Zuni leader talks about Mt. Taylor
By Helen Davis
Cibola County Bureau
ACOMA — Leaders of the five tribes nominating Mount Taylor for listing as a Traditional Cultural Property earlier this year met with media representatives last month to commend Cultural Properties Review Committee’s reaffirmed vote make the mountain a TCP for one year.
On June 19, speakers from Hopi, Zuni, Laguna, Acoma, and the Navajo Nation gave details on tribal perspectives behind the nomination.
Norman J. Cooeyate, governor for the Zuni Tribe, said he was born into the Turkey Clan and is a child of the Dogwood-Parrot Clan. He spoke as a representative of the tribe, its membership and the non-Zuni people who choose to live within tribal lands.
The governor recapped the process the tribes followed in getting Mount Taylor, or Dewankwi Kyabachu Yalanne, listed on a temporary basis and explained the within the one year of the listing the tribes must apply for permanent listing.
Like the other speakers at the meeting, Cooeyate said the mountain was important as an origin, cultural and pilgrimage site for tribal members. Dewankwi Kyabachu Yalanne is important in maintaining Zuni cultural identity and is significant in the community’s historically rooted beliefs, practices and customs, he said. The mountain is home to sacred beings, waters, trails and shrines, he added.
“For the Zunis, Dewankwi Kyabachu Yalanne is considered to be one of the places mentioned in our oral history, contains many symbolic markers, prehistoric ruins, artifacts, ancestral remains and cultural sites, as referenced in our migration legends. The sacred cultural sites act as an umbilical cord between Zuni ancestors and the present day Zunis,” Cooeyate said.
“These properties are imbued with life and spiritual forces that have been blessed by our creator since time immemorial before their use, and once blessed, the are blessed in perpetuity. These markers and cultural sites are still visited today on a regular basis by the Zuni religious leaders, for the collection of water, plants, feathers and minerals, which are important elements in our cultural and religious activities and beliefs,” he explained.
Cooeyate stressed that the mountain has historical importance in teaching the tribes children and future generations where they came from, who they are now and where they are going in the future.
Each tribe produced information that explains why and how the mountain is historically critical in maintaining their cultural identity when requesting the listing, the governor said. He stated that the nominating tribes feel they have met at least one of the criteria for an emergency listing.
“The listing of the peak of Mount Taylor ... provides a layer of protection so that potential impacts from development projects can be eliminated or minimized. Listing on the state register does not automatically stop development projects; it does mean that consultation with the nominating tribes must occur and that adverse effects that may result from a development project must be considered.
Listing will not affect any recreational activities that New Mexicans have enjoyed on Mount Taylor,” the governor said. He added that all privately owned land within the TCP boundaries is expressly omitted from the TCP designation — unless the owner provides a written statement that the land should be included.
“By listing the peak on the New Mexico Register of Cultural Properties, the tribes are in a better position to protect the peak for all to enjoy and use,” Cooeyate said.
He closed with a message for the nominating tribes and other community members: “And although we celebrate our collective success, we must continue the unified effort to ensure that Mount Taylor is protected and preserved for generations to come, for Native American and non-Native American, as well as for all living and non-living entities of Mount Taylor. E’lah’kwa, Don yadon k’koshi sunnahk’yanapdu.”
http://www.gallupindependent.com:80/2008/07july/072408zunileader.html
Friday, July 25, 2008
Monday, July 21, 2008
Bluff protection supporters rally
Bluff protection supporters rally (07/20/2008)
By Sarah Elmquist
The first formal public hearing on the county’s new zoning ordinance drew over 100 people Thursday night, many sporting neon green stickers which reiterated what nearly all their comments demanded: protect our bluffs.
The County Planning Commission, which will review the comments and the draft ordinance next week, will make a recommendation on any changes to the County Board. The County Board will hold the final public hearing on the ordinance on August 26 at 7 p.m.
Thursday night’s testimony from the public was met with no reaction from the Planning Commission, which chose to hold off on discussions until its next meeting.
