Calpulli Tonalehqveh, 30, of the Teo Kali, Aztec cultural group, participates in a sunrise prayer with Native Americans during an 'Unthanksgiving Day' ceremony 24 November 2005 on Alcatraz Island, home to the ruins of the former federal prison in San Francisco Bay. ; Credit: AFP/AFP/Getty Images
Should Indian tribes be allowed to build casinos on non-reservation land? One tribe will have that opportunity if Proposition 48 passes.
Prop 48 would ratify compacts that the California legislature approved back in 2005 between the state and two tribes, respectively: The North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Wiyot Tribe. If passed, Prop 48 would allow the North Fork tribe to build a casino on about 305 acres of land in Madera County. The compact with the Wiyot tribe doesn't allow them to build a casino, but does allow them to get a portion of the revenue that the North Fork tribe's casino generates.
Supporters say voting yes on Prop 48 would create thousands of jobs, stimulate the local economy, and promote self-sufficiency within the tribes all without a cost to taxpayers. Opponents say passing Prop 48 would open the floodgates for other tribes to build casinos on non-reservation land, which they say will have a negative effect on the surrounding communities.
So what do you think? Should tribes like the North Fork and Wiyot be allowed to build and profit from casinos even if they're built on non-reservation land? How do you think the casinos will help or hurt the surrounding communities?
Guests:
Charlie Altekruse, Public Affairs Director for the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians
Andrew Acosta, Campaign Spokesman for No on 48