December 11, 2003
Turning Stone pact could be retooled
State ends lawsuit against UCE, might craft agreement requiring
payments.
By Glenn Coin
Staff writer
The state has dropped its fight against a lawsuit over the Turning Stone casino, clearing the way for a new casino agreement that could include payments to state and local governments.
The attorney general's office this week notified Utica lawyer Leon Koziol, who represents plaintiffs Upstate Citizens for Equality, that it plans to stop opposing a lawsuit filed by UCE . A new casino agreement means the state can require payments, Koziol said.
"This is excellent news for us," he said. "This is the surrender, if you will, of their position."
The state had appealed a judge's 2002 decision that ruled in favor of UCE. That ruling, by state Supreme Court Justice James McCarthy, said the agreement that allowed Turning Stone to open was invalid because the state Legislature never approved it.
The state lost a similar lawsuit against the Mohawk tribe's casino in
Hogansburg. The Court of Appeals, New York's highest court, in June ruled the Mohawk agreement invalid because it had never been ratified by the Legislature.
The state appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which refused to hear the case. That led to the decision to drop the Turning Stone appeal, said the letter to Koziol from Andrew
Bing, a lawyer for the attorney general's office.
Bing declined to elaborate.
"I think the explanation is in the letter," he said.
Oneida Indian Nation spokesman Jerry Reed declined to comment; the nation owns Turning Stone.
The Turning Stone lawsuit was filed in 1999 by Upstate Citizens for Equality. The group says it's not trying to shut down Turning Stone, but to force the state and nation to revise the compact and require the Oneidas to make payments to governments.
Tribes across the country pay millions to state and local governments from casino revenues, according to their gaming compacts. The Oneida compact requires no payments. Turning Stone turned a profit of about $70 million last year, according to nation documents.
Koziol said the lawsuit will now go back to McCarthy for a ruling. Koziol said he expects McCarthy to once again rule the compact invalid, given the high court's decision earlier this year.
The UCE lawsuit also says the state's constitution forbids commercial gambling. McCarthy will rule on that, too, Koziol said.
The state Legislature in 2001 required tribes that open new casinos to give the state 25 percent of slot machine profits. In addition, two tribes seeking to build casinos in the Catskills have agreed to pay $15 million a year to Sullivan
County
.
November 18, 2003
The Associated Press reported that the United States Supreme Court, yesterday, declined to review a state court decision invalidating a casino compact between New York and an Indian tribe. The effect is to uphold the judgment of New York's highest court that the governor acted improperly in bypassing the state legislature to permit the Indian casino in upper New York state.
In September, a suit based on similar grounds was filed in the Oregon Supreme Court by a Florence, Oregon group, People Against A Casino Town (PACT). The grass-roots organization claims the governor of Oregon improperly disregarded the state's Constitutional prohibition of casinos when he entered into a casino compact with local tribes permitting a casino near the small coastal town of Florence.
The case also argues that the governor exceeded his authority when he approved the compact. The power to approve compacts lies with
the state legislature, PACT argues.
PACT's attorney, Alexis Johnson, said, "The ruling in the New York matter is no surprise, when one thinks about what it is about. That
ruling simply preserves an essential feature of federalism that the Supreme Court of the United States is not likely to disrupt: state
supreme courts decide state constitutional questions (including powers of the state governor to compact)."
According to PACT spokesperson Arnold Buchman, "The U. S Supreme Court's refusal reaffirms the duty of a state court to enforce
relevant state constitutional provisions when considering questions involving Indian gambling."
Buchman said, "The bottom line is that "sovereign immunity" does not trump a state's fundamental laws. Because of the obvious parallels to
PACT's petition to Oregon's highest court, we can only be encouraged by the U.S. Supreme Court's action."
Wednesday, January 15, 2003
Report: Tobacco tax loss $900M
By JAMES M. ODATO, Capitol bureau
Albany-- State's failure to collect excise charge on cigarettes sold at Indian stores, over Internet cited
The state is losing $900 million a year by failing to collect excise taxes on 50 million cartons of cigarettes sold in New York, according to a report released Tuesday.
The lost tax may grow even more as smokers turn increasingly to lower cost options, particularly the Internet and Native American stores, according to economist Brian P. O'Connor of Ridgewood Economic Associates.
The report from the Ridgewood, N.J., firm for a coalition of food industry and convenience store associations is perhaps the most thorough analysis on lost tobacco revenues since New York began dramatically raising its cigarette taxes in recent years. It shows the state lost nearly $1.5 billion over the past two years and the losses are rising.
The groups called on Gov. George Pataki to resolve what they called inequities in the state's enforcement of sales tax collection. Pataki has been reluctant to use his authority to enforce tax laws.
"I can't answer why government isn't doing anything," said Dan Finkle, president of Finkle Distributors of Johnstown. "Taxpaying businesses are at a disadvantage and the failure of those businesses means even less taxes are being paid to municipalities."
The study found the majority of the lost dollars comes from 35 million cartons of cigarettes sold over the Internet, through 800 numbers and at some of the 80 smoke shops run by Indians in New York.
Calling itself the Fair Application of Cigarette Taxes (FACT), the coalition contends Native Americans in New York have an unfair advantage because they don't tax any sales. Indian stores can be required to collect taxes on items sold to non-Native Americans.
The coalition also inferred that the shops aren't necessarily guarding against sales to minors.
The lost revenue doesn't even include uncollected taxes on gasoline sold at Native American stores, added James Calvin, president of the convenience store association.
O'Connor said that with the state facing multibillion dollar budget deficits, it must figure out a way to collect from Indian stores and the more than 200 Internet sites selling tobacco products.
Mark Emery, spokesman for the Oneida Indian Nation said the Oneida stores are checked frequently for compliance on sales to minors and staff are trained to obey strict rules. He said the cigarettes are sold with a 5 percent surcharge used to fund tribal programs, so prices are competitive to taxable stores.
"It's funny they called themselves FACT because a lot of this is fiction," said Emery.
Kevin Quinn, a state budget division spokesman, said the administration would look at the group's recommendations and that, "We're concerned about the loss of
revenue."
September 4, 2002
Oneidas buying up land; Senecas may do the same
By JOHN F. BONFATTI
News Staff Reporter
What's going to happen to downtown Buffalo and Niagara Falls if (the Senecas) decide they're going to buy back land and not pay taxes?" Judy Buchmann, with husband Fred and a map showing Oneida tribal lands
VERONA - Oneida Indian land that once encompassed 250,000 acres in central New York was down to one 32-acre plot 10 years ago.
