Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro today issued the following statement in reaction to news of the resubmission of the Liberty Quarry, a massive mine that would annihilate the one and only Luiseño Ancestral Origin Area.
"This crass attempt to jam through the Liberty Quarry mine is unconscionable and nothing short of skullduggery. The citizens of Riverside County deserve better from their supervisors. We hope the Board will deny fast-tracking this deeply flawed project."
"Our Tribe remains committed to preventing annihilation of our one and only Creation Area"
Uh, sure Mark. We believe you.
Contact the other party and do TV spots for them,.. to prove marks a liar.
ReplyDeleteWhats their number?
Sacred Sites , Pechanga you don't even let pechanga indians pray at their families graves.
ReplyDeleteblah ,blah,blah.......jive turkey's
They had banished the son of Fred Magee.
ReplyDeleteThe Munoas stood idly by while their blood was screwed by Frances Miranda and the Masiel-Basquez crime family.
This idiot chief doesn't even live on the reservation right?...if he cared about his people, he would live among them...what?...is he better than them?...the res isn't good enough for him?...he is just a wannabe....and I suppose that golf course didn't ruin any tribal sites?...what a phony...he just can't make any money off of it, so he doesn't want it done by somebody else!
ReplyDeletethe manoas are just as greedy
ReplyDeleteNo Macarro does not live on the reservation and he never has lived there.
ReplyDeleteMacarro made the same argument to the United States congress and to the U.S. Department of Interior about the Great Oak Ranch property, where part of the Journey at Pechanga golf course now sits, that he is now using regarding the Liberty Quarry project that, by the way, I am against.
Let the public record speak for itself regarding Macarro's environmental and cultural behavior.
Below is from the United States congressional record, April 17, 2002:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_house_hearings&docid=f:78759.wais
Mr. Hayworth. "Thank you, Mr. Avery.
Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans
for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?"
Mr. Macarro. "No, we don't. As stated in our application to
Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change
of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to
preserve and protect the resources that are there."
Mr. Hayworth. "Without objection, we would welcome that.
Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record, Mr.
Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for
gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just
outlined?"
Mr. Macarro. No, the tribe does not."
Doesn’t the golf course run though sacred and tribal historical sites? So if they have no respect for sites on their own land why the false concern for the quarry. Is it a money issue?
ReplyDeleteTechnically the golf course isn't built on top of culturally significant sites but it is built around creation and old village sites, adjacent to them.
ReplyDeleteThe thing is even though they can say such sites were preserved and, I guess, they wouldn't be lying, they also made a big deal about not touching environmently sensitive areas which are now gone forever.
Macarro said no changes at all would be made to the land if it was made part of the reservation but changes were obviously made to it and the golf course is proof.
Cut and paste the link to his testimony in front of the congressional resources committee from 2002 to see how he was trying to sound environmently responsible.
Let the public record speak for itself.
Below is from the United States congressional record, April 17, 2002:
Mr. Hayworth. "Thank you, Mr. Avery.
Chairman Macarro, does the Pechanga Tribe have any plans
for development of any kind on the Great Oak Ranch property?"
Mr. Macarro. "No, we don't. As stated in our application to
Interior/BIA, we stated or have designated there is no change
of use in the property, and the intended use and purpose is to
preserve and protect the resources that are there."
Mr. Hayworth. "Without objection, we would welcome that.
Just one follow-up, and for purposes of the record, Mr.
Chairman, does the tribe plan to use the Great Oak Ranch for
gaming purposes or any purposes other than what you have just
outlined?"
Mr. Macarro. No, the tribe does not."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_house_hearings&docid=f:78759.wais
In response to bad publicity Pechanga was getting for making changes to the Great Oak Ranch property after promises were made not to make any changes to it Pecahnga general council John Macarro, the brother of Mark, said, "Once the land is placed in trust, a tribe has complete zoning and planning authority over it and can change land uses just as a county or city can change or update its general plan or zoning designations."
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_casino24.3135a70.html
So, in effect, John Macarro was saying we can say we are not going to do any development at all to get the land into trust but once we have it in trust we can now do whatever we want even if it means going back on our word.
One of our critics once said that all we do is bad mouth certain officials at Pechanga but we don't have to bad mouth them as all we have to do is quote their own words and compare them to their actions and let those words and actions speak for themselves.
So you just play though or tee off next to significant site like a minager golf.
ReplyDeleteBut if you hit into the rough, you may risk stepping on some bone fragments? As beautiful as Journey at Pechanga is, in a way, it is ugly.
ReplyDeleteSo, the fairways are not on culturally significant sites...but the rough or out of bounds areas are culturally significant?
ReplyDeleteWhat utter bullshit.
I meant to say that they didn't build directly on the cremation sites or the old village sites but, of course, everything there was culturally significant.
ReplyDeleteCut me some slack, I do try to get my point accross but I am not perfect and I do make mistakes and can word things differently than what I try to say and yes, I am and was against the tribe doing any changes.
Relax, I am on your side and O.P. and everyone else knows this.
You have never written anything that didn't come off as you intended?
You didn't catch me on anything other than you helped me see that I didn't convey the message I was trying to get accross.
The tribe, on the other hand, does try to convey that culturally significant sites were protected but changing the fabric of any of the land they claimed they weren't going to change is wrong.
Fake tribal chief or tribal chairmen & women are a dime a dozen...they are trying out do each other reservations that don't belong to any of them.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry about it, Cuz, for there is always someone who tries to pick the the "Flysh.t Out Of The Pepper."..."Eagle Eyes."
ReplyDelete