In a recent development, California Governor Gavin Newsom has voiced his opposition to two proposed tribal casino projects in a formal letter to the US Department of the Interior (DOI). The projects causing a stir are the Shiloh Resort and Casino Project by the Koi Nation of Northern California in Sonoma County, and the Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Project by the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians in Solano County.
The backlash against these projects is palpable, with various local governing bodies and politicians standing against them. For the Koi Nation project, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, the Windsor Town Council, and a number of state and federal legislators are leading the charge. Similarly, the Scotts Valley Band project is facing resistance from Solano County officials and several congressional representatives.
Governor Newsom’s primary concern lies in the DOI’s departure from standard procedural protocols and the absence of safeguards to ensure tribal land restoration and casino development. Of particular worry is the potential expansion of gaming operations onto lands that are currently ineligible for tribal gaming. Additionally, the Governor pointed out that the proposed lands are outside the historical territories of both tribes.
This firm stance taken by Governor Newsom echoes the concerns raised by tribal governments, elected officials, and local communities. The Lytton Rancheria of California, in particular, has praised Newsom for his letter of opposition. Tribal Chairperson Andy Mejia remarked, “We thank Governor Gavin Newsom for voicing his concerns about the Shiloh Resort and Casino Project and the Scotts Valley Casino and Tribal Housing Project. Unfortunately, these two projects are being recklessly advanced in an unprecedented way without important safeguards – which could have disastrous consequences for the local environment and surrounding communities.”
In closing, Mejia emphasized that “Both of these projects are opposed by the native peoples actually indigenous to these sites and supported by tribes from outside Solano and Sonoma Counties.” The clash between tribal interests, governmental bodies, and local opposition sets the stage for a contentious battle over the future of these proposed tribal casino projects.
