The Honorable Ralph Eannace
The Honorable Rocky DiVeronica

April 13, 2000

Dear County Executive Eannace and Chairman DiVeronica:

We believe the land claim should and can be settled. It is worth remembering that the land claim is about what compensation the Oneidas should receive for the loss of their land.

To summarize what you said in your April 7th "open letter", the Counties reject a settlement that has the following terms:

* $45 million to be paid to the Counties to eliminate disputes over sales and property taxes.

* The Oneidas' agreement only to acquire land from willing sellers in free market transactions amounting to no more than 40,000 acres out of the 270,000 acre reservation involved in the land claim

The problem now is that the Counties and the State will not agree to settle unless they receive money. It seems absurd for defendants who lost the lawsuit to insist on the plaintiff paying them. The impasse we face is not about what the Oneidas should receive, but about what the Counties and the State are demanding for themselves.

Nonetheless, once again, in the hope of getting a settlement, we will agree to limit land purchases to a maximum of 40,000 acres, including what is already owned. That is only 15% of the 270,000 acres in the land claim.

On the tax issue, $45 million is a lot of money, especially because in our current offer we are not demanding you pay the rent you owe us. Twenty-five million dollars of it is for property taxes, which the Supreme Court says the Counties are not entitled to get. And $20 million of it is $1 million a year for 20 years, offered to settle the controversy over sales taxes which the Supreme Court has said the State cannot force the Nation to collect.

Remember, the Supreme Court already has decided that local governments owe rent to the Nation with respect to public lands in the Counties, and we calculate that the rent, if it were paid by all Counties and local governments, would amount to more than $3 million a year. Our settlement position eliminates that obligation completely and gives the Counties $45 million on top of it. That is a compromise as well as a good deal. The Counties should not walk away from this offer and force further litigation and a trial where you would get nothing.

Actions speak louder than words, notwithstanding the Counties' recent and regrettable efforts to politicize the public safety by threatening the deputization agreements and law enforcement. Moreover, on the marina dredging issue, most area politicians proceeded without knowing, or deliberately ignored, the facts and the law, criticizing the Nation unfairly. The Counties should take a reasonable approach to the land claim settlement and reevaluate their settlement demands.

No settlement exists that will be perfect to either side. Compromises have to be made by both sides if we ever expect to reach a settlement. More fundamentally, the Counties' sales tax and property tax revenue collections are increasing every year because of Oneida economic and job development. The value of land, household wealth and taxable transactions involving local businesses and tourists to the region has swelled the Counties' tax collection. If the land claim settlement produces an additional $45 million for the Counties, that will be just another handsome benefit to the Counties produced by the presence of the Nation.

It is time to stop playing politics and get down to the business of settling this dispute.

Ray Halbritter

Nation Representative
Oneida Indian Nation