More South County development rumors

The news buzzing around is that the Ohlone Native American tribe living in the south Santa Clara County area has cut a deal with the owners of the 5,000-acre Sargent Ranch. The landowner is supposedly paying for the process of lobbying for federal recognition, and in return the tribe supposedly will help Sargent Ranch develop free from County land use constraints because of some kind of relationship with the federally-recognized tribe. Very unclear, as can be seen from this summary. Watch for news about this over the next few days.

CGF has long opposed short-sighted development of Sargent Ranch. This latest issue adds a very different wrinkle that we’ll have to study, but it appears to involve some very cynical maneuvering by Sargent Ranch landowners. We have not heard anything yet to change our belief that destroying natural areas and working ranchland in Sargent Ranch is a bad idea.

-Brian

Comments (4)

Terry Trumbull

September 27, 2004

The County’s rules prohibiting urban development outside of cities have been in place for more than 25 years. No one has tried harder to circumvent them than Sargent Ranch. Hopefully, everyone in Santa Clara County will write their County Supervisor and Member of Congress to propose this proposed monument to urban sprawl.

Brian

September 28, 2004

Some good news: Congressman Honda has now announced that he is not planning to do what would have amounted to a Congressional end-run around the normal process for recognizing Native American tribes. I think he’s been hearing from people.

This situation isn’t finished though, and has to be handled both sensitively and ethically.

CT from Gilroy

September 29, 2004

Residents and environmental organizations in Santa Clara and San Benito Counties must organize very quickly to oppose both the Indian Gaming Casino in San Benito County and the 3,500 acre development proposal on the Sargent Ranch near Gilroy. This issue is not only a local one but a State and National one. They will be difficult to oppose because Native American gaming tribes have become some of the largest political donors. Would the Committee for Green Foothills be willing to help with a grassroots effort to thwart these two developments?
Also, check out a great article, “The Festering Problem of Indian Sovereignty”, at http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles8/festering_p…Here is one alarming quote from the article: “The Oneidas (in New York) have used their casino cash machine to buy 16,000 acres of land and businesses, including nearly all of the area’s gasoline and convenience stores. Once they are Indian owned, the land and businesses go off the tax rolls. The business impact and loss of property and sales taxes has some local communities teetering on bankruptcy.”

Committee for Green Foothills

October 1, 2004

It’s going to take a lot of careful thought on our part in determining our position. It’s clear that both these projects, as currently designed, are environmentally destructive and are something we don’t want to happen. We’ve been part of the media exposure that has already slowed down the Sargent Ranch threat. On the other hand, taking a stance of blanket opposition to Native American sovereignty is something that is unlikely to be ethically, politically, or even environmentally sound.

I also think there’s a fundamental difference between the Amah-Mutsun, who are from the area, and the California Valley Miwoks, who quite likely are not.

These are my initial impressions, but CGF’s Board of Directors will have to determine our ultimate position.

-Brian

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Note