Video on what could have been

Please watch this video on what could have been.........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff-jAa_oUCM

WE WON!!!!

PRESS RELEASE


From: Matt Smith <matts@simginc.com>Date: May 21, 2009 6:22:01 PM PDTSubject: Press Release - San Xavier District No Longer Considering Nogales HWY Site for Federal Detention Center.pdf - Adobe Acrobat Professional
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, May 21, 2009
Contact: Peter Delgado, (520) 383-2028
Matt Smith, (520) 321-1111
SAN XAVIER DISTRICT NO LONGER CONSIDERING NOGALES HWY SITE FOR FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER
Tohono O’odham Nation and District Leaders Working Together to Identify Alternative Location
SELLS, AZ --- The San Xavier District of the Tohono O’odham Nation announced today that it is no longer seeking to construct a federal detention center on Nogales Highway, north of Pima Mine Road. The decision comes after an extensive public review process with both the Tohono O’odham Nation and surrounding communities.
The decision was finalized at a meeting that included San Xavier District representatives, the Tohono O’odham Legislative Council and Chairman Ned Norris, Jr. At the meeting, leaders voiced their support for identifying positive economic development opportunities in cooperation with regional planning efforts.
Chairman Ned Norris Jr. said, “The Nation strongly supports economic development and is committed to diversifying the Nation’s economy with projects that provide jobs and opportunities for Nation’s members and nonmembers alike. We are equally committed to pursuing economic development opportunities that compliment and expand the regional and southern Arizona economies.”
The San Xavier District and Tohono O’odham leaders are working together expeditiously to identify an alternative location for the proposed federal detention center. San Xavier District Chairman Austin Nunez said, “We appreciate the leadership role the Tohono O’odham Nation has taken in this process and its commitment to economic development in the San Xavier District. At a more suitable site, the federal detention center will bring hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in positive economic impacts to the area.”
The proposed federal detention center is designed for short-term detention of up to 750 individuals apprehended by the US Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other law enforcement agencies. The San Xavier District is one of eleven districts of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a federally-recognized sovereign tribe. Additional background information on the Tohono O’odham Nation can be found at http://www.tonation-nsn.gov/.
# # #

Quick Update

Articles from today's (5/21) Phoenix morning paper; Small town resisting prison on tribal land and Group's past project investigated by feds



The Mayor has received a written confirmation for a public meeting w/the TON/SXD scheduled for Wednesday May 27 at the Nogales Casino starting at 6pm. If you would like a copy, please request at sahuaritaunited@gmail.com

There are links on the left of this blog with updates from our local media. Please be aware and check often. This article was forward from the Mayor. Sahuarita Sun 5/19

Boycott scheduled for May 23rd @ the DD casino off I-19. We will meet at the North Santa Cruz park at 4:30 to shuttle. There will be 2 shifts contact us @ sahuaritaunited@gmail.com to confirm your time, either 5-6:30pm or 6:30-8pm. We have to stay together and OFF the county road (unfortunately right in front of the casino) for several reason. WE are expecting a great turn out, please inform your neighbors to come support us in the cause. Request an electronic flyer to pass out at sahuaritaunited@gmail.com . Wear bright orange t-shirts. We will have some signs but feel free to make your own - diversity is good!

Voice your opinion and take the poll, "how far is far enough for the proposed detention center?" on the left side of this blog. This information is important. Ask everyone to log in and share their opinion.

We are on facebook. If you want to join our group log on and keep informed via facebook.

WE WOULD LIKE YOUR OPINION

I have a question for people to consider. If the TON/SXD were (this is hypothetical) to move the prison, how far would be far enough? The other locations that they listed on the EA were on the other side of 19 on Pima Mine Rd. just closer to the mine or 3 Points. I need feedback from people on this, so if you would give it some thought and give a response it would be appreciated. We have added a poll on the right side of the blog for your response.

WSU Researcher article

This document was shared at the Town Council Meeting last Monday by the Coopers. When you come across residents or citizens that believe the prison may be a benefit, please direct them to this article for further understanding what a 'detention center' may do to our community.

WSU
Researchers Find Prisons Offer Few Economic Benefits to Small Towns

Monday,
July 19, 2004

PULLMAN,
Wash. -- Throughout a boom in correctional facility
construction that has spanned the past three decades, many of the
nation’s most depressed rural communities have vied to become a
site for new prisons, expecting significant economic benefits would
follow.

