One stereotype, which various tribes actually use to market themselves on, is that a core value for any Indian is the health of the land or a connection to the land (check out the Foxwoods logo, for example). Well, let us look at reality, shall we?
Another stereotype is that Indians are stupid and lazy. What is clear from above is that these tribes and others are quite willing and capable of jumping feet first into big time capitalism.
I was disappointed that the article didn’t address whether there is any dissention within any of these tribes regarding how their money is invested. Golf courses might be great investments, but they’re not environmentally responsible. Leasing space to big box retailers creates income, but we all know about the Wal-Mart effect. Does anyone in the tribes worry about such things?
The article also does not address the effect of new influxes of cash on previously dirt poor communities. Perhaps this is too big of a subject for this one article to tackle, but I do wonder. Not that I think that the money shouldn’t go to the tribal members no matter what, but it would be good to know if there is a down side for them as well as an up side.
Whatever effect these casinos have on the economy of the state and the welfare of the non-Indian communities they are in or near, they (can) have a tremendously positive economic effect on the tribes. I hope this is being factored into peoples mental equations.
Based on your comment on “core value for any Indian is the health of the land or a connection to the land” it seems that your position is that all development is anti-environment. Please correct me if I am wrong.
<
p>You go on to say that golf courses are not environmentally friendly. This is just not true. Yes golf courses use pesticides and herbicides. So do farms. Most of that use was also done before we as a society understood the negative affects of using those chemicals. There are plenty of environmentally friendly golf courses (http://www.goodmoney.com/golf.html). Also, now that the affects to the environment are more known, golf courses are taking this into consideration during the initial design. One last thing on golf courses, the open space of the courses allows for large amounts of rain and run-off water to infiltrate and recharge the groundwater table, often in well developed areas where open space is scarce. One last thing on the golf course, this one is already developed so buying an already developed piece of land (brown fields) is actually good for the environment, because you are leaving undeveloped spaces (green fields) alone. Especially if you then operate or redevelop the property in an environmentally responsible way.
<
p>Also, you bring up the Wal-Mart effect(highly recommend this book) as a negative, but this is also a positive for the environment. Wal-Mart has one of the most efficient distribution systems in the world and uses less energy to get the products to the consumer. Another example of the positive environmental impact from Wal-Mart is roll-on deodorant. Prior to Wal-Mart roll-on deodorant was sold in card board boxes with color printing of the product. For many reasons (to reduce the cost of the item, to have them take up less space on the shelf, to reduce the weight during transport so more could be shipped in the same truck, etc.) Wal-Mart insisted if the roll-on deodorant companies wanted to sell to Wal-Mart, they would have to do so with out the card board box. End result, less card board being used, less fuel used for transportation and a more environmentally friendly product.
<
p>Not knowing alot of specifics about the other three items you mentioned I don’t know weather or not they are negative or positive to the environment. I will say this, deep water sea ports are not always bad. On the west coast they may not need dredging, what is previously located at the area where the port is to be built may be worse and deep water ports allow larger ships which are usually more efficient then the smaller ones (that’s why they build them). Having just visited Las Vegas for New Year’s, I can’t believe that any development on the strip is of significant environmental concern. And speaking from how I make my living (cleaning up after gas stations and other polluters) gas stations can be constructed in an environmentally friendly way and be a big improvement to what was there prior to the construction of the gas station.
<
p>Also, you bring up the Wal-Mart effect I believe in reference to negative impacts on the local economy and jobs, yet you don’t acknowledge the positive economic and job impacts from the port development even though those are mentioned in the article.
<
p>So to bring this back to whether these things are being considered in the debate for or against casinos in Mass, I hope so. We have rules (wetlands protection act, chapter 21e, etc.) that protects much of the environment from negative impacts to the environment and incentives (the US EPA Brownfields program and other tax incentives) that promote environmentally friendly development. Also, the main point of the article is that tribes are not just sticking with casinos and are diversifying their profits into other areas of the economy that are have positive effects for people in that community that are not members of the tribe. (Sounds like a good example of supply side economics to me.) Large investments like the port project is exactly what Mass needs.
to remind people that “the tribes” are more than just stereotypical icons and potential stooges for the casino developers. they are composed of real people who deserve as much individual consideration in the process as their non-indian neighbors.
<
p>since what i personally think about development, brownfield golf courses, etc. is irrelevant to that, i respectfully decline to answer your questions. feel free to take or leave any editorializing i inserted into the diary.
but in addition to offering up an interesting article, you editorialized. You even admit this. I responded to your editorial and now you want to say, “what i personally think about…is irrelevant.”
<
p>Bull Shit!!
<
p>You could have simply made a post that said “hey check out this article while you think about casinos in Mass” but you choose to take the time to put together what was in my opinion a thoughtful post. I then choose to engage in discussion on some of the subjects you put in your post. Now you want to say your opinions you put into your post are “irrelevant”.
<
p>Personally I see this as being intellectually cowardly.
<
p>I would never add editorial to a post and not expect to defend it when challenged. If I for instance, just an example I do not believe this, made a comment in your “some republicans I admire” post that said, “it doesn’t matter because being gay is a mental defect and soon science will fix that”. You would jump all over me and never except “hey my personal views about gays are irrelevant so i respectfully decline to answer any of your questions.”
<
p>Nor would I expect you to. That is one of the main reasons I post on sites like BMG instead of RMG or RedState, etc. I want to be challenged on my positions because it makes me think out them and sometimes change them.