after 44 weeks all added revenues still from slots

 For the 44 weeks since the 1st Anniversary celebration began for Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, gambling revenues at the Schenectady Casino have been up a mere 10.1% from the dismal take its first year. But, making the anemic results even more worrisome, the total increase has come from Slot machines, up 16.8%, with Table Games and Poker Table GGR both down over the first year. Click here for the Rivers Casino Weekly Revenue Reports.

RiversRevs-Compare-Feb-Nov

A Ten Percent increase is surely disappointing, now that the Casino has its long “wait until” list in place: Its own Landing Hotel; the Large River House apartment complex open and nearly full; the Marina attracting boaters, and its Amphitheater bringing thousands to free concerts; the popular Druther’s Brewery restaurant crowded, help from the Convention and Tourism Bureau, a large shopping-mall-style sign for Mohawk Harbor, and more.

A FLAT NOVEMBER. Also, the Rivers Casino numbers for November 2018 compared to November 2017 are not impressive and should be worrisome to our tax revenue bean counters, if they signal the likely results for the rest of the year:

Total GGR – a 1% increase
Nov 2018   $11,434,584
Nov. 2017.  $11,326,616
SLOTS/ETG- a 6.4% increase
Nov. 2018  $7,847,001.
Nov. 2017. $7,376,744
TABLE GAMES – a 10.3% decrease
Nov.2018  $3,189,766.
Nov.2017.  $3,551,859

 

WPU/WPS PERFORMANCE? The Albany Times Union recently told us that Rivers Casino is “outperforming” its upstate commercial casino rivals. Rivers is clearly bringing in more gambling revenue per slot machine than either del Lago Casino at Tyre NY or Resorts World International at Monticello. Resorts World has about 1000 more slot machine than Rivers, and del Lago has 800 more. But, I am not sure how much weight to give to the Wins Per Unit or Wins Per Slot numbers presented by the TU as a measure of “performance” by the casino. Because I am not even close to being an expert in casino slot strategy, tactics or theory, I can only muse here, and be bemused. Naturally, I would appreciate hearing from experts on how to assess the situation. This is what the Times Union was told by Rivers Casino:

A Rivers spokesperson put out the following statement after the Times Union asked the casino to comment on what has helped the facility bring in revenue:  “We are very thankful for the support this year from our loyal guests,” read the statement attributed to Justin Moore, Rivers’ assistant general manager. “We continue to focus on providing a great guest experience every day.”

 

  • Wins Per Slot is “The amount of money left in a slot machine at day’s end”.  It is derived from looking at the Gross Credits played on a casino’s slot machines and subtracting the amount paid out; that figure is the Slots GGR for the covered period, which yields the Casino’s WPS when divided by the Number of Slot machines on the floor of the Casino.

TU, using NYS Gambling Commission numbers, says that Rivers Casino had a WPS of $236 for October 2018, compared to del Lago’s WPS of $166. [Resorts World’s operations are far from stabilized, so I am only comparing del Lago and Rivers here.]

 The Slots/ETG GGR total for each casino is “dollars in” minus dollars paid. Looking at the Slots GGR as a percentage of the Credits Played, it looks like Rivers’ is paying out 1.25¢ to 1.5¢ (1.25% to 1.5%) less than del Lago for each dollar of credit paid in.  For example, click on the screen shot compilation to the right, with monthly numbers from April through October 2018 for the two casinos. To wit:

  • Rivers Slots GGR is 8.60%, a 1.25% higher retention after payouts than del Lago’s 7.35%
  • 1.25% of the $728 million played on the slots during that period at Rivers is $9.1 million
  • There were 214 days in the period, or $418K extra left per day in the machines than if Rivers had used del Lago’s higher payout rate
  • Divided by 1150 slot machines, there is an extra $36 per day per unit
On the other hand, if del Lago had kept as much as Rivers, del Lago would have had about $11.7 million dollars more over the 7 months to ascribe to WPU. Divided by 214 days, that equals $546K, and divided by 1961 (the daily average of slot/ETG machines), is about $28 per day more per unit.
 
