley, called to try to put a positive spin on the latest shots at the Chumash.
News-Press readers know about the encouraging progress made by the county and tribal governments to improve their relationship. The years of Chumash bashing by a Board of Supervisors controlled by Gail Marshall, Susan Rose and Naomi Schwartz could be over now that this trio no longer is in control.
Some in the valley seem to oppose any steps the Chumash people take to better themselves and their job-creating enterprises. Recall the battle over the Chumash's plan to transfer a liquor license from a Solvang eatery so the tribe could serve drinks in its fine-dining restaurant.
The concern about more alcohol consumption was a pretext to go after the tribe. After all, it was a license transfer, and I hear no complaints about the marketing of the valley as wine country or the attendant tours and Chardonnay-seeking drivers who come with it.
Now an agreement between the county and Chumash over the tribe's plans to annex 6.9 acres for a park, museum and cultural center is under attack by some residents. The county dropped the idea of an administrative appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of that federal agency's decision to approve the annexation. Putting this parcel on Highway 246 contiguous to the reservation under Chumash jurisdiction would be a small step in restoring some of the tribe's historic territory.
Now the resident group has filed its own appeal with the bureau to delay the annexation process because there's no final written pact, even though county and tribal officials have laid out in public the extensive concessions the Chumash government has made.
Remember, the tribe didn't have to do any of this and the fee-to-trust transfer is hardly unprecedented.
As Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta said last week, "Let them do what they want. It's their right. It shows their true colors."
Yes, it does. This continuing obstructionist MO certainly makes it appear that this group isn't interested in harmonious relationships, and no PR company from L.A. can undo this self-inflicted damage.
RETHINK THE CITY PARKS COMMISSION? One problem with Santa Barbara's Parks and Recreation Commission is that it doesn't have enough environmental expertise. Commissioners also can appear to be little more than cheerleaders for the Parks Department. What's the mission of this commission now that more city operations fall under its purview?
On Wednesday, for example, parts of a report about expanding the city's integrated pest management plan received a cool reception, with one commissioner calling the proposal to protect us from more pesticide use in parks too ambitious.
At the same meeting, the commission discussed a possible bridge over Arroyo Burro Creek as part of the proposed Veronica Meadows development project. (The city's citizens creeks advisory committee opposes the bridge, although that committee's chairman, Mike Hackett, in testimony Wednesday at the parks commission in my view at times soft-pedaled this opposition.)
Many speakers supportive of the bridge repeated the same arguments and bordered on being off-point in terms of the parks commission's role in judging the environmental worthiness of the proposal.
Yet Chairman Steve Forsell cut off Sharyn Main -- perhaps Santa Barbara's leading watershed advocate -- who offered a scientific view. What's wrong with allowing a dissenting opinion a bit more time, or at least telling the crowd to stop booing a speaker?
Any park commissioner seeking reappointment or higher office ought to be prepared to defend his or her environmental record, or lack of one.
Travis Armstrong is the editorial page editor of the News-Press.
Disclosure: The author is a member of a Minnesota Chippewa tribe in discussions with that state's government to partner in opening a casino on non-reservation land in Minneapolis-St. Paul.