But that has changed.
Thanks to profits from its Turning Stone casino, the Oneida Indian Nation has purchased about 16,000 acres in Oneida and Madison counties, land for which the counties no longer receive property tax.
That bothers several officials in both counties, who lament the loss of revenue, and residents such as Judy and Fred Bachmann, who say Western New York could face the same kind of problem if the Seneca Nation of Indians opens casinos there.
"What's going to happen to downtown Buffalo and Niagara Falls if (the Senecas) decide they're going to buy back land and not pay taxes?" Judy Bachmann asked.
The Salamanca Lease Settlement Act, the 1990 federal law that established a fund as part of the process of extending leases on Seneca land in Salamanca, allows the Seneca Nation to purchase land "within its aboriginal area in the state," a term that is subject to interpretation but would logically include Western New York.
If Seneca casinos open, the nation intends to buy land in Western New York, said Scott Snyder, chairman of the nation's ruling Seneca Party, and will not pay taxes on that land.
"We're trying to build our land base back in Cattaraugus and Allegany counties to get more housing for our people," he said. "That was always our concern: more land acquisition around our territories."
Snyder said there would also likely be purchases in Buffalo, where a number of Senecas live.
"We'd probably buy some land and make some apartment complexes for our people who live in Buffalo, instead of having them live in real low-income housing," he said.
A Seneca tribal councillor, who asked not to be named, stressed that the nation intends to work with any of the municipalities where it buys land and that the Lease Settlement Act calls for a 30-day period to allow for public comment on any such purchases.
"(The Oneidas) didn't consult with the communities where they're purchasing the land," the councillor said. "With us, the difference is (that) even before we're considering (buying), we're talking with communities beforehand."
There's no question that Turning Stone has turned the Oneida Nation into the big player in economic development for the area surrounding the casino, located in this town about 20 miles west of Utica.
The casino is now the biggest employer in Oneida County. Between wages paid to employees, capital expenditures and purchases of goods and services, the Oneidas say they have pumped $1.55 billion into the local economy in the past 10 years.
"If you look at the fiscal numbers, this area was economically depressed," said tribal spokesman Mark Emery. "Today, we've got 3,300 employees and a $75 million payroll. Most of these people, . . . the vast majority of them, live right here."
Benefits acknowledged
Development continues. A $300 million casino expansion is in the works. Some of the land purchased is being used to build two 18-hole championship-caliber golf courses. Among the parcels purchased are a small airport, two marinas on Oneida Lake, two RV parks, a hotel and a number of farms.
Oneida County Clerk Richard D. Allen acknowledged the benefits the casino has brought to the county and said he wants it to stay open. But he said the benefits have been accompanied by the growing problem of an eroding tax base.
"It's a good thing," he said. "But at what cost? I'm of a thought that it's too great a cost."
Allen pulled out a recent property transfer agreement for an Oneida purchase and pointed to wording he says is added to any Oneida purchase in the section titled "tax billing address."
"The new owner of the property is a sovereign Indian nation not subject to property taxation," it reads. "Therefore, no tax bills of any kind should be issued."
"If you look at the true value of the land, we're probably losing millions right now," said Allen. "It's starting to be a tremendous drain."
Madison County tax hike
Madison County Treasurer Harold C. Landers said it's a similar situation in his county, where taxes went up 15 percent in 2002. He blamed lost property and sales tax revenue for the increase.
"Right now, we have on the books between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in lost property tax revenue on property they've bought," he said. "It's kept on the rolls, even after they've bought it."
That's also the case in Oneida County, where a legal notice in a local newspaper in October listed 172 properties owned by the nation for which taxes had not been paid.
Of the properties listed, 138 were in Verona, where Supervisor Dave Reid says the Oneida Nation now owns nearly 40 percent of the town's land base.
Reid founded Upstate Citizens for Equality, a group of property owners that is contesting the Oneida Nation's ongoing lands claim in Central New York and trying to force the Oneidas to pay property and sales tax.
But he's no longer with the group because, he said, "The war is over. We lost. They won every battle, every skirmish, and I don't want to be the last Japanese soldier in a Philippines cave who doesn't believe the war is over."
Reid's position is fueled partially by a U.S. District Court decision last year denying an appeal by Sherrill, one of the communities where property has been purchased, that Oneidas pay taxes on the land or be subject to eviction.
Upstate Citizens for Equality president, said he doesn't blame Reid for giving up.
"I've been fighting this for six years, and all I've seen is it getting worse and worse," he said.
He said the purchases are resulting in "a destruction of the tax base."
"It's tremendously destructive, not only because it takes land off the tax rolls, but it allows them to build businesses anywhere they want, virtually," he said. "And they have a tax-free advantage."
By law, natives do not have to pay sales tax on purchases made on Indian land, but nonnatives are supposed to pay the tax on such purchases.
The reality is that businesses on Indian land don't collect state taxes from anybody, and state courts have ruled that the state cannot be forced to collect those taxes. New York has adopted a policy of not collecting the taxes.
The result is that the Oneida Nation's 14 convenience stores can sell gas and cigarettes for less than their nonnative competitors.
Reid, the supervisor in Verona, also owns a convenience store and acknowledges his gas and cigarette sales "have gone to nothing." He said he's still holding his own with the store, adding, "But it's not the business it used to be."
Cooperation boosts funding
Still, he said he's hoping the continued development in the area will eventually be good for his business. And he says cooperation between the town and the Oneida Nation has led to substantial funding for the Verona Fire Department, which would respond to any fire at the casino, and an agreement that will bring water and sewer lines to most town residents.
"I am trying to make the best of a tough challenge and to come out with what's best for the people I represent," Reid said.
Two town residents stopped at random in front of the Post Office offered different opinions on the impact of the casino and the Oneida land purchases.
"I think the Indians put their fair share in," said Bob Bibik. "I don't see any problem with it."
But Victor Cesana complained about what he called "the basic inequity" of the situation.
"That is only one minor consequence of the fact that, somehow, the United States is granting Native Americans abilities that nonNative Americans can't have," he said.
Emery, the Oneida spokesman, noted that the nation has tried to establish relationships with area governments and tries to make up for the tax shortfall by offering "Silver Covenant" grants to local school districts and municipalities.
"Since January of 1996, we've paid out almost $4 million," he said.