  • If each casino had used the other’s payout rate, their WPU’s would be a lot closer, but I am not certain what that would tell us about their “performance” as opposed to strategies for attracting players to their slot machines.

Nonetheless, I do wonder:

  1. Wouldn’t their “loyal customers” like to know that Rivers pays out 1.25% less for each dollar played at a Slot Machine than del Lago is paying?
  2. Is this a version of the Worst Case Scenario we casino opponents raised in 2014: Rivers is missing its gambling revenue projections by a significant amount. It is attracting lots of repeat local slots customers, raising the potential for increased gambling addiction and problem gambling in our community. AND, it is paying its loyal slots customers less per dollar played than its competitors.

By the way, if del Lago were to reduce the number of slot machines it has in use by 800, to increase its “performance” and offer the same number of slots as Rivers [1150], it would save $500 per machine in annual licensing fees, meaning the State would receive $400,000 less toward a fund to help fight problem gambling. By starting with the lower number of slot machines, Rivers has saved itself $500 per machine in licensing fees.

encore for those infamous Snowmen

Thank you Albany Times Union, for helping to ensure that the history and legend of the Snowmen at the Schenectady Stockade Gates, on the night of the 1690 Massacre, will be more widely known and will not be buried or forgotten again. At the top of the Sunday TU Business section yesterday, The Buzz column (Dec. 9, 2018, at E1) read:

TUTheBuzzDetailHistory of Snowman, an illustrated view

The current issue of the Smithsonian magazine highlights the Snowman in history, including the failed effort by some human sentinels to protect the village of Schenectady in 1690 while they visited a tavern.

According to the new book, “Illustrated History of the Snowman” by Bob Eckstein  French and Indian forces weren’t fooled by the snowman sentinels the guards had erected in their place, and the night ended badly for the Schenectadians, with 60 residents — men, women and children — killed in the massacre. . . 

After describing the spread of snowmen images thereafter, including widespread use in advertising for alcoholic beverages, The Buzz cheekily points out:

Apparently, they hadn’t learned that alcohol and snowmen don’t mix.

. . [Ed. note] All the hoopla about the craft breweries coming to Schenectady’s Mill Lane Artisan District might be a fateful failure of memory of our local leaders. The 1690 wayward sentinels had, in fact, gone to the Douwe Aukes Tavern at Mill Lane for their tankards of brew, and the Stockade paid dearly for it.

HistSnowman2007Cover At this website, Snowmen at the Gates, our title theme of snowmen futilely guarding Schenectady’s gates has its genesis in Bob Eckstein’s original 2007 version of The History of the Snowman, which has a chapter devoted to the 1690 Massacre. That is where I first learned of the scandalous dereliction of duty that led to the horrific  Schenectady Massacre.

  • That’s right, after living here in ignorance of that tale for twenty years, it took a NYC sophisticate and author/humorist/cartoonist to teach me the sad story behind the saddest day in the history of my adopted home. As I travel around Town, and when I mention the name of this website, it is clear that most folks still do not know the legend of the Snowmen at the Gates, which I am afraid means that our City has not Learned the Lessons of the 1690 Massacre.

IllustratedSnowman-EcksteinCover If you’d like to read Bob Eckstein‘s full discussion of the 1690 Massacre and the impotent snowmen left at an open gate (despite warnings from Albany of a raiding party on the way), go to the Amazon.com page for his new Illustrated History of the Snowman”, where you can Look Inside the Book, and simply search the word Schenectady. You’ll also see that Schenectady snowmen are the first reference to snowmen in North America that Bob found in his comprehensive research on the history of such frozen aqueous sculpture.