And although chair Garth Zenke urged those at the meeting to refrain from repeating one another, and that commissioners were looking for “quality, not quantity,” from the comments, organized bluff advocates didn’t hold back. “When this many people show up, they deserve to be heard, and counted,” said Todd Paddock.
Paddock said that the value of the bluffs was like that of the wetlands, the lakes and streams -- important to everybody. “That value is greater than the right of a single individual to ruin that value,” he said. Paddock suggested that the bluff protection ordinance require viewshed analysis for development, which can show whether a structure might be visible from the valley below. “That’s what we need in our ordinance. The technology is there,” he said. “I think it would help us a great deal.”
Don Evanson of Minnesota City spoke on behalf of property owners’ rights, one of few who spoke out at the meeting. “If you want to protect the bluffs, buy them,” he told the audience.
“I appreciate the beauty of Winona County, too,” Evanson continued. But, he said, there are others who’d like to live out in the rural parts of the county, and farmers who’d like to sell bits of their land for extra money or to retire.
Steven J. Frank, a junior at WSU, said that the bluffs were great. “When I look up there, I want to count my blessings,” he said. “I don’t want to count the developments.”
Sadie Newman, WSU student, told the commission that younger people, “really do care, too.” She shared an example of what can happen when a community isn’t engaged in future planning. In her hometown of Stillwater, Minn., the historic downtown jail burned down and was replaced by condos. She said that now, Stillwater’s skyline includes tall buildings with satellites. “It breaks our hearts to see it now,” she said, urging the commissioners to, “think about the consequences of building up there.”
Many who asked for stronger bluff protection measures had specifics in mind. Rather than the draft ordinance’s suggested 25 percent slope limit, they asked that the limit be set at 18 percent. And rather than the 100-foot setback from the top of the bluff, they asked for 300.
“Nobody’s saying you can’t build on the bluff,” said Joe Morse. They’d just like a stronger setback, he said.
Many of the stronger bluff protection measures that the audience was asking for were part of a previous draft of the ordinance. The ordinance was watered down after the Task Force reviewed all of the sensitive lands protection standards, and, very generally, questioned them as too restrictive.
Tom Harbinson offered another reason to strengthen the bluff protection standards. The draft version suggests that development could occur with a Conditional Use Permit in areas with an average slope between 18 and 25 percent. But Harbinson said that such nonspecific language would result in decisions that were less black and white, and could prompt lawsuits. Putting a firm limit at 18 percent, he said, could limit liability of the county and ultimately the taxpayers.
Steve Jacob brought up just that -- litigation against the county’s planning department, during the meeting. Although interrupted several times by Planning Director Brian Bender, Jacob told the audience that he’d obtained a ruling against the Planning Department in February, when he said Judge Jeffrey Thompson ruled that the department had failed to enforce the zoning ordinance and had inconsistently applied the ordinance, placing what Jacob called “arbitrary burden” on him.
Jacob said that there was other pending litigation against the department and questioned its competency in writing the zoning ordinance. He said that the department should be overseen in its ordinance update, and that the process should be delayed until the winter when farmers have more time to weigh in.
“The citizens of Winona County deserve better than this,” he said.
Native American burial sites
Many also urged the commission to consider measures to protect Native American burial sites, both those that have been recorded, and those undiscovered.
Ken McCullough, vice president of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, told the commission how important it is to protect the burial mounds.
And those burial mounds are somewhat linked to bluff protection, with blufftops used as scenic burial sites.
Jon Borman, also of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, showed the commission Minnesota law that suggests that archeological survey costs could be placed on the state, suggesting that archeological surveys should be done on developments to check for burial sites not recorded on state archeological maps, like northern Cass County requires.
http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=25829&home_page=1&archives=
By Sarah Elmquist
The first formal public hearing on the county’s new zoning ordinance drew over 100 people Thursday night, many sporting neon green stickers which reiterated what nearly all their comments demanded: protect our bluffs.
