Millions at stake in casino fight
Millions at stake in Lawton casino fight
By Tony Thornton
Comments 
3
Published: May 9, 2008
LAWTON — For the past 15 years, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe has been a fly in the Comanche Nation's ointment.
Multimedia
More Info
Jeff Houser, chairman of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, stands inside his tribe's newly renovated casino in Lawton. By TONY THORNTON, The Oklahoman
Dispute has numerous tentacles
As with most legal issues involving Indian land, this one is complex. Its origins predate the time of Oklahoma's statehood.
The Fort Sill Apaches were held at Fort Sill as prisoners of war from 1894 to 1914.
Upon their release, 84 of the surviving 271 tribe members remained in Oklahoma. To provide them a home, the federal government acquired land allotments from members of other tribes, including the Comanches.
The result is that members of different tribes became adjoining landowners.
The half-acre in Lawton, where the Fort Sill Apache casino sits, originally was under Comanche jurisdiction. Ultimately the Fort Sill Apaches bought it and had it placed into federal trust without Comanche consent in the mid-1990s, Norman said.
The Comanche Nation sued in 2005. A settlement approved last year essentially forgave the Fort Sill Apaches and the Bureau of Indian Affairs for any past wrongs. But it also prohibits the smaller tribe from obtaining any more trust land in Oklahoma without the Comanches' consent.
Trust land status is required for a tribe to build a casino.
To get around that restriction, Jeff Houser, the chairman of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe, negotiated a lease for 10 acres east and south of the casino. That land, leased from survivors of a Comanche allottee, is being used for overflow parking and for the casino's heating and air conditioning units, Houser said. It also was used to store construction equipment during a recent renovation of the casino.
However, some members of the allottee's family now object to the lease and refer to Houser's tribe as "trespassers.”
Why are they upset?
They are upset in part because of the price: $1,000 a year.
They complained to the area Bureau of Indian Affairs office, which issued a cease and desist order against Houser's tribe.
Norman said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is required to obtain the best lease price for Indian land owners.
But the price Houser negotiated breaches that requirement, he said.
Houser claims elected Comanche leaders are behind the family's complaints. He also maintains the bureau sided with the Comanches without considering his tribe's response.
Surveyors representing either the family or the Comanche Nation planted stakes this week around the casino and used spray paint to illustrate where they say Houser's tribe is trespassing.
Millions could be at stake
If the initial Bureau of Indian Affairs ruling is upheld, Houser's tribe would lose 130 parking spots, most of which were filled on a recent Tuesday.
Nott, the casino manager, said his 330 machines average $300 each in daily revenue after paying winners.
That figures to nearly $100,000 a day or $36 million a year, before paying salaries and other operating expenses.
Houser plans to expand the casino to more than 800 games by building a second floor. With that number, Nott predicts the casino will net $40 million a year after expenses.
A half-mile west, along Interstate 44, the Comanches operate a 700-machine casino.
The Lawton area probably can support both tribes' casinos, mainly because of its transient military population, said Keith Kuhlman, director of real estate management for the state Commissioners of the Land Office, which is leasing the 10 adjoining acres to the Fort Sill Apaches for the future hotel and restaurant.
Norman, the Comanches' attorney, said the idea that both casinos can co-exist ignores the larger issue, which he said is a pattern of "encroachments” by the Fort Sill Apaches.
"This is not an issue of competition between two businesses,” Norman said. "It's more about the fact that the Comanches feel very passionately that they don't want another tribe taking away their sovereignty or their authority over their own land.”
Related Topics:
Special Interest Groups, Native American Issues
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
Any successful Indian Gaming business supports both natives and non-natives. It couldn't succeed merely using natives.
What law are you referring to? Your insinuation that a law has been broken is ill informed.