Both editions of History of the Snowman contain the full illustration of the North Wind Archives artwork that adorns our masthead above; that’s where I first saw it and was inspired to contact the good folks at North Wind. Here is another image from the Illustrated History, a snow-globe depicting the 1690 Massacre:

1690MassacreSnowGlobe

Preparing to write this posting today, I discovered:

  1. bobecksteinschdyExactly a decade ago this weekend, on December 7, 2008, Bob Eckstein visited Schenectady to do a presentation at our Central Library (image at the right) and book-signing at the Open Door for the 1st Edition of History of the Snowman. See “snowman historian blows into Schenectady” (f/k/a, Dec. 7, 2008); and “SnowmanCity, NY“ (Nov. 29, 2008).
  2. While Schenectady snowmen were the first reference Bob found to their species in North America, the last two postings at Bob’s decade-long website Today’s Snowman, historyofthesnowman.com, were also about Schenectady snowmen. See “Schenectady’s Stockade Snowman at the Gates” (Feb. 3, 2016); and “Schenectady Snowman from 2009” (Feb. 10, 2016). Here are screenshots of those last two postings; click on them to enlarge.

TodaysSnowman

TodaysSnowman03Feb2016 . .  . TodaysSnowman03Feb2008a

So, in many ways, Bob Eckstein is the godfather or midwife of this website. Without him, we might be called The Adventures of Mayor McSmarty. Or, maybe “If this is a Renaissance . . . “.

Ignored – the rules, the plans, the public, and safety

At tonight’s Schenectady City Council meeting, Nov. 13, I hope (despite the unrealistic 3-minute rule) to present and explain the issues depicted in collages posted below. The first topic is related to the Agenda Item regarding approval of a Schenectady PRIDE art installation at Gateway/Liberty Park.  Schenectady needs an established procedure to ensure adequate public input and post-approval monitoring of plans for proposals regarding important public spaces and art. The second will be a Privilege of the Floor statement regarding important safety issues created along the Mohawk Harbor’s shared use path by the failure to follow rules, plans, and best practices when installing a guardrail on the riverside and a set of interpretive signs on the Casino side.

. . share this post with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/IgnoredPlans

Click on an image for a larger version.

FIRST: “PLANS CHANGE”. For fuller discussion of the question of how [or how not] to include the public in the selection of public art and in the design and implementation of plans for important projects and locations, see:

GP-planschange

. . GP-Turbine-Girders

GPLightPoleChange

follow-up (November 24, 2018): The Daily Gazette reports “Stockade Association board asks for more public input on projects: The board detailed this in a letter given to the mayor and city council members” (by Andrew Beam, Nov. 23, 2018). Commentary can be found at the end of this posting.

SECOND: The bike-pedestrian Trail at Mohawk Harbor is far less safe than it readily could have been because of a failure to follow rules, plans, and best practices when installing a guardrail on the riverside and a set of interpretive signs on the Casino side. For comprehensive discussion of ALCO Heritage or Mohawk Harbor Trail safety issues, with excerpts from and links to relevant rules and studies, and with many more photos, etc., see:

ALCOTrail-safetyignored

update (Nov. 24, 2018): As stated above, the Gazette published an article today by Andrew Beam headlined “Stockade Association board asks for more public input on projects” (Nov. 23, 2018).  In a lengthy comment left at the article’s online webpage, I made several points, including:

Continue reading

Who botched placement of the ALCO Heritage Trail signs?

Schenectady County spent $30,000 for a set of “interpretive” signs that were installed along the ALCO Heritage Trail about six weeks ago. They celebrate the proud history of the site as location of the American Locomotive Company, where world-class locomotives and tanks were manufactured for over a century. [See County Press Release (Sept. 18, 2018); Daily Gazette article, and Times Union coverage (Sept. 20, 2018)]

IMG_9190 . . IMG_9193

But, even a casual look at the placement of the sturdy and wordy signs reveals that they are too close to the bike-hike trail, creating a hazard for anyone stopping to read the lengthy messages, and for bicyclists and pedestrians on the Trail. For example,