As the U.S. prison population grew almost 400 percent
between 1980 and 1998 – to about 1.3 million inmates – it
became widely accepted economic development dogma that communities
that secured prison projects could expect significant economic
rewards.

Although such claims met skepticism among some
social scientists, there was scant evidence available to dispute them
until the publication this year of the results of a research effort
led by Gregory Hooks, chairman of the department of sociology at
Washington State University.

Done in collaboration with WSU
sociologists Clay Mosher and Thomas
Rotolo and Linda Lobao, an Ohio State
University sociologist and recent president of the Rural Sociological
Society – the study turned up some surprising results.

“We
found no evidence that prison expansion has stimulated economic
growth,” Hooks said of the nationwide study that assessed of
the impact of both new and existing prisons over the past 25 years.


In fact, in findings that proved the most dramatic reversal
of conventional wisdom on the subject, the new study concluded that
becoming home to a prison facility may actually hinder economic
development efforts, particularly in rural communities that are
already hard-pressed.

“We provide evidence that
prison construction has actually impeded economic growth in those
rural communities that were already growing at a slower pace.”
Hooks said. “Among slow-growing counties, it appears that new
prisons do more harm than good.”

Unlike prior studies,
which the researchers said relied largely on the perceptions of
business leaders or considered only a small number of study sites,
the most recent research analyzed the economic impacts of prisons on
communities in more than 3,100 counties throughout 48 states.

It
suggests that three major traditional indicators of economic
well-being in rural communities – growth in earnings, per
capita income, and employment – consistently showed relatively
little improvement as the result of local prison construction
throughout the period from 1969 to 1994.

“There is a
visible pattern of earnings and employment growth,” Hooks
noted. “However, those counties without a prison have the
highest annual rate of growth – and those with a newly built
prison grew at the slowest pace.”

While the researchers
suggest additional study is needed to explain why prisons seem to
impede economic growth in some communities, they believe the findings
are an indication small towns may be paying too high a premium in
their efforts to attract such facilities.

“The
increasing practice of host communities competing to provide
incentives is shifting prison infrastructure investment costs from
corrections bureaucracies to local governments,” Hooks said.


“Desperate for jobs, rural counties are diverting large
portions of limited infrastructure budgets to support a correctional
facility,” he said. “As a result, the infrastructure may
become ill-suited for other potential employers, and local
governments may have fewer funds left over for other investments in
the local infrastructure.”

In a follow-up paper that has
yet to be published, WSU’s Mosher worked with sociologists from
Mississippi State University to identify factors that may contribute
to the lack of economic growth experienced in communities that accept
prison facilities.

Led by Peter B. Wood, a sociologist with
the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work at
Mississippi State, this most recent research paper points out that
the vast majority of prison construction jobs, and even the majority
of internal prison jobs – some 60 percent nationally – go
to workers from outside the communities where new prisons are
sited.

“They are most likely to live in a neighboring
community with more amenities and no prison,” Wood said.
“Thus, their consumer behaviors – shopping, banking,
housing, schooling, etc. – usually influence markets outside
the prison community.”

Once a county or community is
known as a “prison town,” discussion of other kinds of
economic development often evaporates, the researchers noted.

Indeed
– in a trend that has had an increasingly detrimental impact on
employment and wages in small communities and elsewhere – the
researchers note that private companies increasingly are hiring
inmates at sub-standard wages in an effort to lower their employment
costs.

“In recent years, inmates have engaged in jobs
ranging from telemarketing to the manufacturing of computer circuit
boards and furniture,” Mosher said. “Prisoners in
California have served as booking agents for Trans World Airlines,
while Microsoft uses convicts to assist in the shipping of Windows
software. Honda pays $2 an hour to prisoners in Ohio to do the same
jobs that members of the United Auto Workers Union were once paid $20
an hour to do.”

The researchers cite several earlier
studies involving companies that have begun employing prisoners, only
to close down their outside operations elsewhere. In one example
researched in 1999, a Texas-based company named American
Microelectronics employed approximately 150 workers at its
headquarters in Austin before shutting down its operations there and
reopening within a Texas prison with an all-inmate workforce.

While
concluding that most of the anticipated economic benefits of housing
prisoners in small communities rarely materialize, the study found
evidence there can be another type of significant financial reward
for small communities willing to host relatively large prison
populations.

