It's odd that Doreen Farr did not attend the meeting of 600-plus people a few months ago to address the proposed annexation by the Chumash tribe of 1,400 prime acres.
Even more odd is her recent guest commentary in the Valley News, in which Farr educates us with a definition of annexation. I trust that long ago we knew how to define annexation. She also goes on to calculate the loss of taxes to the county.
She says, "It is for these reasons that I am strongly suggesting again that the tribe not pursue a fee-to-trust application. Instead, I would ask that they make an application to the county's Planning and Development Department for whatever they see as the housing needs for their tribal members ..."
I am sure readers are scratching their heads in wonder. In effect, Farr's suggestions to the tribe are without force or effect. I suspect Vince Armenta and others in the leadership contingent are laughing their heads off at this silly proposition.
Theirs is a business deal at the federal level. Unless Farr, the rest of the supervisors and SBCAG were to get on the phone with the feds and do some screaming - probably not worth anything, in any event - not much will happen.
So, what is Farr's opinion piece about, if not simply a transparent political statement with no effect directed at potential voters and constituents?
I have no fight with the tribe or its members. Theirs is an extraordinary history, their culture and myths are fascinating and one has only to read about the many betrayals they have suffered to feel empathetic. They are fortunate enough to have substantial incomes from the casino. Perhaps that is their due.
However, annexation is destructive to the county, and communication with our federal representatives seems the only recourse.
In a follow-up meeting at the casino, we were told the reason for annexation was to "preserve the tribe as a family and to provide housing for its members ..." A slide was shown of the homes constructed on the reservation in the 1970s.
Indeed, they are very close together and without much property. We wonder why this should be an issue if, as rumored, each tribal member receives a very large amount of money each year from their share of casino operations. It would follow that members would have the wherewithal to acquire or build homes in the area. Why would annexation be a prerequisite to doing that?
I challenge Mrs. Farr to call a meeting, at an appropriate time and date to accommodate working people, and have it in the Veteran's Hall in Solvang. At this meeting, I would like to see some leadership and participation by her in this and other issues. I would like to know what she feels about the tribe's proposal to stipulate an amount of money, in lieu of taxes, the county might decide to accept.
I would also like to know what action she is taking to stop the nonsensical and burdensomely expensive sign ordinance controversy in Los Olivos, a problem that could easily pop up everywhere in the Valley, given the mysterious complainants and their nuisance aggression.
If Supervisor Farr is engaged with her district at all, besides the South Coast and Isla Vista, I would like to see her here, in the Valley, demonstrating action and results in those things that matter to us, not political advertising.
Lee Rosenberg lives in Solvang.