Opinion: Endorsement video: Vote yes on Prop. 48 and let the North Fork tribe build a casino

There’s a temptation to view Proposition 48 as a larger statement on Indian gambling in California. But the ballot measure isn’t a policy question on off-reservation casinos, it’s a referendum on a specific gambling agreement.

Proposition 48 asks voters to OK or reject an agreement that lets the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians build a casino near the Central Valley town of Madera. That’s 38 miles away from the tribe’s established reservation.

A “yes” vote would approve the tribe’s agreement, which was negotiated by Gov. Jerry Brown and approved by the Legislature. A “no” vote would reject that agreement and force the governor to negotiate a new deal with tribe.

The Times Editorial Board recommends a “yes” vote.

First, consider this. Proposition 48 has become a fight between the tribes that have casinos and the tribes that want them.

Tribes in the Central Valley that have casinos, and their financial backers, have spent $16 million to put Proposition 48 on the ballot in an attempt to block a competitor. (The spending tally has increased by $2 million since Times video was shot and it will probably go up more before election day.)

That said, our endorsement was still a difficult decision because we don’t want to see a boom in off-reservation casinos. California already has 70 casinos on established reservations. The North Fork project would become the first casino built off of an existing reservation.

But given the decade-long approval process the tribe went through and the unique circumstances of this deal, we’re not convinced this project is going to set a dangerous precedent for California.

The North Fork tribe tried to develop a casino on its rancheria near Yosemite. But land is environmentally sensitive and hard to reach by car, so the tribe couldn’t get any interest from the gambling industry.

Federal law allows tribes to acquire new land for gambling if the casino would be in the best interest of the tribe and not be a detriment to the nearby community. The tribe should also show a historic connection to the new property.

The North Fork tribe found 305 acres near in Madera. It worked out a deal with the city and county. It got approval from the federal government and Gov. Brown to take the land off state tax rolls and hold it in trust for a casino. It followed all the rules, fair and square. As part of the deal, the North Fork would share casino revenue with the Wiyot tribe, which agreed not to build a casino on its reservation near a wildlife refuge on Humboldt Bay.

As we said, there are legitimate concerns about off-reservation casinos. We don’t want to see “reservation shopping,” in which tribes try to acquire land for gambling near cities.

But, remember, Proposition 48 doesn’t change the law on off-reservation casinos. It’s a referendum on one gambling agreement, for a tribe that has already gotten permission from feds and the state to acquire new land for casinos. A “no” vote on Prop. 48 does not end the North Fork tribe’s right to develop a casino near Madera. It simply requires the governor to negotiate a new agreement with the tribe.

For more opinions, follow me @kerrycavan