How Far Off-Reservation Should Off-Reservation Indian Casinos Be?

The Associated Press reports on the cases of Indian tribes looking to off-reservation locales for new tribal casino properties. There have been some of these off-reservation locales applications in the past, usually involving tribes that have recently obtained federal recognition and needed to acquire lands for a reservation. Some of these locations could be located near lucrative population centers.

However, there are instances of tribes with reservations located great distances from population centers attempting to locate casino properties within close proximity to those sources of customers (i.e. you and me). The story discloses that the Bush administration decided that these off-reservation casinos could only be within commuting distance of the reservation. That seems like a reasonable restriction. The Bush administration, for example, rejected 20 applications for off-reservation casinos, one an astounding 1,400 miles from the reservation. Fourteen hundred miles? Well, you can't blame the tribe for trying!

Well there's a new administration in Washington, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs is reconsidering the commuting distance rule. If the rule is overturned, and tribes can extend their casino properties far from their reservations, tribal casinos could be even more of a threat to non-tribal casino properties. What if tribes could have off-reservation casinos on Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, the Gaslamp District in San Diego or Times Square in NYC?

There are two options in case this rule is amended. The first deals with the recently recognized tribes and tribes with no casinos yet established. The former will of course try and locate their new reservations as close to population centers as possible, but that wouldn't be required. The latter would be tribes with reservations in very sparsely populated, remote areas. It doesn't make sense to locate a casino on those lands as there is no customer base. They will be able to locate their new casino wherever they can obtain land.

The second option deals with tribes that have smaller, and perhaps not optimally located casinos. Those tribes might want to relocate their casino to a better location, closer to larger population centers. Why keep a location when a better location might be feasible? A recent post discussed the closing of a tribal casino, one not located in a prime locale.

If this change occurs, non-tribal casinos will be in even more peril. As discussed in a previous post, Nevada casinos have been suffering due to competition from California-based Indian casinos. Ceasar's Palace can't move from the Las Vegas Strip to LA, but tribal casinos might be able to do just that. This rule, if liberally modified, could open the door to Nevada casinos getting hurt to a much greater degree than what is happening now.