Only one municipality is receiving the covenant money. Reid said he's not interested in taking the money for Verona because, as he understands it, there is a stipulation that the town acknowledge Oneida sovereignty.
"That I can't do because our county is in negotiations for a land claims settlement," he said.
Other tribes buying land
The Oneidas are one of many Indian tribes purchasing land. In California, the Mesa Grande band added 883 acres in northern San Diego County, the Jamui Indians bought 101 acres, while the Viejas band recently acquired 840 acres.
"The reacquisition of land is something a number of tribes have in their strategy," said William R. Eadington, director of the Institute for the Study of Gambling and Commercial Gaming at the University of Nevada Reno.
"There's an attitude that drives it: These are ancestral lands, and if they can do it (buy) within the marketplace, it's much more pleasant than taking them (in a land claim)," he said.
Jacqueline Johnson, executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, said the land is being purchased to provide housing for members, as well as "to regain some of their traditional uses sites, like hunting and fishing, as well as areas they felt are sacred and special."
Emery dismissed complaints that the Oneidas are causing tax problems for some municipalities.
"It's always nice to have a scapegoat if you can blame a tax increase on somebody," he said. "Indian nations didn't create the tax problems New York State has."
April 4, 2002
Indian Casinos Today
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Last month these columns criticized New York Governor George Pataki's
midnight legislation to create six new Indian-run casinos in his state, part
of a national gambling boom. We've since been called racist and part of a
"growing national backlash against Indians."
Maybe we're getting somewhere. Indian Country Today, the nation's leading Native American newspaper, accused us of "perpetuating Native American
stereotypes" because we referred to "Big Chief Pataki," among other perceived insults. We thought we were having fun with Mr.
Pataki, not Indians. But in any case the race card has become the first refuge of
scoundrels in American politics. The folks who play it are usually trying to
deflect attention from the real issues.
The very big issue here is a $10 billion Indian casino industry that has grown with little public scrutiny into a huge political force. Indian
Country Today is part of that force, since it's funded by gambling interests
with a major stake in Mr. Pataki's casino deals. The paper is controlled by the Oneida Nation of New York, which already owns one casino in the state
and is vying for the right to build another.
We were especially amused by Indian Country Today's assertion that "Indian gaming is among the most regulated industries in America." The rest of
American business should be so lucky. The industry is regulated by the National Indian Gaming Commission, which has a budget of $8 million, or a
fraction of the millions that the Indian casino lobby shovels at politicians. A former NIGC regulator-turned-lobbyist told Indian casino
executives last year that "your best strategy is to keep the commission at its current size," the Boston Globe has reported.
Gaming advocates like to cite "cooperation" with law enforcement, but the reality is that Indian casinos are largely self-regulating. If Congress is
going to get serious about casino corruption, it might give the NIGC some teeth. The commission is responsible for monitoring more than 300 Indian
gambling halls, but it has fewer than 30 full-time auditors and investigators. New Jersey gaming authorities, by contrast, employ more than
200 auditors for only 12 casinos. Another reality is the presence of criminal interests in the industry. The
chief of the FBI's Organized Crime Section described mob influence at casinos this way to the Los Angeles Times: "Our position is, 'If you build
it, they will come.' They understand not only the mechanics of gambling, but
also how the industry works: the labor unions, the equipment, the pawn shops, the trucking industry, the housekeeping services, all the collateral
industries. They set up kickback schemes, extortion schemes, sweetheart contract schemes. "And come they did to Indian country. The Minneapolis
Star-Tribune has reported links between Minnesota Indian casinos and "East Coast Mafia families"; companies named in the report denied knowing of any
involvement with mob figures, saying any ties had been "coincidental and indirect."
In California, the Rincon Indians say they have turned the corner on corruption, but through the 1990s they were plagued by mob takeover
attempts, with convictions of a tribal council member and figures linked to the Pittsburgh and Chicago mafia. In Florida last year, the St. Petersburg
Times reported that the Seminole Tribe's own police investigators had learned of a link to organized crime figures -- and were fired after
bringing the information to the NIGC. Indian gaming looks like a corruption scandal waiting to happen.
It already is a political scandal. Political figures in both parties have abused the federal tribal recognition process, which has granted groups of
dubious lineage official tribal status and with it the right to open casinos. A recent report by the Interior Department's Inspector General
found that the two Clinton-era heads of the Bureau of Indian Affairs - Kevin
Gover and Michael Anderson -- abused their authority by granting recognition
to six tribes, despite objections from BIA professionals. Messrs. Gover and Anderson both left BIA to join law firms working on Indian casino deals. And
here's the best part: Mr. Gover is now a columnist for Indian Country Today.
Interior's IG also reported that an "egregious" share of the profits at Connecticut's Mohegan Sun Casino were taken by gambling mogul Sol Kerzner.
He and his partners will rake in about $1 billion of profits through 2014, according to the Boston Globe. The NIGC was powerless to stop Mr. Kerzner
from fashioning a loophole that allowed him to evade Congressional regulations limiting non-Indian partners to no more that 40% of the Mohegan
tribe's profits.
We think it's a sure bet that the same is slated for New York, thanks to Mr.
Pataki and the casino lobby. Indian Country Today would better serve its readers if it tried to uncover such rotten deals instead of flacking for
them.
March 1, 2002
Big Chief Pataki
Wall Street Journal
New York State has a new Indian chief and gambling boss, two jobs that seem to go together these days: Governor George Pataki. We doubt New Yorkers will enjoy the spoils as much as the politicians, lobbyists and gambling interests who cut this sweetheart deal.
In the wake of September 11 and facing a budget deficit, Chief Pataki rushed a package through the state legislature granting himself the power to negotiate gambling compacts with Indian tribes for six new casinos. It promises to be a political jackpot for the Republican Governor, who faces re-election this fall and claims gambling will help the economically depressed Buffalo/Niagara Falls and Catskills areas. In return for cashing in, the Indians are also settling some ancient land claims. Mr. Pataki also traded beads with unions, which won the right to organize some of the new casinos.
Political jackpot
The three casinos in Buffalo and Niagara Falls would be owned by the Seneca Indian Nation but operated by big gaming companies. The Catskills casinos -- an easy drive from New York City -- most likely would go to the Mohawk and the Oneida, with the same white guys behind the curtain. Slot machines, currently banned in New York, would be legalized and placed in the casinos. Electronic slot machines known as video lottery terminals would go up at horse-racing tracks throughout the state. New York also joins the Powerball lottery operating in more than 20 other states. All this will allegedly bring jobs to local economies and at least $1 billion per year into state coffers.