“The exception seems to be in towns where
inmates may represent a large proportion or even a majority of the
total population and the town is able to qualify for more state and
federal aid dollars,” Mosher said.

As an example,
researchers cite the case of Florence, Arizona, which recorded a 2000
census population of 17,054 – only 5,224 of whom live outside
local prison walls. With two state prisons, three private prisons,
and a U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center,
prisoners account for 70 percent of the town’s population,
which is the highest nationally of any town of more than 10,000.


Since inmates count as residents for U.S. Census purposes,
the researchers said Florence has twice paid for special recounts to
update its population, each time increasing the town’s share of
state and federal funding, which now amounts to more than $4 million
per year.

But relatively few small communities play host to
such disproportionately large prison populations or enjoy major
windfalls in government funding. And despite prevailing claims and
expectations to the contrary, the statistical data published earlier
this year by Hooks and his colleagues provide strong evidence that
seeking to benefit economically from prison construction can be an
inherently risky proposition.

“Ironically, despite sharp
ideological and intellectual differences, the critics and the
advocates of the prison-construction boom share the assumption that
prisons have contributed to local growth, especially in hard pressed
local areas,” said Hooks. “Regardless of the ideology and
political aims, claims that prison construction accelerates local
economic development fly in the face of mounting evidence that state
and local initiatives rarely impact local growth; and these claims
are contradicted by our analysis.”

Extension & Kyl's office

Extension confirmation
We have written confirmation extending the E.A. (Environmental Assessment) comment response deadline to June 1, 2009.

Letter to Senator Kyl
Also, we have a letter sent to Senator Kyl's office from the Town Manager's office on May 8, 2009.

Email us for your copy at sahuaritaunited@gmail.com

Boycott 5/16 meeting update

Thank you for coming to the park this morning. We had a great turn out. I know the Coopers really appreciate so many of you getting involved & willing to help stop the 'detention center'. For a quick recap...

GREAT NEWS!!!
Pima County Board of Supervisors commented on the EA (Environmental Assessment) report requesting an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) which is:

An environmental impact statement (EIS) under United States environmental law, is a document required by the National Environmental Policy Act for federal government agency actions "significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."^[1] A tool for decision making, an EIS describes the positive and negative environmental effects of proposed agency action - and cites alternative actions. Several US state governments have also adopted "little NEPA's," i.e., state laws imposing EIS requirements for particular state actions, such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

This means there will definitely be a delay in the construction - (we are working hard to make it permanent!)

If you would like a copy of the letter sent to the Coopers from Ramon Valadez please email me at sahuaritaunited@gmail.com

Our county supervisors have done an absolute wonderful job, stopping all they were doing, to put this report out by May 15th. Please take a quick moment and email them your appreciation for their response in our favor.

Ramon Valadez - dist2@pima.gov
Sharon Bronson - district3@pima.gov


Thank you so much for your assistance this day and the days to come. Please tell your neighbors, get everyone involved. We are going to need all the warm bodies we can get for our first protest next Saturday 5/23.


thank you Tom Murphy for the yummy treats!

Have a wonderful weekend!

Julia Whetten

Meeting with TON - CANCELED

Yep! the meeting has been canceled.... indefinitely. Mayor Skelton received a call from Chairman Nunez letting us know that the meeting scheduled for Wednesday May 20th has been canceled. No reason - that we know of - but it's canceled!

We are still planning on meeting on Sat 5/16 @ 9am at the Santa Cruz North end park to discuss our boycotting/picketing strategies. I checked out the Michael's on Irvington, they are out of orange shirts. Hopefully we can find at the Kolb/Broadway store of other local big box stores. We will keep you posted as we are informed.

Email from Sharon Bronson re: EA report

Update from our meeting on Tuesday with the Pima County Board (PCB) Supervisors.

Email:

Thanks for the update. As Ramon (Valadez, our PBC supervisor) indicated, our Public Works staff (Flood Control, Wastewater, Development Services, Natural Resources PRR, Cultural Resources) is preparing comments for the EA. Ramon and I will keep you apprised of the progress. We hope to have comments submitted by tomorrow.

