Jamulians Against the Casino
 
Newsletter
New Format April 2008
Quick Links
 
Our Website
 
Email Government Officials
 
Join Our Mailing List
New Newsletter Format!  We will be sending out this newsletter on a more regular basis.  Hope you like the new style. Please be sure to go to the website www.jacjamul.com for the most recent information.
It has been over a year since the Jamul Tribe evicted Walter Rosales and Karen Toggery. The overriding reason for the evictions was for the construction of their long awaited casino. Looking back we see no progress towards a casino - only increased disharmony in the community. Since that time we've experienced the following:
  • Deceit by the San Diego County Sheriff's department and a subsequent whitewashing of the incident.
  • Lack of support by the San Diego County District Attorney
  • Leon Acebedo removed as the tribal chairman and subsequently landing on his feet as Executive Director of California Nations Indian Gaming Association.
  • Bill Mesa being selected as the new tribal chairman
  • Passage of Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97
Despite all of these negatives there has been no meaningful movement on the development of a casino. During that same period we've also experienced:
  • The transition to a Class II facility due to their inability to provide an adequate EIR
  • The inability of the tribe to obtain an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans.
    • Any Encroachment Permit will require a completed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which requires public commentary as well as taking one to three years for review.
    • This has led to the "road to nowhere" - the driveway the tribe has built that Caltrans has already stated cannot be used for patron traffic. This was developed with the intent of telling stockholders that construction had "begun".
  • The collapse of the stock price of the corporate backer Lakes Entertainment (LACO).
    • 1/1/07 LACO stock was at $10.85
    • 1/1/08 LACO stock was at $6.92 (a drop of 36.2%)
    • 3/11/08 LACO stock was at $4.10 (a drop of 62.2%)
  • Continuing litigation involving:
    • The beneficial owners of the parcels associated with the Indian Village
    • The legitimacy of the current Tribal government
    • Violations of NAGPRA