Great White Father Pataki is just the latest pol to cash in on the nationwide Indian-sponsored gambling boom. Legislative moves in California in the past two years have created an Indian casino gold rush in that state. Nationally, Indian gambling has exploded into a $10 billion a year industry shadowed by controversy. Currently there are nearly 200 federally designated "gaming tribes." But because of the windfall that usually follows, about 200 more groups are petitioning the Interior Department's Bureau of Indian Affairs for tribal status.
But along with the money come other things: lowlifes and organized crime, drugs, prostitution, loan sharking and money laundering. The mob infiltrates and corruption in local government often follows. For a small minority gambling is a serious addiction, wrecking lives and families. In rural Connecticut around the Mashantucket Pequot Indians' Foxwoods Casino, traffic on small country roads has tripled, accidents have increased and local services are under severe stress. As for the economic development argument, we recommend a close look at Atlantic City, where the mean streets behind the glittering boardwalk have benefited little from the casino boom.
Mr. Pataki's deal highlights many of the problems with Indian gaming today. One is a tribal recognition process that is out of control and rife with special favors. Land controlled by Indian tribes has a special sovereign status, largely exempt from state and federal regulation. Backed by investors looking to hit the casino jackpot, Indian groups, some with highly dubious claims to Native American authenticity, are pounding on the doors of the Interior Department and state legislatures.
A recent General Accounting Office report concluded that tribal recognition is increasingly not about merit but "the resources that petitioners and third parties can marshal to develop a successful political and legal strategy." Among the petitioners for tribal status are the Ramapough Mountain Indians, a group of about 3,000 souls on the border of New York and New Jersey; doubtless another casino would follow federal recognition.
Federally approved land-trust swaps are another bit of gaming corruption. High-powered lobbyists representing big gaming syndicates line up the land swaps. Designated Indian tribes are granted the right to purchase real estate near major metropolitan areas, which is then taken into trust by the government on behalf of the Indians, converting it into tribal land. The swaps are subject to Interior Department approval and often are the cause of much consternation in local communities. Catskills land swaps for casinos are on the table in New York in Mr. Pataki's pow-wows with the Mohawk, and with the Oneida Indian Nation for a settlement of a long-running land dispute in central New York.
Mr. Pataki still must negotiate gambling compacts with the tribes, get federal approval and survive court challenges. In January, a coalition of anti-gambling forces filed suit in state court charging that the Pataki casino bill was unconstitutional because the New York State Constitution prohibits commercialized gambling. Midnight passage of the bill, the suit charges, was a "farcical exercise of 'representative democracy' " and an assault "on the welfare and morals of the citizenry."
We wish them luck. The history of Indian gaming is that, like the craps tables themselves, it promises more than it ever delivers. Beyond November and beyond New York, Mr. Pataki is said to have his eyes on the post-Bush Presidency. His gambling deal may come back to haunt him. Indian casinos have become a political fixers' game that is bad social and economic policy.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1014949945868378080.djm,00.html
February 22, 2002
Wisconsin Oneidas file suit against landowners
by: Tom Wanamaker / Indian Country Today
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- In a stunning turn of events following a proposed land claim settlement between the State of New York, the Oneida Indian Nation of New York and the upstate counties of Madison and Oneida, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin filed individual lawsuits against several private land-owners. This development marks the latest twist in the tribe’s on-going land claim dispute.
"This is the last and final remedy we have available to us," said Gerald Danforth, Chairman of the Tribe in a press conference at a suburban Syracuse hotel. "I hope that they [the landowners] can understand how we feel backed into a corner, that we have to take this measure. The state has said it will defend them and indemnify them."
The lawsuits, filed Feb. 21 in the Federal District Court for Northern New York in Syracuse, name as defendants 20 private-property owners who hold a total of approximately 660 acres of land in non-contiguous parcels. This legal action comes in response to the Feb. 16 announcement of an agreement-in-principle that has realigned the players; former adversaries are now allies, and vice versa.
The seemingly rapid sequence of past week’s events has dramatically reshaped alliances of the parties involved in the land claim. The Oneida Indian Nation of New York, which for years had borne the burden of the public’s outcry, now stands firmly with the State of New York and Madison and Oneida Counties, and has even expressed support for the individual land-owners residing within the land-claim area.
On the other hand, the Oneidas of Wisconsin and the Canadian Oneida of the Thames suddenly find themselves, from their geographic and political distances, reacting to a proposed agreement that, although shaped by their previous involvement, did not have their participation this time around.
[Indian Country Today is owned by a corporate holding of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York.]
Upon announcing the recent land-claim settlement proposal, New York Gov. George Pataki hinted at this new alignment.
"I’m proud to announce the framework of an agreement that can put all of those decades of litigation and those centuries of disagreement behind us, and begin what should be -- and I
believe will be -- a new era of cooperation and partnership for the people of Central New York," the governor was quoted as saying in the Feb. 17 edition of (Syracuse) Post-Standard.
Immediately following the Wisconsin Oneida press conference, the New York Oneidas denounced the Wisconsin Oneida lawsuits as a ploy by "greedy outsiders" who "have been gone so long that they cannot find where their homeland is."
"This is a New York problem and we have created a New York solution," Ray Halbritter, Nation Representative, said in the press release. "It is distressing to think that the leadership of the Wisconsins would place greed above the good of all of the people of Central New York. They have made it very clear that they are only about money, and that they are making trouble while we are working on a solution."
Arlinda Locklear, land claims attorney for the Wisconsin tribe, declined to identify specific properties or name their owners, as service of pertinent legal documents is expected within a week. She did, however, explain the tribe’s process for deciding which property owners to include in the lawsuits.
"We decided not to sue anybody who had acquired their property before March 4, 1985, the date of the Supreme Court decision, which we believe put everybody on notice about the claim," she said. In addition, the tribe excluded all residential uses of property, and all property used for governmental and public purposes, leaving fairly narrow set of property classifications against which to proceed. They include commercial and industrial property, lands classified for "entertainment uses," which includes things like golf courses and marinas, abandoned agricultural land and private forestland.
"We’ve selected the most valuable, based on tax-assessed values, of the parcels in those categories, on the assumption that those defendants are likely to have title insurance against this very claim," Locklear said.