Sharon (Bronson, TON's PCB supervisor)

Organizing Boycott

We will meet this Saturday May 16th @ 9am at the North Santa Cruz park. We will make signs, work out details of when the 2 boycotts will take place. We plan on having everyone at the protest wear bright orange shirts (you can buy them at Micheals for around $5). We are looking at getting funds from developers and anyone else who can help with the cost of supplies. Please if you have any contact information, please assist. At the meeting last Tuesday we were told by a tribal member, who is strongly opposed to the detention center, the TON hates publicity and boycotts.... so if they are unwilling to co-operate at the table, let's take it to the pocket.

See you Sat morning!

UPDATE - Letter to our Mayor

Mayor Skelton just received this letter.....

Dear Mayor Skelton,

This is to inform you that we cannot provide a presentation to your constituents on May 18^th as discussed with you and Mr. Stahle on May 7^th. This is due to scheduling conflicts with some of our development team members.

I propose an alternated date of May 20^th at 6 pm. The other change is that I would prefer having the meeting here in our community center instead of in Sahuarita.

Please let me know your response on this at your earliest convenience.

Also, we are finalizing our written responses to you from our May 7^th meeting and should be sending that out by tomorrow at the latest.

Thank you,

Austin Nunez, Chairman, San Xavier District of the Tohono O'odham Nation

May 15th Deadline

The official document stating we have until May 15th to make our comments! Please write your letters. Go to the clubhouse, sign a letter and let the staff mail it for you. Send your neighbors to the clubhouse, print a copy from below, write your own... get the letter OUT!!!!

http://ci.sahuarita.az.us/images/PDFs/planning/Cover_letter_EA.pdf

5/12 Meeting Update

Today Julia, Kara and I brought our problem before the Pima Co Supervisors, the Mayor and Councilman Sullivan were there for support. Also, in attendance were 2 members of the TON who also oppose the prison being built, for different reasons than ours, but still in opposition to the prison. Also, a gentleman from Humane Borders was there to state their opposition. I am very optimistic about today's meeting and that Pima Co will also begin to look into these "shady" at best dealings between TON/SXD and these Texas wheeler/dealers, along with the obviously error ridden EA report. Also, we just found out that prior info. was incorrect when it was stated that all of the TON/SXD allotees were in favor of the prison and had signed off. This is not true...all of the allotees have NOT signed off in agreement of it being built, and therefore it is NOT a done deal. I truly believe with everyone's help that we can still turn this thing around and keep any type of prison/detention center out of our backyard. There are many things we can do to help out and Julia is updating the blog site with some of them. Thanks everybody for your signatures and voices they are making a difference. PLEASE EVERYONE GO TO THE CLUBHOUSE AND SIGN A LETTER....

MEETING

......REMINDER......
Pima Co. Board Of Supervisors Mtg.
Tomorrow (5/12) @ 9am
130 W. Congress
1st Floor
PLEASE ATTEND IF YOU CAN!

LOOK WHAT WE'RE GETTING....WRITE A LETTER

These are photos from Corplan’s own website of their projects that they are proud of.

This will be your new view if we don’t stop it now.

See post below for letters, address and other contact information. We all need to get involved and CONTACT those who can help us.

WRITE A LETTER!

IMPORTANT! LETTERS MUST BE SENT BEFORE MAY 15TH

It is imperative that we FLOOD the BIA office with letters of concern and disapproval of the proposed detention facility on Pima Mine Road. Below is a sample letter that you can use OR write your own.

PLEASE this important to do BEFORE Friday May 15th!

May 7 , 2009

Nina Siquieros
BIA Circle Dr Building 49
Sells, AZ 85634

Ms. Siquieros,

As of May 1, 2009, we are in receipt of an Environmental Assessment (EA) report and letter commissioned by the Tohono O’Odahm Nation (TON) San Xavier District located in the South West region of Arizona. Certified Environmental Inspectors (CEI) authored the EA. The report outlines issues, if any, for the planned building of a 1500 bed Detention Center. The report summarizes that no significant impact would occur to the communities if this project were to move forward. The City was given only 15 days to comment, which seems unreasonable since TON had several years to plan.

We live in Rancho Sahuarita, which sits adjacent to, or just across the street from, the planned Detention Center’s location. According to an April 21, 2009 article in the Sahuarita Times, Robert Charles Lesser, a renowned real estate consulting firm, writes that Rancho Sahuarita is a nationally ranked top 5 master-plan community. We have over 4500 single-family homes and 13,000 residents. Most families have children under the age of ten. The EA ignores us and makes no mention about our town, our parks, and schools. It neglects to address the negative impact this planned Detention Center would have on us.

