|San Diego County and the state of California|
|• Total||16.833 sq mi (43.598 km2)|
|• Land||16.583 sq mi (42.951 km2)|
|• Water||0.250 sq mi (0.647 km2) 1.49%|
|Elevation||997 ft (304 m)|
|• Density||370/sq mi (140/km2)|
|Time zone||PST (UTC-8)|
|• Summer (DST)||PDT (UTC-7)|
|GNIS feature ID||1652730|
According to the United States Census Bureau, the Jamul census-designated place (CDP) has a total area of 16.8 square miles (44 km2). 16.6 square miles (43 km2) of it is land and 0.3 square miles (0.78 km2) of it (1.49%) is water.
The 2010 United States Census reported that Jamul had a population of 6,163. The population density was 366.1 people per square mile (141.4/km²). The racial makeup of Jamul was 5,300 (86.0%) White, 127 (2.1%) African American, 28 (0.5%) Native American, 146 (2.4%) Asian, 10 (0.2%) Pacific Islander, 294 (4.8%) from other races, and 258 (4.2%) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1,188 persons (19.3%).
The Census reported that 6,105 people (99.1% of the population) lived in households, 18 (0.3%) lived in non-institutionalized group quarters, and 40 (0.6%) were institutionalized.
There were 1,906 households, out of which 727 (38.1%) had children under the age of 18 living in them, 1,409 (73.9%) were opposite-sex married couples living together, 136 (7.1%) had a female householder with no husband present, 101 (5.3%) had a male householder with no wife present. There were 68 (3.6%) unmarried opposite-sex partnerships, and 28 (1.5%) same-sex married couples or partnerships. 187 households (9.8%) were made up of individuals and 84 (4.4%) had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.20. There were 1,646 families (86.4% of all households); the average family size was 3.38.
The population was spread out with 1,396 people (22.7%) under the age of 18, 585 people (9.5%) aged 18 to 24, 1,161 people (18.8%) aged 25 to 44, 2,198 people (35.7%) aged 45 to 64, and 823 people (13.4%) who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 44.4 years. For every 100 females there were 101.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 99.1 males.
There were 1,974 housing units at an average density of 117.3 per square mile (45.3/km²), of which 1,692 (88.8%) were owner-occupied, and 214 (11.2%) were occupied by renters. The homeowner vacancy rate was 0.9%; the rental vacancy rate was 2.7%. 5,404 people (87.7% of the population) lived in owner-occupied housing units and 701 people (11.4%) lived in rental housing units.
As of the census of 2000, there were 5,920 people, 1,762 households, and 1,541 families residing in the CDP. The population density was 359.9 inhabitants per square mile (138.9/km²). There were 1,789 housing units at an average density of 108.8 per square mile (42.0/km²). The racial makeup of the CDP was 86.37% White, 2.13% African American, 0.39% Native American, 3.07% Asian, 0.24% Pacific Islander, 3.63% from other races, and 4.17% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 13.77% of the population.
There were 1,762 households out of which 44.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 77.7% were married couples living together, 6.0% had a female householder with no husband present, and 12.5% were non-families. 8.5% of all households were made up of individuals and 3.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.30 and the average family size was 3.48.
In the CDP the population was spread out with 29.7% under the age of 18, 7.2% from 18 to 24, 25.7% from 25 to 44, 28.4% from 45 to 64, and 9.0% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 39 years. For every 100 females there were 101.2 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 98.7 males.
The median income for a household in the CDP was $87,309, and the median income for a family was $89,550. Males had a median income of $60,808 versus $40,568 for females. The per capita income for the CDP was $32,450. About 5.0% of families and 8.9% of the population were below the poverty line, including 10.6% of those under age 18 and 7.5% of those age 65 or over.
||This section has an unclear citation style. (March 2012)|
In 1999, the Tipai Band of Kumeyaay Indians, with 64 members living on 6 acres (24,000 m2) of sovereign land in the Jamul area designated the "Jamul Indian Village," announced their intent to develop a new hotel and casino. The original plan, which required the US government to annex 81 acres (328,000 m2) of surrounding land to complete the project, met with strong opposition from local residents. After the annexation effort was denied, the casino plan was revised to fit the 6-acre (24,000 m2) reservation grounds. Despite continuing opposition from townspeople, a ceremonial groundbreaking took place on 10 December 2005.
The $200 million project is financed by Lakes Entertainment of Minnesota. The casino's original concept was to be developed according to the State of California's gambling compact. Proponents emphasize increased revenue for the state and the tribe, as well as 2000 new jobs for all members of the community, while opponents fear strain on its police and fire services, a major impact on the local water supply, and argue that a 15-story building will permanently change the town's character. The chief concern is the increased traffic on the main road through the town, Highway 94. The proposed casino location is such that all the traffic to and from would likely pass through the middle of the town.