The properties, which total approximately 660 acres in both Oneida and Madison counties, are not adjacent to each other. The parcels in question have been identified through information available in public records Locklear added, and if any are determined to be actually used for residential or agricultural purposes, the tribe is prepared to dismiss its legal action.
"We’ve delayed this step for as long as we possibly could with the pending hope that we could have engaged in negotiations that would end up in a settlement," said Danforth in his prepared remarks. "It’s often not easy to do what the right thing is to do … Like the current landowners in the claim area, Indian and non-Indian, we too, the Oneidas in Wisconsin, are burdened. And we too have felt the uncertainties, and we too have been harmed."
Regarding the recently announced settlement agreement, Danforth said he was "very happy" to learn that key differences between the counties, the state and the New York Oneidas had been resolved, as those conflicts were the reasons that general mediation failed two years ago. At the same time, however, he was disappointed that his group was not included in the "comprehensive settlement that directly affects Oneida citizens in Wisconsin. We were not invited to participate. That was just plain unacceptable to have discussions and decisions being made on something so significant, that impacts so many people and involving all the parties.
"I don’t think you would have it any other way, either," he said, addressing the assembled group of journalists.
After settlement negotiations broke down and were declared at an impasse in March 2000, Danforth said the Wisconsin Oneidas suggested to the other parties involved that "we want to talk to the state and engage in a private settlement in a way that will not affect anybody else’s interest."
When New York State announced that it would negotiate compacts for several new casinos in the state, Danforth said that his tribe approached state officials with a proposal "that we thought could provide another method to settle our interests in the claim." After an informal meeting in mid-January to pitch their proposal, a follow-up meeting, promised within two weeks, never materialized. "The two weeks came and went, and it’s still unclear to us why that meeting never occurred," he said. "Had we been involved in the discussions and negotiations, I don’t think we’d be here right now."
When asked if the tribe’s desire for an upstate New York casino was the motivator behind the lawsuits, Danforth replied: "A casino had been crafted as a damages component, perhaps for the overall aspects of this case. But we also think its important to keep that issue separate ... We will not be perceived as selling out our land claim interests for a casino."
Given New York State’s legislative approval for six Indian casinos, a great deal of intrigue surrounds the motives behind all the recent maneuvers. Although both the Wisconsin and New York Oneida would likely pursue any opening to develop an additional casino, in December the Wisconsin group proposed to Gov. Pataki a partial swap of a casino compact as compensation for its land claim.
In a Dec. 20 letter to Gov. Pataki, Danforth wrote: "We believe there exists a window of opportunity for the State and our Tribe to reach settlement of our long-standing issues. This settlement could include as casino as provided for under the recent State legislation, to substitute for a cash component of a settlement package."
Danforth said that the Wisconsin tribal government, land commission and community as a whole "struggled about filing these suits. But we’re convinced however, that this is a necessary step to protect the interests of those we represent."
"We too want to cure this problem, a problem that has plagued our community and has plagued your community for far too many years," he said. "This is not a problem that we want to pass on to the next generation. We are absolutely prepared to engage in settlement discussions because we believe that settlement is in the best interests of everybody. We are, however, doing everything that we must do, under the limits of the law, to protect our interests. To lay a foundation to support our claim, we have to continue on the litigation trail. If we again must defend our claim in the courts then we will do so … so that equal justice under the law can be administered. And that we all, at the end of this, can rise above injustices that have occurred in the past."
Halbritter, Nation Representative of the New York Oneidas, would not be moved. "New York will not succumb to threats and scare tactics designed to impose the selfish interests of the Wisconsin Oneidas over the interests of our own citizens -- Indian and non-Indian alike -- who want to live together with peace and respect," he said on Feb. 21. "Let there be no mistake -- we will stand united with property owners against adversaries who do not care about the well-being of Central New York."
When asked about what he would consider a "fair" settlement, Danforth declined to mention specifics, other than advocating a "negotiated settlement process that would bring all of our needs into that process."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article can be found at http://IndianCountry.com/?1014391194
February 22, 2002
After 5 Days, Oneida Deal Is Unraveling
By SHAILA K. DEWAN
ALBANY, Feb. 21 — Just five days after Gov. George E. Pataki trumpeted a tentative agreement with the Oneida Indians of New York State to end a 31-year-old dispute over a quarter of a million acres in Central New York, the deal has begun to unravel. The Oneidas of Wisconsin, a separate branch of the tribe that was shut out of the negotiations, filed 20 lawsuits today against individual landowners in Oneida and Madison counties.
In essence, the move makes private citizens bargaining chips in the struggle over the tribe's claim that the state illegally bought its land 200 years ago. The lawsuits have been filed against owners of commercial, agricultural, entertainment and abandoned properties, but no residential property owners.
The deal, which the governor has called a "conceptual agreement" and which would require the approval of the State Legislature and Congress, would give $225 million to the New York Oneidas, who would use some of the money to buy 35,000 acres from willing sellers, many fewer than the 270,000 acres to which they contend they have a legal right. It would also give $250 million to the Wisconsin Oneidas.
The land dispute is taking place in the context of the governor's new authority to give Indians the right to open casinos, which both branches of the Oneidas have asked for. So far, the governor has rejected the Wisconsin group's request, and, in response to the lawsuits today, he and the New York Oneidas sought to portray the Wisconsin Oneidas as greedy interlopers using the lawsuits as leverage for their casino request.
"New Yorkers will not succumb to threats and scare tactics designed to impose the selfish interests of the Wisconsin Oneidas over the interests of our own citizens," the governor said in a statement. "We will stand united with property owners against adversaries who do not care about the well- being of Central New York."
The Wisconsin group said that it had been left no choice but to file the lawsuits. If Congress approves the deal between Governor Pataki and the New York Oneidas, it would likely wipe out all other claims to the land, said Arlinda Locklear, the Wisconsin group's lawyer. "Like the Oneidas of New York, the Oneidas of Wisconsin view the Oneida aboriginal territory as their homeland," she said.
Like the governor, some landowners questioned the Wisconsin group's motives. But they placed some of the blame for the lawsuits on the governor and the fanfare with which he had announced a deal that was far from a sure thing.
"He's creating such a pressure cooker among landowners in Central New York that something is going to blow very soon," said Leon Koziol, a lawyer who represents two groups of landowners. The agreement "is a political decision that's only inflamed the controversy by virtue of its noninclusion," he said, pointing out that it was reached without the participation of the federal government or the Wisconsin Oneidas.
