Conflict could be in the cards for Pala, Pechanga

Two Indian gaming groups made a pre-emptive strike against potential statewide ballot measures that could pit a pair of local competitors – the Pechanga and Pala tribes – against each other in February.

Leaders of the Pechanga tribe, which operates one of three casinos targeted in the possible measures, took the offensive long before the Oct. 8 deadline set for proponents to collect nearly 434,000 signatures of registered voters. The measures, if they qualify for the ballot, would seek to overturn gambling agreements or “compacts” negotiated by Gov. Schwarzenegger.

“We will do what it takes to protect our agreement with the state,” Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro, who was a television campaigner in previous gaming elections, said in a recent statement. “This is an attack on the people, an attack on the governor and an attack on both houses of the Legislature.”

A fellow Pechanga leader, Anthony Miranda, echoed those remarks following a vote by the California Nations Indian Gaming Association. That group and the Tribal Alliance of Sovereign Indian Nations together have come out against the measures that received state clearance to begin the signature gathering process.

“The efforts by outside third parties who have their own financial or political agendas is a direct challenge to the future of the Indian gaming industry and all California tribes, whether they have gaming operations or not,” Miranda, who is the group’s chairman, said in a recent press release.

The Tribal Association notes that the proposed measures are backed solely by “a labor union, a Bay Area land developer that owns two racetracks and two tribes with casinos.”

The gaming groups point to the increased revenues that state and local governments would reap if the new agreements take effect. The state agreement with the Pechanga tribe would permit the Temecula-area band to operate up to 7,500 slot machines, a sharp increase from the 2,000 machines currently allowed.

The three possible ballot measures were submitted to the state by Jack Gribbon of the casino workers union UNITE HERE. He has countered that the proposed expansions of the Pechanga, Sycuan and Morongo casinos would not protect workers or help poor, remote tribes that do not have gaming operations. At this time, each of the three tribal agreements is the target of a separate initiative effort.

Besides the employees union, the Bay Meadows Land Co. racing group and the Pala Band and United Auburn Indian Community of Placer County are aligned against the gaming compacts approved by the Legislature in June. State elections records show that the Pala tribe currently has about $480,000 available to back the potential ballot measures.

Besides being competitors for gaming, restaurant and show customers that travel Interstate 15, Pala and Pechanga have crossed political swords before. The tribes’ casinos are about nine miles apart at opposite ends of Pala-Temecula Road and improvements at Pala’s facility have mirrored those of their northern competitor.

About a decade ago, Pechanga was one of many tribes that opposed a gaming agreement that Pala had struck with the state. At that time, Pechanga leaders claimed Pala’s compact granted too many concessions to state negotiators.

The furor over Pala’s compact faded after California voters in 1998 passed Proposition 5, which authorized Las Vegas-style gambling in the state. Later invalidated by the California Supreme Court, that ballot measure was replaced two years later by Proposition 1A, which was passed by nearly 65 percent of voters statewide.

A pair of competing gaming-related measures was subsequently defeated by California voters in November 2004.

Proposition 68 would have allowed horse racetracks and card clubs to install slot machines if Indian gaming tribes refused to give up a share of their revenues to local police, fire protection and other local programs. Proposition 70 would have allowed gaming tribes to install an unlimited number of machines if they agreed to pay the state’s corporate income tax.