Recently, Tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta said in response to the question regarding whether the Chumash plan to build a second casino on the Camp 4 property, “Absolutely no.”
That makes me feel much better.
However, when asked what “economic development” plans the tribe had for the Camp 4 property beyond building homes for members, Mr. Armenta said he couldn’t say, since it wasn’t his decision, that any decision regarding future economic development would be made by the entire 140 enrolled tribal members.
Now I start to get confused. How could Mr. Armenta say “absolutely no” to construction of a second casino, while also saying future economic development on Camp 4 is not his decision? What exactly is he saying?
To make things worse, Mr. Armenta says it doesn’t make economic sense for the tribe to build a second casino. I would be surprised to find out the tribes operating casinos don’t talk with each other. So, he must know a number of other tribes operate two or more casinos. How could it make economic sense for them and not for the Chumash?
Several years ago, a number of the California casino tribes entered into an agreement with the state that gave them the right to operate a second or third casino. How could it make economic sense for these other California tribes to operate two or more casinos, and not make economic sense for the Chumash?
If it doesn’t make economic sense for the Chumash to operate a second casino, then why did the tribe enter into the same agreement with the state so they could build and operate a second casino? Why would they demand this right, if operating a second casino made no economic sense?
There is only one casino on one of the heaviest-traveled roads in the country, along the coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles, and that is the Chumash Casino. If it makes economic sense for the Choctaw Tribe to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to build and operate two casinos across the highway from each other in Mississippi, and seven additional casinos in southeastern
Oklahoma, it would seem to make economic sense for the Chumash to operate two casinos in the Santa Ynez Valley, just off Highway 101.
I have a hard time understanding or accepting the lack-of-economic-viability argument Mr. Armenta is making.
Since I am confused about the future economic development efforts relative to Camp 4, you can only imagine my confusion regarding Mr. Armenta’s claim that economic development decisions regarding Camp 4 will be made and approved by the Chumash government. I am not sure how the Chumash government qualifies as any form of representative government, unless you happen to be one of the 140 enrolled members.
As for the argument that the Chumash were the first government, and therefore are somehow superior to our local, state or even federal governments, it reminds me of the argument we used to make as kids with our younger siblings. Since we were older and came first, we were entitled to make up, interpret and enforce our own rules. Hearing this same argument from the leader of the Chumash would almost be laughable, if not for the frightening level of arrogance and hubris reflected by this position.
Again, like many things that the Chumash do, their town hall meeting raised more questions than it answered. I wonder if this isn’t their intent, to deflect, divert and confuse. All I can say is that it sure worked on me. 
 
Kelly Rose is a retired accountant living in Los Olivos