The owners, who say their tax burden is greater because the Indians pay no taxes on their land, say they have found no allies in the long dispute. The federal government, intervening on the tribe's behalf, sought unsuccessfully to make landowners, as a class, defendants in the suit. The governor, they say, has refused to force tribe-owned businesses to levy sales taxes, and the county governments have not pressed the issue.
"It's the same old story in that it's the landowners in this area that are getting battered around by the Indians, the state, the politicians," said Michael Gaiser, who owns a bed-and- breakfast in Oneida County. "As far as I'm concerned it was just the Wisconsin Oneidas' turn to be the bad guy."
"We are, of all parties, the most innocent accused," Mr. Koziol said. But the governor said his agreement would protect the landowners.
Under the "conceptual agreement," Oneida businesses would charge the equivalent of the sales tax, which would go to the tribe. The Indians and the state would set up a $100 million fund to compensate the counties for lost tax revenues, and 5,000 of the 35,000 acres would be set aside as wilderness. A small Oneida group in Canada would receive $25 million. A fourth group, the Brothertown Indians, has also joined the existing suit.
John O'Mara, a former judge who has negotiated on behalf of the Pataki administration, said he believes the state can prove in court that the Wisconsin group of Indians has no standing without their brethren in New York. Ms. Locklear, however, said the federal judge overseeing the case had recognized the Wisconsin group as a legitimate claimant.
February 10, 2002
Ruling upholds forced inspections
Judge says Oneida Nation's ordinances allow for checks of homes on Indian
territory.
By Glenn Coin
The Oneida Indian Nation court's appeals judge has upheld the forced inspections of homes on nation land.
Richard Simons, a former member of New York state's highest court, said the nation has the legal power to inspect homes under nation ordinances. Some Oneidas living on Territory Road in Oneida have refused to allow nation inspectors into their homes.
"While the interest of property owners to be free from searches from their homes is substantial, it necessarily must be outweighed by the community's need to protect itself by identifying and abating conditions dangerous to its citizens," Simons wrote.
The decision comes in the case of Ray and Elizabeth Roberts, who have refused to allow the inspections required by nation ordinances. The Robertses could not be reached for comment.
The Oneida Nation's ordinances require annual inspections of all nation-owned buildings. The Robertses and others living on Territory Road have said the inspections are simply a way for nation leader Ray Halbritter to evict them from their homes.
Nation spokesman Mark Emery said Simons' decision supports the nation's effort to improve housing on Territory Road.
"It affirms the nation's right to inspect housing and other buildings, just as any other government does," Emery said.
He said he did not know when nation inspectors would go to the Roberts homes.
Danielle Patterson, whose trailer was inspected and condemned under an emergency order in November, criticized Simons' decision and the entire nation court system.
"This whole ridiculous court system is in violation of the Great Law," Patterson said. "They are a foreign government imposing their laws on our land."
Patterson and several family
members living on Territory Road oppose Halbritter's leadership. Nation police restrained and later arrested Patterson in November while an inspector looked through her home. The emergency inspection order was granted by another nation court judge, Stewart Hancock, because Patterson's furnace was not working.
Hancock had also ruled in favor of the nation in the Roberts case. His decision was appealed to Simons.
Simons noted that Indians tribes were sovereign nations before adoption of the U.S. Constitution and are "generally unconstrained by its provisions, including those found in the Bill of Rights."
Tribes are required to abide by the Indian Civil Rights Act, however, which is similar to the Bill of Rights.
Simons said the nation had proven that the home inspections were reasonable. He said the nation's Redevelopment Ordinance "addresses a particular and localized problem on Territory Road." The nation says several old mobile homes on that road may not meet nation codes and could be dangerous to residents.
© 2002 The Post-Standard.
November 11, 2001
Oneida residents say casino no jackpot for them
ONEIDA: The success of an Indian casino has left many feeling they were dealt a bad hand.
By John Milgram, Ottaway News Service
There's a sign on the front door of the Kwik-Fill convenient mart on Main Street here that reads, "We have not been sold to the Oneida Indian Nation."
"Not" is underlined.
"Our business has tripled since that sign went up," said the clerk, smiling.
It's not hard to figure out why. Resentment toward the Oneida Indian Nation and its sprawling Turning Stone Casino and Resort runs deep in this central New York city of nearly 11,000.
The resort, the only successful one now operating in the state, is about four miles from the city's center. It opened in 1992 and has grown into a 285-room hotel with 90,000 square feet of gaming space and three golf courses.
The Oneida Indian Nation doesn't pay property taxes or collect or pay state sales tax. That status, as well as the Nation's economic success here, has left many with hard feelings.
And there's more reason for tension. Because of a 1794 treaty, the tribe says 390 miles of land surrounding the casino belongs to them, including the City of Oneida and much of Madison and Oneida counties. The tribe even tried to sue individual property owners to re-acquire land, and then filed a lawsuit against the state for back rent.
Now, state leaders have given the go-ahead for up to six new Indian-owned casinos across New York, and three are earmarked for Ulster and Sullivan counties. The Oneidas are interested in building one of them.
Said Frank Riolo, chief operating officer of the Turning Stone Casino Resort: "We feel there is an opportunity there."
Economics 'overshadowed'
Things are a bit different in the Catskills, where the Oneidas have no land claims. If they build, it will be on land taken into trust by the federal government. Also, Sullivan County struck a deal with the St. Regis Mohawks and their partners, Park Place Entertainment, requiring their casino to pay the county $15 million annually. They're also banned from selling gasoline and cigarette cartons on site. The Oneidas could face similar restrictions.
"I wish we had a program like that," lamented Rocky DiVeronica, chairman of the Madison County Board of Supervisors. "We're happy 3,000 people are employed, but it doesn't make up for the shortfall."
Turning Stone hasn't been all bad for the area. Phyllis Montague-Harris, of the Greater Oneida Chamber of Commerce, said employment opportunities can't be ignored, and the resort softened the blow from the closing of Griffis Air Force Base in nearby Rome.
Restaurants have also enjoyed spillover business, but "the economic impact is all overshadowed by the land claim and tax sovereignty issues," she said.
Regular unleaded gasoline, for example, was $1.239 at the Sav-On Indian-owned convenience center at Turning Stone, but $1.299 at the
Kwik-Fill.
"We've seen several small, local merchants either sell out to the Indians or go out of business because they can't compete," said Montague-Harris.