  • DSCF4280Neither the required 3-foot lateral clearance from a shared-use path stated in Schenectady’s Bike Master Plans (see below), much less the preferred distance of 3 to 5 feet, has been allotted for the large interpretive signs. The Best Practices rule of thumb of 3-5′ applies even to small  signs on single, narrow poles, to help ensure that a cyclist or pedestrian who must swerve off a path in an emergency or panic, has room to maneuver to safety. Instead, the frames of the ALCO Heritage signs are as little 28 inches from the bike-hike path.
  •  Whether a reader is alone, or part of a couple, family or group, the only place from which to read each of the 11 signs is from the shared-use Trail, placing them in the way of cyclists, runners, and all types of pedestrians passing by in both directions. The more successful the Trail is attracting users and tourists, the more frequently will conflicts arise.
  • There is no hard surface off the path “tread” for sign-readers in a wheelchair, or with a cane, walker or motorized scooter, to stop; nor for a curious bicyclist; nor for pedestrians who want to avoid unpaved ground around the sign when it is wet, slippery, or muddy.

 

 . . alcotrailsignreaders.jpg
DSCF4252

Members of the public without planning and engineering degrees (and, surely, even a group of visiting fourth-graders) can immediately see or sense that the ALCO Heritage signs are poorly placed. Why, then, would the County and City of Schenectady, which have been planning and promoting the use of bike and hike trails since before the dawning of the Third Millennium, permit this sub-par (and liability-creating) installation?  Good question.

ALCOSigns-McQueen-Hughes-Gaz [R] A new sign is unveiled byGary Hughes, Majority Leader of the County Legislature and Chair of its Economic Planning and Development Committee, and Joe McQueen, Spokesman for the County (Sept. 20, 2018). Photo by Marc Schultz for the Daily Gazette.

 

BikeSchyAdvisoryCmte . . SchdyBike2001-steering

. . above: [R] Steering Committee for the City of Schenectady Bike Master Plan (2001); and [L] and Advisory Panel of Bike Schenectady Master Plan (2017). Click on image for a larger version.

The County and City both were well-represented on the two Bike Master Plans produced and adopted by the City of Schenectady since the turn of the Century, one in 2001, and one just last year, the Bike Schenectady Master Plan, 2017. [See the lists in the images above this paragraph.] Both Master Plans call for a lateral clearance of at least 3 feet from the edge of the path for any signs along a shared-use path in the City of Schenectady (even small ones on skinny poles). And, of course, in both plans, a shared-use path along the Mohawk at the old ALCO site was seen as the crowning jewel of the system. Click on the images immediately below to see relevant portions of [L] the 2001 Bike Master Plan; and [R] Bike Schenectady (p. B-21 of the Appendices):

MUTCDshareduse . . BikeSchdy-TrailClearance

  • The American Trails organization also recommends a 3-foot clearance; as does, e.g., the Florida DOT: “3 feet or more desirable (clearance from trees, poles, walls, fences, guardrails, etc.)”.

But, is there any other reason, besides Common Sense safety and convenience concerns, for insisting that those viewing a trail-side interpretive sign be allowed to stand or sit off the trail? The Erie County Wayfinding Manual is a useful guide on many of the issues that arise in planning and implementing a bike-hike trail. It offers the thoughtful guidance that signage formats be “designed around the information they need to convey”, and thus (at 4, emphasis added):

Detailed orientation information, for instance, is placed on large signs where people can pull off the trail and spend as much time as they wish to study made, legends or interpretive information.

It is hard to believe that County and City planning staff members who have been active in municipal bicycle matters are not aware of the notion that interpretive signs be placed in a way that lets interested persons safely study them off the path, on a hard surface. Indeed, only two months ago, the County‘s study for a portion of this very ALCO Heritage Trail, MOHAWK HUDSON BIKE TRAIL EXTENSION FEASIBILITY REPORT (Sept. 14, 2018, at 22), included the following illustration, captioned “Example of wayfaring or interpretive signs”:

MHBTFReport-SignageImage . . MHBTFReport-signagepage

. . shorter URL for the Sept. 2018 Extension Feasibility Report: https://tinyurl.com/ALCOTrailExtend

IMG_9200This past Sunday (Nov. 4, 2018), while standing at the sign shown to the right and speaking to the couple in the photo, speedo-clad bicyclists twice rode quickly past us, appearing from the west, and in no way signaled their presence or their passing us on the left. Over the entire past year walking on the Mohawk Harbor trail and on the only paved path at Riverside Park, only one bicyclist passing me gave the required signal, with the silent ones leaving me startled and often off-balance. If nothing else, the customary behavior of individuals and groups using our trails, along with the lack of enforcement of safety rules, must be taken into account when designing and installing signage.