The EA also makes no mention of The Desert Diamond Casino and any impact the Detention Center would have on it and its patrons, which is a recreational area less than 1.5 miles from the planned prison.

Another issue is the third waste water facility that would have to be built. Residents of Rancho Sahuarita already live between the Rancho Sahuarita and Casino waste water facilities. Both waste water facilities are less than 2 miles from Rancho Sahuarita resident’s homes. The planned prison waste water facility is a (DBO) design, built and operated on the prison’s premises. This would make a total of three waste water facilities all within 2 miles of each other and all within 2 miles of Rancho Sahuarita residents. The air environment caused by the rotten sewage smell is already an issue that permeates the air where we live now.

Traffic counts, if accurate, would require the two lanes of Pima Mine road be expanded to 4 lanes along with the repair of the bridge over the Santa Cruz river bed. Old Nogales Highway is not 4 lanes as it is reported in the EA. Old Nogales Highway is 2 lanes, one lane in each direction and opens up to 4 lanes once it reaches Tucson City Limits, approximately 10 miles to the north.

The population table shows 1970-2000 censuses of the State of Arizona, Pima County and Tohono O’Odahm. Yet Rancho Sahuarita, the adjacent community to the planned detention center, a top 5 master planned community of 13,000 residents in one of the fastest growing communities in the state during this same time period isn’t even a consideration in this census table. Besides being outdated information, one should evaluate the current census data along with that of Rancho Sahuarita and neighboring towns like Green Valley and the City of Sahuarita from 2000-2010 as a more updated picture of the area’s growth and water use trends.

We have a signed petition that contains over 1400 signatures opposing the location of the Detention Center because of the above cited reasons and other grounds. The TON, which owns over 2.8 million acres of land, has many alternative building sites. Rancho Sahuarita will be negatively impacted; air, noise and light pollution, increased traffic, and depreciating home values are just a few of the issues we feel are not addressed.

In total, this EA report is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods. The report purposefully avoids any mention of our town and the impact the project will have on us. We challenge the findings of the EA and further question the integrity and reliability of the any of the information it contains. The government review, permitting, licensing and approval processes are being decided on incomplete, if not distorted, information gathered in part from the EA. It is obvious there are large omissions of fact. We ask that our concerns be made part of the record of your review, that you extend the time period for further review and comment by Rancho Sahuarita’s city officials and council, and if possible require an Environmental Impact Statement by an independent source. An EIS would seem to be a more reasoned approach to a project of this magnitude.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Signed,

More Contacts for BIA

Papago Agency Bureau of Indian Affairs
P.O. Box 490
Sells, AZ 85634
Phone: (520) 383-3286
Fax: (520) 383-2087

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
Jerry Gidner, Director
Mailing Address:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
MS-46061849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240
Telephone: (202) 208-5116 or (800) 246-8101
Telefax: (202) 208-6334

Western Regional Office
Allen Anspach, Regional Director
William T. Walker, Deputy Regional Director – Trust Services
Matt Crain, Deputy Regional Director – Indian Services
Mailing/Physical Address:
Western Regional Office 2
Arizona Center Floor 12
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 379-6600

We can make a difference

Through some research we have found that the Tohono O'Odam Nation does have to comply with some Federal Regulations when building/planning a federal facility.

It appears that money was put into an Environmental Assessment (EA) report to bypass the need for a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) report. If the EA reports that there is no environmental impact (that is what the draft is currently saying), after the allotted time (May 1 - May 15, 2009) for public comment, the EA report can stand without a NEPA investigation/report. Here is the link for the NEPA website.........http://www.epa.gov/compliance/basics/nepa.html

We CAN and SHOULD be heard by the NEPA that we ARE affected by the Detetion Center Proposal. The EA report has wording that is misleading and unthruthful (see first post EA report.)

Here is the contact info for the appropriate people inside of NEPA. Write a letter, call them, have your neighbors, call, write and get the word out. Make our government work for us - tell them what you think. We can make a difference if we do this together!

Tribal and International Capacity Building

Cheryl Wasserman (202) 564-7129

This is the contact info for the person in charge of our region I think both of these people need to be contacted

(AZ, CA, HI, NV, AS, GU) US EPA, REGION 9 Nova Blazej 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 E-mail: blazej.nova@epa.gov

415-972-3846

Here is What we can do....