Of seven gas stations in the city, the Kwik-Fill is one of two not bought out by the tribe. The two non-Indian shops are the only ones part-time Oneida Mayor James Chappell, a prison chaplain by day, allows city employees to patronize.
The Oneida Nation also recently bought three marinas on Oneida Lake and a small airport. Each no longer pays land taxes.
Mark Emery, an Oneida spokesman, said things like the $63 million resort payroll (the tribe is the largest employer in the two counties) gets overlooked, as does the $30 million in business the tribe does with 664 local vendors.
Also, he said, since 1998 the tribe has given $2.7 million to local schools, $70,000 to the fire district and $350,000 to build a new town hall in Vernon.
"It's always boiled down to the tax issue," said Emery. "For a small group of people it goes beyond that. It's hate."
"Residents in the community want to shoot the sons-of-bitches," said a man working the counter at Murphy's who, like others there, asked that his name not be used. But others were more pragmatic.
"I'm trying to get a job there," said one man, eating a quick lunch with his wife. "It's about the only place around here you can get a job."
October 30, 2001
Casino case raises issues of money, politics
Contributions coincide with favorable decisions
By Sean P. Murphy, Globe Staff
MONTICELLO, N.Y. - Arthur Goldberg, owner of Caesars, Bally's, and other casinos in Atlantic City, knew a threat when he saw one: When an Indian tribe, the St. Regis Mohawks, announced plans last year to build a casino in Monticello - an hour closer to New York City than his casinos - Goldberg knew his business would suffer.
But Goldberg, a fund-raiser for the Democratic Party, had friends in high places. Pretty soon he was arranging meetings with President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore. Then came a cascade of ''soft money'' contributions to the Democrats.
Over a five-month period following the April 2000 announcement of the Mohawk casino deal, Clinton's Bureau of Indian Affairs made several unusual decisions helpful to Goldberg. First, the bureau withdrew the federal government's longstanding support for the group of Mohawks who planned the casino in Monticello; instead, the bureau backed a group of tribal leaders allied with Goldberg; and finally, the bureau intervened to help prevent the enforcement of a Mohawk tribal court's $1.8 billion judgment against Goldberg for interfering in tribal affairs.
On the very day - Oct. 6, 2000 - that the Bureau of Indian Affairs issued a letter declaring that the tribal court had no authority, Goldberg's company contributed $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee. It was the second time a Goldberg contribution was registered on the day of a decision favorable to him.
Now, 12 months after Goldberg's death and nine months after the end of the Clinton administration, the original Mohawk leaders are challenging the Bureau of Indian Affairs' actions in court. The outcome could determine the flow of potentially billions of dollars in gaming revenues.
In the fast-growing world of Indian gaming, with annual receipts now over $12 billion, decisions made by political appointees in the Bureau of Indian Affairs can clear the way for tribes to build casinos, or block them entirely.
In the Clinton administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was headed by Kevin Gover and his top deputy, Michael J. Anderson, both former Clinton-Gore fund-raisers. Their decisions spurning the recommendations of staff genealogists to approve tribes for gaming have come under sharp scrutiny by Congress and the Bush administration.
But no case has raised the issue of money and politics in Indian gaming more directly than that of the St. Regis Mohawks.
''Arthur Goldberg reached right into the government to protect his Atlantic City casinos by controlling gaming in New York state,'' said Robert Berman, a businessman who headed the group planning the Mohawk casino at the Monticello Raceway. ''It's obvious that if you put a casino up here, Atlantic City has problems.''
Declared Berman, ''Goldberg bought access to the top political decision-makers and got the results he wanted.''
But representatives of Park Place Entertainment, the casino company that Goldberg once headed, strongly object. They say the Bureau of Indian Affairs withdrew its support for the group of Mohawk leaders allied with Berman because of a lack of popular support for that tribal government.
Any suggestion the BIA switched sides ''as a result of political contributions is utterly without factual foundation and is absurd,'' a lawyer for Park Place said.
Gover, the former BIA head, also insists his decision was not politically influenced.
The Mohawk have been recognized by the United States as a sovereign nation for over 200 years on their vast Akwesasne Reservation, which stretches from the northern Adirondack Mountains in New York into Quebec.
In the late 1980s, dire economic conditions on Indian reservations prompted Congress and the Supreme Court to give their blessings to Indian casinos.
By the mid '90s, New York state officials, who watched with frustration as New Yorkers crossed state lines to spend ever-increasing sums in Atlantic City and at the new Indian gaming palaces in Connecticut, recommended that tribes be invited to open casinos in the most economically distressed areas of New York, such as the Catskills, where once-magnificent resorts are now shuttered. The state could share as much as 25 percent of the gross, as Connecticut does from its Indian casinos.
An opportunity for investors
Non-Indian investors such as Berman jumped at the chance to recruit a tribe into the Catskills. Tribes such as the Oneida, Cayuga, and Seneca were courted by investors like royalty.
Berman signed an agreement with the Mohawks, purchased the racetrack in Monticello, and set about wending his way through years of environmental reviews.
But not without catching the eye of casino magnates Donald Trump and Goldberg, each of whom controlled about one-third of the $4 billion Atlantic City market. Goldberg's friend, Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, came out publicly against Berman's deal.
Trump last year paid a $250,000 fine to the New York Lobbying Commission for failing to publicly disclose his role in trying to undercut public support for the Catskills deal by giving a negative portrayal of the Mohawks in advertisements.
On the Mohawk reservation, meanwhile, the Bureau of Indian Affairs worked to adopt a written constitution and an independent judiciary. Elected by a slim majority and recognized by the bureau, the new constitutional government faced an immediate challenge from the previous government, in which power was concentrated in the hands of three chiefs. The chiefs charged that a 51 percent majority was needed for passage of the constitution. Only 50.9 percent voted for it.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs stood firm with the constitutional government through several years of appeals, but eventually, in 1999, a federal judge ruled that 50.9 percent did not equal 51 percent, even in a practical sense, and cited the three chiefs' growing popular support.
The bureau began the process of appeal, and, in internal documents authored by federal prosecutors acting on behalf of the bureau, the judge's decision was called ''erroneous.'' By then, Berman was within months of approval to convert the racetrack into a casino. Berman had agreed in writing to work with whichever tribal leaders prevailed in the legal wrangling.
