In a remarkable new development, Chumash tribal Chairman Vincent Armenta has unintentionally added his voice to the growing number of informed people making the case against additional land annexations by the tribe.

In a recent newspaper editorial, Armenta wrote: "The bottom line is that the program was developed in order to allow tribes an opportunity to achieve financial independence through economic development."

Armenta's statement is absolutely true and goes to the heart of the conflict over annexation in the Santa Ynez Valley. Everyone agrees that the purpose of the annexation law was to "allow tribes an opportunity to achieve financial independence." The disagreement is about whether or not the Chumash still qualify for annexation privileges.

The annexation program was established by the federal government in 1934, in the depth of the Depression. The objective was to help underprivileged Native American tribes achieve independence from government financial support by giving them improved opportunity to become self-reliant.

On the other hand, the objective was not to forever subsidize tribes who had succeeded in taking advantage of their opportunities and, to their great credit, achieved self-reliance or wealth. This would make the program never-ending welfare for the rich.

To avoid this problem, the law clearly states that the annexation privilege is appropriate when it is "necessary" to achieve economic development. In other words, a tribe must demonstrate "need" in order to qualify for the benefit.

For very good reason, this needs test was deliberately put into the annexation law. This requirement is critical because annexation is not free. It comes at great cost, and it comes at the expense of every other resident of the county, the other 99.9 percent of us.

First, there are huge losses of property tax. The county has analyzed the lost income due to annexations which have been projected by the tribe to date. The estimated cost is over ,300 million in just the first 50 years of a deal that lasts forever.

This missing ,300 million will either result in cuts in services for the public or additional taxes paid by every homeowner and renter in the county. In other words, you pay. The primary losers will be the school system and our children, and the only winner will be the 158-member tribe.

In addition, annexation puts all other local businesses at such an economic disadvantage that it literally threatens their ability to compete and survive.

So, is this fair? Does this tribe still need economic subsidy at your expense?

According to estimates based upon tribal statements, in the last 10 years the 158 members of this tribe have earned from their gambling monopoly approximately a half-billion dollars in profit on ,1 billion in revenue. It is estimated that this tribe continues to earn profit at the rate of ,100 million per year. And unlike the rest of us, this income is virtually tax free.

The obvious answer to these fair questions is "no."

Unfortunately, the tribal government and their spokespeople have tried to distract the public from considering these fairness issues. They have accused the Santa Ynez community of making un-American or racist attacks on the tribe's right to achieve greater wealth.

This is propaganda at its absolute worst. No one disputes that the tribe and every one of its members have the same rights everyone else has to buy and develop land in pursuit of greater wealth. The disagreement is over the tribe/s claim to have superior rights.

The tribe deserves great respect for its achievements. In a very short time, the Chumash have built a highly profitable business, have become one of the largest employers in the county, and have made charitable contributions to many local causes.

Nevertheless, the bottom line is that this tribe's spectacular economic success no longer justifies further subsidy at our expense. The time has come for everyone to play by the same rules.

If the goal is to put an end to this dispute, the proper course of action for the involved parties would be:

The tribe should start taking pride in its self-reliance and stop demanding public subsidy.

The county should start protecting the interests of the other 99.9 percent of the county's citizens and vigorously oppose all future annexation requests.

The BIA administrators should start honoring the clear intent of this law and stop approving annexation requests from tribes that have achieved great wealth.

Once this divisive issue is behind us, there is a chance for the tribe and the local community to mend fences, and find a way to live together as good neighbors.

John Poitras lives in Santa Ynez.

Aug. 8, 2005