California | Compacts | Opinion

Editorial: Pechanga Band's moral obligation in casino deal

Monday, April 18, 2011

"What happens now in Temecula's battle with the Pechanga Indians over the tribe's refusal to abide by the spirit of a contract it signed with the city?

Of course, it should be noted that the city is in a fix that is somewhat of its own making. After all, it entered into a three-way contract with the tribe and Riverside County without having any control over the part of the deal between the county and the tribe. That was bad lawyering by the city.

That doesn't excuse the fact, though, that the Pechanga agreed to pay the city about $2 million per year to help counter the impact of thousands of slot machines on its neighbor, then sought refuge in a loophole to keep from paying it.

Some background: In 2008, voters said tribes operating casinos in California could exceed the statutory limit of 2,000 slot machines if they reached agreements with neighboring cities and counties to offset the effects of the larger casinos on those communities. Larger casinos mean more traffic and more law enforcement headaches.

The loophole in the Pechanga-Temecula deal is that the contract, ostensibly to have taken effect last summer, doesn't really go into effect until all three parties have reached an agreement ---- and the county and the Pechanga are hundreds of thousands of dollars apart in their negotiations.

What's more, because they already have the machines in place, the Pechanga have absolutely no motivation to reach an agreement with the county."

Get the Story:
EDITORIAL: A moral obligation to fulfill (The Californian 4/17)