Shift comes suddenly
But then something unexpected happened. A week after the Berman group received final Bureau of Indian Affairs approval for the casino, the three chiefs' government, in power pending the appeal, abandoned Berman and signed with Goldberg's company, which promised a bigger casino on a different site, once he had received the necessary state and federal approvals.
Stunned, the tribe's constitutional government vowed to fight.
Gover, then the head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, acknowledged last week that he felt pressure ''by both sides'' for and against the appeal - which now would determine whether Berman's or Goldberg's faction controlled the tribe. Gover said it was a close decision, but he decided the three chiefs had gained more popular support.
''We made the decision on the merits,'' he said. ''There was nothing nefarious about it.''
Gover, a lawyer/lobbyist who was appointed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs' top job after years of fund-raising for Clinton, is now representing gaming tribes for a Washington law firm. While in office, he said, he made it a point not to know who was making political contributions. Asked about Arthur Goldberg, he said he didn't know who he was.
But Berman and the Mohawks' constitutional government find that response isn't credible. Documents indicate that while Gover was weighing his decision on the appeal, Goldberg was reaching out to his many political contacts. In June 2000, Torricelli and Jon Corzine, then running for Senate in New Jersey and a recipient of campaign contributions from Goldberg, arranged meetings for Goldberg with Clinton and Gore, according to written phone logs kept by Goldberg's secretary and subpoenaed by the New York Lobbying Commission.
A series of donations
On June 28, 2000, for example, Corzine left a message with Goldberg's secretary saying that he ''does not mean to be pushy but he has to know before the meeting with the president if he can count on you for $16,000.'' In fact, Goldberg contributed $16,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Aug. 30, 2000, the day a court official accepted the Bureau of Indian Affairs' request to drop the appeal. The records of donations are listed by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington-based group that posts on its Web site political donations disclosed in Federal Election Commission records.
A Corzine spokesman said Corzine never discussed any casino business with Goldberg.
Earlier in the summer, a Goldberg company affiliate, the Hilton Flamingo, had given the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee $25,000, and Hilton Hotels, from which Park Place originated and remains affiliated, contributed $10,000 each to the Democratic senatorial and congressional committees.
Meanwhile, Goldberg's company was trying to fight off a huge court judgment against it. A group of tribe members sued the company in Mohawk tribal court - a court set up with the help of the Bureau of Indian Affairs - saying the company had interfered with tribal business. The court agreed, setting a whopping damage figure of $1.8 billion in lost casino revenues.
The three chiefs, with Park Place's encouragement, passed a resolution repealing the tribal court, according to documents. Still, a federal court judge refused to accept the repeal and ruled in favor of the judgment.
On Sept. 22, 2000, the three chiefs met with Anderson, Gover's deputy, and asked for a letter stating that the tribal court had no authority in the eyes of the federal government.
Three days later, the wife of Goldberg's general counsel, Clive Cummis, contributed $5,000 to the Democratic Naional Committee; on Sept. 26, the three chiefs' lawyer, Bradley Waterman, contributed $500 to the DNC; and one day later, Cummis and his law firm each contributed $5,000 to the Democratic National Committee, and Hilton Hotels contributed $2,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
On Oct. 6, Anderson sent his letter saying the tribal court had no authority, and Goldberg's company contributed $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee.
Anderson's letter was immediately used by Goldberg's lawyers fighting to get the $1.8 billion judgment against the company dismissed. The case is now pending before a federal appeals court. Anderson has gone on to a job as a Washington-based lawyer/lobbyist, and in fact has worked closely with the three chiefs since leaving office.
Anderson did not return phone calls. Representatives of Clinton, Gore, and Torricelli did not respond to questions.
But in Monticello, where a casino was supposed to open in spring 2002, there is suspicion. Goldberg's plan for a casino in the Catskills still lacks the necessary approvals.
Unemployment is high. Times are hard. Many contend that Goldberg never intended to build a casino, so long as he could stop the one planned by Berman, thus assuring Atlantic City's rule over the New York gambling market.
''People wanted the casino for the jobs,'' said Valerie Caruso of Monticello. ''We're an impoverished community. But somehow it got taken away, and I know politics had something to do with it, somehow.''
Waterman, the lawyer for the three chiefs, said there was no connection between the soft money contributions by Park Place and its associates and a desire to affect Bureau of Indian Affairs policy. ''I've never heard any suggestion of an attempt to influence the bureau,'' he said.
Asked about his own $500 contribution, Waterman said he did so because he supported Al Gore for president.
October 6, 2001
Landowners' lawyer asks feds to step in
He presents scenario in which his clients may face individual claims in Oneidas' case.
By Juliana Gittler
The Madison-Oneida Landowners and the lawyers representing the group hope the federal government will intercede to end the risk of land claim awards.
John B. Carroll, chief counsel to the group, said Friday that if the results of a recent award in the Cayuga Indian land claim were extended to other land claims - such as the one the Oneida Nation has filed for 270,000 acres in Madison and Oneida counties - the state would owe billions.
If that happens, and the state refuses to pay, landowners could face individual claims, he said. The federal government has said landowners are not responsible in land claims, but no legislation has been enacted to enforce that, Carroll said.
If the Oneidas do come after individual landowners, Carroll said, they will fight back as one. "We're going to go down together," Carroll said.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Neal P. McCurn ruled the state owes the Cayuga Nation $211 million in interest, added onto $36.9 million in compensation a jury awarded for land taken about 200 years ago.
Using the value of approximately $3,800 per acre for the Cayuga claim, Carroll determined the state cost for the Oneida claim would be $1 billion. The Onondaga and Seneca nations have also filed or considering claims that would cost the state more than $4 billion, Carroll estimated.
Carroll and the 2,700 or more landowners he represents hope Congress will pass a law to stop the claims or legally free landowners from liability.
There are differences between the Cayuga and Oneida claims, but the value of each acre would be about the same Carroll said.
In the Cayuga claim, a federal court jury in February 2000 awarded the Cayugas $36.9 million for compensation for 64,000 acres in Cayuga and Seneca counties.
The state and federal governments and the Cayugas had argued for different compensation amounts, based on their own formulas. The state argued the interest amount should be no more than $12.1 million. The Justice Department, acting on behalf of the Cayugas, suggested an interest award of $527.5 million. The Cayugas said interest should be $1.7 billion.
State and local officials called McCurn's decision excessive and said they plan to appeal.
The case could set a precedent for the Oneida and other land claims in New York.
Carroll said if the state does decide to pay, taxpayers will shoulder the costs, unless the federal government intervenes.