  • img_9186.jpg My web search could not be exhaustive, but the examples of interpretive signage closer than three feet from a trail that I found, and that were shaped like most of the ALCO Heritage Trail signage (example on the left), were on pedestrian or hiking trails, not trails that were meant to accommodate bicyclists (or horses).

If the experienced and professional staff members in planning and related offices of the County and City are aware of the 3-foot clearance rule and the preference for getting sign-readers off the path, why was the ALCO Heritage Trail signage project so poorly designed? I can only presume that their advice was silenced or over-ridden by people with more authority, who lacked knowledge of the regulation or best practices, and never bothered to ask fundamental questions. Or, who had priorities other than the safety and convenience of trail users, such as using as little of the developer’s or Casino’s lawn next to the path as possible, or spending as little money as possible.

RayGillen-tireless When I wrote to Metroplex Chair, and County Planning/Development Chief, Ray Gillen, to ask why the signs were so close to the Trail, his only reply on that issue was, “We all think they are beautiful.”  Ray Gillen, is known as tireless and working 24/7, and always tells me I should come first to him with concerns. Perhaps others will be more successful than I getting a useful explanation from Mr. Gillen. Maybe, asking Legislator Gary Hughes or Anthony Jasenski, Legislative Chair, would be more useful. My attempts to get answers from City and County leaders have been fruitless, which usually means they know I will not likely like the answer or consider it to be persuasive.

DSCF4279My hope is that members of the media and general public who care about public safety and transparency, and the rule of law, will probe a bit more. And, do so before the first serious injury along the Harbor Trail, and any related law suit.

Mohawk Harbor was meant to be, and is constantly touted as, the City’s showplace and pride. Yet, the Mohawk Harbor bike-hike trail has been constructed (somehow, at the expense of taxpayers rather than the developer) with little regard for public safety and comfort. Both the history signs on the south/Casino side of the trail, and the guardrails on the riverside of the trail, ignore the City’s codes, policies and plans, as well as best practice guidelines that seem particularly appropriate for our “showplace” Harbor.

. . share this post with this shorter URLhttps://tinyurl.com/UnsafeAlcoSigns

DSCF4232

Rivers Casino table games revenue still down from 2017

gaminglessonsad Despite sponsoring Gaming Lessons last September (see image to right), and having a rather good Table Games month in October 2018, Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor has still taken in less revenue from Table Games in the nine months since its first anniversary in February 2018, than it did in the same months of 2017, after its opening.  This is, of course, the flip side of the “slotsification” trend we have been reporting on here the past several months: The almost 11% increase in revenues at Rivers Casino over the same period last year is totally accounted for by an increase in Slots/ETG revenue of over 18%, with both table games and poker table revenue down. [Click for the Rivers’ Weekly Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) figures submitted to the Gaming Commission.] Here’s a chart showing aggregate numbers for the first nine months of operation of Rivers Casino in Schenectady, which began in February 2017, alongside the figures for the same nine months in 2018:

 CasinoRevCompared-Feb-Oct

We Repeat our Main Concern: Slots are the most addictive form of casino gambling, and draw many of the most vulnerable members of our community. As disappointing as the measly 1% reduction in property tax rates may be for 2019 (see Times Union article dated Oct. 26, 2018), the budget antics that brought any decrease at all due to Casino gaming tax revenues, are primarily bought with the Slots dollars spent by our grandmothers and neighbors who probably can least afford to gamble at Rivers Casino. The High Rollers are not flying in regularly to help reduce your taxes.

SlotsGrandmaBW. . Thank you, Dearie, for the tiny tax cut; but, you better try harder! . . 