The Public's Role

The public has an important role in the NEPA process, particularly during scoping, in providing input on what issues should be addressed in an EIS and in commenting on the findings in an agency's NEPA documents. The public can participate in the NEPA process by attending NEPA-related hearings or public meetings and by submitting comments directly to the lead agency. The lead agency must take into consideration all comments received from the public and other parties on NEPA documents during the comment period

Federal Agency Roles

The role of a federal agency in the NEPA process depends on the agency's expertise and relationship to the proposed undertaking. The agency carrying out the federal action is responsible for complying with the requirements of NEPA. In some cases, there may be more than one federal agency involved in an undertaking. In this situation, a lead agency is designated to supervise preparation of the environmental analysis. Federal agencies, together with state, tribal or local agencies, may act as joint lead agencies.

A federal, state, tribal or local agency having special expertise with respect to an environmental issue or jurisdiction by law may be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. A cooperating agency has the responsibility to assist the lead agency by participating in the NEPA process at the earliest possible time; by participating in the scoping process; in developing information and preparing environmental analyses including portions of the environmental impact statement concerning which the cooperating agency has special expertise; and in making available staff support at the lead agency's request to enhance the lead agency's interdisciplinary capabilities.

Under Section 1504 of CEQ's NEPA regulations, federal agencies may refer to CEQ interagency disagreements concerning proposed federal actions that might cause unsatisfactory environmental effects. CEQ's role, when it accepts a referral, is generally to develop findings and recommendations, consistent with the policy goals of Section 101 of NEPA. The referral process consists of certain steps and is carried out within a specified time frame.

EPA works closely with federally-recognized Indian tribes to ensure compliance at federally-regulated facilities in Indian country. Tribes authorized to manage federal programs must have enforcement authorities that are at least as stringent as federal law. Where authorization is lacking, EPA directly implements federal programs and ensures compliance with federal environmental laws. In both cases, EPA works with officials in tribal environmental, health and agricultural agencies on strategic planning, priority-setting and measurement of results.

Our Representative Contact Information

These people were all at the Town Council meeting (4/27) and vowed to help in anyway that they could.

Ramon Valadez -Pima Co Supervisor
130 W Congress
11th Floor Admin Bldg.
Tucson, 85701-1317
740-8126

Britann O'Brien Homeland Security Specialist/Sen Kyl's office
6840 N. Oracle Rd. Suite 150
Tucson, 85704
575-8633
britann_o'brien@kyl.senate.gov

Ron Barber District Director/works for Giffords
Tucson District Office
1661 N Swan #112
Tucson, 85712
459-3115
Ron.Barber@mail.house.gov

Want to write a letter?

Want to make your voice heard? Write a letter with your concerns.

These are the people with the financing

Municipal Capital Markets Group

Dallas
4851 LBJ Freeway, Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75244

Phone: 972-386-0200
Fax: 972-663-6551

These are the people and the contact info for the company that actually did the study:

CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTORS (CEI)

Ben B. Boothe, Sr.

Certified Environmental Consultant

#4989

Senior Environmental Manager

9800 Verna Trail North

Fort Worth, TX 76108

(817) 738-9595

bba_a@hotmail.com

www.environment-solutions.com

Chris Cuny

FC Cuny Corporation

#2 Horizon Court Ste 500

(469) 402-7700

crc@fccuny.com

Heath, Texas 75032

Here is the info on the attorneys for San Xavier/TON

Law Offices of
BARASSI, CURL & ABRAHAM, P.L.C.
485 S MAIN AVE., Bldg. 1
TUCSON, ARIZONA 85701-2227
(520) 884-7777 ~ Fax (520) 620-0921
www.barassiandcurl.com

The EA report was prepared for:

BIA Papago Agency
Circle Drive, Bldg 49
Sells, Arizona 85634

and

The Tohono O'Odham Nation
2018 W. San Xavier Road
Tucson, Arizona 85746

Letter to the Municipal Capital Markets Group

A copy of a letter sent to the Municipal Capital Markets Group, copied to Senator McCain's office, is below for you to read.

Addresses for you to communicate your concerns will be posted shortly

May 5, 2009

Municipal Capital Markets Group

President, CFO, Chairman and Board Members

Dear President, CFO, Chairman and Board Members:

As of May 1, 2009, we are in receipt of a Environmental Assessment (EA) report and letter commissioned by the Tohono O’Odahm Nation (TON) San Xavier District located in the South West region of Arizona. Certified Environmental Inspectors (CEI) authored the EA. The report outlines issues, if any, for the planned building of a 1500 bed Detention Center. The report summarizes that no significant impact would occur to the communities if this project were to move forward.

