California voters will decide on four propositions that if passed would potentially expand the Indian gaming industry, an issue that is contested among Berkeley residents.

On Feb. 5, Californians will vote on Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97, and choose to overturn or uphold gaming compact amendments between the state and four California Indian tribes.

The compact would allow four Southern California tribes-Agua Caliente, Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians and Morongo Band of Mission Indians­-to increase the number of slot machines at their casinos, among other things.

"In reality, these are the best agreements the state has ever entered into with any Indian gaming tribes," said Roger Salazar, spokesperson for the Coalition to Protect California's Budget & Economy, a group in favor of the propositions.

But Berkeley City Council members oppose the propositions, saying that the agreements do not follow environmental requirements set by the state.

The separate agreements were originally negotiated, passed through the state legislature and signed by the governor to take effect by the beginning of 2008, but were put on hold to allow California voters to decide their fate.

If passed, the propositions would amend a 1999 casino compact originally made between 58 tribes and the state by allowing the four Indian tribes to increase the number of slot machines at their casinos.

The propositions also require the tribes to provide more money to the state annually-up to $131.2 million from the current $77 million-to aid support programs and smaller, federally-recognized tribes across the state.

But some say that if passed, the propositions in their current form contain loopholes that would allow the tribes to allocate less money to the state than what they are promising.

"The tribes themselves are coming up with these figures, there's no questioning of it allowed," said Scott Macdonald, spokesperson for the No on the Unfair Gambling Deals campaign. "The only thing the state can do is check the addition."

But those in favor of the propositions said opposition to the agreements are backed by corporations that seek to squash the competition that would be posed by the tribes.

"The only reason these agreements are on the ballot in the first place is because those wealthy gaming interests are trying to kill the agreements to kill competition," Salazar said.

Some local Native Americans have voiced support for the propositions, which they say is an example of supporting the autonomy of tribes.

"Native American people, on their own sovereign lands, should be able to decide what kind of business to have on their land and how to make money," said Corrina Gould, a member of the Bay Area-based Muwekma Ohlone tribe, who spoke on her own behalf.

The proposition would require tribes to create reports about their casinos' environmental impacts on the surrounding communities that would be up for public review.

However Berkeley City Council member Kriss Worthington said the propositions do not provide enough environmental, labor or financial protections, and that the propositions would only benefit a few of the state's Native American tribes.

"If we're going to have a deal it should be with all the tribes and not just rich tribes who give money to 'some politician,'" Worthington said. "Under this scenario, I think there's almost no benefit to Native Americans in Berkeley and the Bay Area."

Tags: ELECTIONS 2008, PROPOSITIONS, ELECTIONS