The County Planning Commission, which will review the comments and the draft ordinance next week, will make a recommendation on any changes to the County Board. The County Board will hold the final public hearing on the ordinance on August 26 at 7 p.m.
Thursday night’s testimony from the public was met with no reaction from the Planning Commission, which chose to hold off on discussions until its next meeting.
And although chair Garth Zenke urged those at the meeting to refrain from repeating one another, and that commissioners were looking for “quality, not quantity,” from the comments, organized bluff advocates didn’t hold back. “When this many people show up, they deserve to be heard, and counted,” said Todd Paddock.
Paddock said that the value of the bluffs was like that of the wetlands, the lakes and streams -- important to everybody. “That value is greater than the right of a single individual to ruin that value,” he said. Paddock suggested that the bluff protection ordinance require viewshed analysis for development, which can show whether a structure might be visible from the valley below. “That’s what we need in our ordinance. The technology is there,” he said. “I think it would help us a great deal.”
Don Evanson of Minnesota City spoke on behalf of property owners’ rights, one of few who spoke out at the meeting. “If you want to protect the bluffs, buy them,” he told the audience.
“I appreciate the beauty of Winona County, too,” Evanson continued. But, he said, there are others who’d like to live out in the rural parts of the county, and farmers who’d like to sell bits of their land for extra money or to retire.
Steven J. Frank, a junior at WSU, said that the bluffs were great. “When I look up there, I want to count my blessings,” he said. “I don’t want to count the developments.”
Sadie Newman, WSU student, told the commission that younger people, “really do care, too.” She shared an example of what can happen when a community isn’t engaged in future planning. In her hometown of Stillwater, Minn., the historic downtown jail burned down and was replaced by condos. She said that now, Stillwater’s skyline includes tall buildings with satellites. “It breaks our hearts to see it now,” she said, urging the commissioners to, “think about the consequences of building up there.”
Many who asked for stronger bluff protection measures had specifics in mind. Rather than the draft ordinance’s suggested 25 percent slope limit, they asked that the limit be set at 18 percent. And rather than the 100-foot setback from the top of the bluff, they asked for 300.
“Nobody’s saying you can’t build on the bluff,” said Joe Morse. They’d just like a stronger setback, he said.
Many of the stronger bluff protection measures that the audience was asking for were part of a previous draft of the ordinance. The ordinance was watered down after the Task Force reviewed all of the sensitive lands protection standards, and, very generally, questioned them as too restrictive.
Tom Harbinson offered another reason to strengthen the bluff protection standards. The draft version suggests that development could occur with a Conditional Use Permit in areas with an average slope between 18 and 25 percent. But Harbinson said that such nonspecific language would result in decisions that were less black and white, and could prompt lawsuits. Putting a firm limit at 18 percent, he said, could limit liability of the county and ultimately the taxpayers.
Steve Jacob brought up just that -- litigation against the county’s planning department, during the meeting. Although interrupted several times by Planning Director Brian Bender, Jacob told the audience that he’d obtained a ruling against the Planning Department in February, when he said Judge Jeffrey Thompson ruled that the department had failed to enforce the zoning ordinance and had inconsistently applied the ordinance, placing what Jacob called “arbitrary burden” on him.
Jacob said that there was other pending litigation against the department and questioned its competency in writing the zoning ordinance. He said that the department should be overseen in its ordinance update, and that the process should be delayed until the winter when farmers have more time to weigh in.
“The citizens of Winona County deserve better than this,” he said.
Native American burial sites
Many also urged the commission to consider measures to protect Native American burial sites, both those that have been recorded, and those undiscovered.
Ken McCullough, vice president of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, told the commission how important it is to protect the burial mounds.
And those burial mounds are somewhat linked to bluff protection, with blufftops used as scenic burial sites.
Jon Borman, also of the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance, showed the commission Minnesota law that suggests that archeological survey costs could be placed on the state, suggesting that archeological surveys should be done on developments to check for burial sites not recorded on state archeological maps, like northern Cass County requires.
http://www.winonapost.com/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=25829&home_page=1&archives=
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