We live in Rancho Sahuarita, which sits adjacent to or just across the street from the planned Detention Center’s location. According to an April 21, 2009 article in the Sahuarita Times, Robert Charles Lesser, a renowned real estate consulting firm, writes Rancho Sahuarita is a nationally ranked top 5 master plan community. We have over 4500 single-family homes and 13,000 residents. Most families have children under the age of ten. The EA ignores us and makes no mention about our town, our parks, and schools. It neglects to address the negative impact this planned Detention Center would have on us.

We have a signed petition that contains over 1400 signatures opposing the location of the Detention Center. We believe that the TON, which owns over 2.8 million acres of land, has many alternative building sites. Rancho Sahuarita will be negatively impacted; noise and light pollution, and increased traffic not to mention our home values depreciating are just a few of the issues we feel are not addressed.

In total, this EA report is riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods. This report purposefully avoids any mention of our Town and the impact the project will have on us. CEI, the Company that is responsible for the EA must have a suspect agenda. We challenge the findings of the EA, and further question the integrity and reliability of the information it contains. We also question the credibility of CEI.

The government-to-government, review, permitting, licensing and approval processes, are being decided on distorted if not incomplete information gathered in part from the EA. It is obvious there are large omissions of fact.

We ask that you withhold any funding for this Detention Center until it is relocated at least 10 miles outside of our town.

Copies of petitions, EA, and other documents are available upon request.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dewey and Linda Cooper

CC: Senator John McCain

Environmental Assessment (EA) Report for review

The Environmental Assessment draft has been submitted to the Tohono O'Odham Nation (TON) and can be found at waknet.org

The report is over 80 pages and disturbing in itself. Some featured highlights include:

• 1.3 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
  The subject San Xavier Regional Detention Center Project has been an ongoing project for several years. The San Xavier District has conducted public meetings, and these have been advertised by public notice in appropriate local media, with Tribal leaders, members, and members of the community at large invited. At these meetings, the project has met with favorable support within the community. Public meetings took place at the District Meeting Room located at 2018 W. San Xavier Road, Tucson, AZ 85746 on the following dates: 07/25/06 and 08/01/06. A letter from the Chairman of the District, Mr. Austin Nunez, confirming the dates of the public meetings can be found in the Appendix, Exhibit A-1. (We have yet to find supporting documentation to public notification)
  This environmental report will be available for public review for a 15-day public comment period beginning in May 2009. (now!) The commencement date for the public comment period will be advertised by District officials in the appropriate public sources. This EA will be available at the following locations:
  San Xavier District - Office of Economic Development
  2018 W. San Xavier Road
  Tucson Arizona 85746
  and
  BIA Papago Agency
  Circle Drive, Bldg 49
  Sells, Arizona 85634
  At the conclusion of the 15-day public comment period, the BIA will review public comments, respond where appropriate, and issue a Final EA.
• 3.8.2 Sound and Light
  Existing noise levels on the parcel are typical of noise levels for parcels located in a sparsely undeveloped area. Primary sources of noise are overhead aircraft and vehicular traffic on West Pima Mine Road. Sound factors on Pima Mine Road are considered minimum. Light should not affect or disturb any residential development since there is no human population and sparse human and animal population in the area. (What are we?) Noise levels of subject after development will be considered non intrusive (as noted with specific ratings in Edition #1).
• 4.7.3 Land Use
  4.7.3.1 Proposed Action
  Under the Proposed Action, land use in the area will change from undeveloped land to a portion of the land being used as a Regional Detention Center. This will have no negative environmental impact. There are no impacts to proposed land use, including adjacent and nearby land users. There will be no impact to the community. Nearby schools, churches and/or businesses will not be impacted by the proposed land use. (I think we all disagree) - (italics added)

Please take the time to read this report for yourselves. As the report provides valid points for the TON, the town of Sahuarita and it's residents are not considered because of TON's sovereignty. HOWEVER, please note, you DO have a voice and united we can give our feedback to this proposal. I ask that each one of us takes the time to think about what we say, how we say, and act accordingly that will be diplomatic, firm and American.