On Feb 7, 2003, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs held a meeting to discuss the environmental impact report produced by the Jamul Indian Tribe in support of the casino project. Hundreds of Jamul residents showed up to express almost unanimous opposition to the casino.
On Sept 13, 2006, casino organizers held a meeting with the townspeople on site to address their concerns. The casino plan was further clarified, with an artist's conception of the proposed six story casino and 12-story hotel complex on display. A court reporter was on hand to receive comments for or against the proposal, and of the 40 who did so, three were in favor. Most of the negative comments were in regard to increased traffic on Highway 94, which narrows to a two-lane road at the proposed site of casino.
On Mar. 10, 2007, the tribe evicted three residents (not tribal members) who had been living on the Indian Village land but who opposed the casino- Karen Toggery and her son and Walter Rosales. Local Jamulians gathered to protest the evictions. The Tribe hired a local security company and "deputized" them as "Jamul Tribal Police." These guards then utilized pepper spray and metal batons on some of the protestors who trespassed onto Tribal property and refused to leave. Tribal chairman Leon Acebedo signed an agreement witnessed by local Board of Supervisors member Dianne Jacob that stipulated that the homes of the evicted would not be destroyed for at least seven days. The homes were demolished two days later, leading to considerable controversy in the community. An unrelated statement was released that same day stating that the tribal leaders no longer wished to negotiate with the state regarding the casino and were planning a casino with Class II games only- which do not include slot machines- as casinos with only Class II games are not governed by compacts with the State of California.
On October 1, 2008 the tribe sued CalTrans after months of unsuccessful negotiations. The tribe claimed their sovereignty gives them the right to use the land that they see fit. CalTrans maintained that they represent the public’s safety and that they will not approve the permits to put a stoplight in the middle of 94 unless more environmental impact studies (EIR) are performed. The tribe continued to maintain that CalTrans’ preferred, safe alternative of building a driveway off a side road, Melody Lane, was “improper meddling by the state”. In the article cited above, a member of the tribe's Executive Council, Carlene Chamberlain, stated “The Minnesota company backing the casino, Lakes Entertainment, can't get funding for design and construction until it's clear that gamblers will be able to get to the slot machines.”. As the tribe appears unable or unwilling to meet CalTrans’ requirements, this lawsuit must be won by the tribe before the casino can be built.
During Lakes Entertainment's review of their 2008 results on March 12, 2009, they indicated that the Jamul Indian Tribe and CalTrans' had reached an understanding and that the Jamul Indian Tribe had agreed to create an EIR for the revised project. Lakes indicated also that the project would be re-evaluated in light of the financial environment and would be monitored closely. Although Lakes did say they wouldn't abandon the project completely, they reduced the "fair market value" of the project by 80%. In addition, Lakes revised their estimate of when the project could be completed to 2014.
On March 13, 2012 Lakes Entertainment cancelled their development contract with the Jamul Indian Tribe. Immediately following that, the tribe announced plans to work with the community to design a smaller facility that addressed many of the Jamul resident's concerns. Unless a new development partner can be found, though, the vision of a casino for the tribe will never come to be. Finding a new partner for this development is made more difficult because of the $57 million the tribe owes Lakes from the previous development as well as the fact that the tribe only has authorization to run a Class II gaming facility from the government, having turned down the terms and conditions of a Class III gaming facility from the state.
In the state legislature Jamul is located in the 36th Senate District, represented by Republican Dennis Hollingsworth, and in the 77th and 78th Assembly District, represented by Republicans Joel Anderson and Shirley Horton respectively. Federally, Jamul is located in both California's 50th congressional district represented by Republican Duncan D. Hunter and California's 51st congressional district represented by Democrat Juan Vargas 9 .
- U.S. Census
- "US Gazetteer files: 2010, 2000, and 1990". United States Census Bureau. 2011-02-12. Retrieved 2011-04-23.
- All data are derived from the United States Census Bureau reports from the 2010 United States Census, and are accessible on-line here. The data on unmarried partnerships and same-sex married couples are from the Census report DEC_10_SF1_PCT15. All other housing and population data are from Census report DEC_10_DP_DPDP1. Both reports are viewable online or downloadable in a zip file containing a comma-delimited data file. The area data, from which densities are calculated, are available on-line here. Percentage totals may not add to 100% due to rounding. The Census Bureau defines families as a household containing one or more people related to the householder by birth, opposite-sex marriage, or adoption. People living in group quarters are tabulated by the Census Bureau as neither owners nor renters. For further details, see the text files accompanying the data files containing the Census reports mentioned above.
- "American FactFinder". United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 2008-01-31.
- "Will Gerrymandered Districts Stem the Wave of Voter Unrest?". Campaign Legal Center Blog. Retrieved 2008-02-10.