Slots have been up elsewhere across the nation, but at nowhere near the percentage increase that we have seen all year along the Mohawk. Despite that, neither the City nor County of Schenectady has budgeted any funds for problem gambling education and prevention in 2019.  And, neither government seems to want to look into, much less talk about, the dollars sucked out of other local businesses as crowds are lured to events at Mohawk Harbor.

pillar-ied at the Plaza

img_6565-Pillars

No, those “Rusty Girders” & “Light Sabers” are not there for Halloween. They are, however, more trick than treat for many of the people who live or work in Schenectady, or just visit the City and pass by or through “Gateway Plaza”.

 . . 

Of course, the Plaza fixtures aren’t officially called “Rusty Girders” & “Light Sabers”. They are the modern sculpture and lighting fixtures that have been permanently installed along Gateway Plaza’s [Liberty Park’s] Water Street Pedestrian Way. What do you think?

The makers of each refer to them as “pillars”:

  • img_8667.jpgThe girders, which have been placed at the Central Focal Point of the Plaza as urban sculpture, are “Open Pillar Corten Steel Lighting Columns“, described as “triangular LED-ready lighting columns with a lattice-like graphic pattern.” Their attributes: They “break the horizon with a strong vertical expression. The abstract geometrical pattern can blend into almost any atmosphere. The distinctive open pattern allows vegetation to climb and grow, introducing vertical green in open spaces.” Ours have no vegetation, but do have blue LED lighting that can be seen starting around sunset and dusk.
  • Girders-StateStViewThe light poles are “Unilamp’s Contemporary Light Column / PMMA / LED / For Public Spaces: Pillar“. The sales copy for the light column states: “It is intentionally used for highlighting the surrounding structure works in modern architectural areas. Because of its eye-catching look, it is suitably applied in square, commercial areas and open spaces.”

The Plaza’s designer and construction administrator, landscape architect Mary Moore Wallinger, apparently chose them for the Plaza believing they signal to visitors that Schenectady is contemporary and future-oriented. On the other hand, she has tried, belatedly and behind the scenes, to exile Lady Liberty from her Liberty Plaza home, for not being contemporary enough. [For that story, see our post “Lady Liberty is Timeless]

Chair Wallinger discussing Casino Pylon

Those changes from the approved Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, in my opinion at least, really do seem like tricks, especially since the decisions were made out of the public view by the same person who authored and promoted the original Implementation Plan in 2013, and who incidentally wields power at City Hall as the Chair of the City’s Planning Commission. Moreover, because (as explained below), they were not shown in the approved Implementation Plan or even as alternatives during its creation and approval, they seem like a bait-n-switch.

SURPRISE: Why were so many of us surprised by the choice of these pillars for the Plaza? What did we expect the lighting and sculpture to look like in Gateway Plaza? The public and their representatives who are asked to adopt or approve a plan look to drawings or other images (renderings) presented by the Plan creators in order to understand the intended appearance of a project when completed. Here are details from a rendering presented by Ms. Wallinger in drafts and in the Final Report of the City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, which was adopted by the City Council and signed by the Mayor in 2013:

GPrenderSculpture.png . . [L] detail from Plan rendering of a wind turbine (and sculpture) located at the Plaza’s Central Focal Point, on the “Water Street Pedestrian Way” portion of Gateway Plaza, as seen from State Street. And,

 GPrenderLamps [L] rendering detail showing lamp poles along the Pedestrian Way (with a Venus de Milo replica and a modern red sculpture further down the path) . .

CENTRAL FOCAL POINT. The Implementation Plan’s Executive Summary has this to say about the Central Focal Point and Sculpture:

PubWorkshop-CentralFocalThe central focal point is intended to be a large sculptural wind turbine that would cleanly and abstractly capture the City of Schenectady’s historic legacy as a City of innovation while also celebrating its more recent role in both the arts and green technologies.

PubMtg-WhyWindTurbine When asked at the Implementation Plan’s Design Public Workshop, “Why a wind turbine and not something solar?” [image at left shows text in the Report], the design team representative (who I believe was Ms. Wallinger) gave the following response:

There is room for both technologies, but the wind turbine speaks to Schenectady’s past and present and would also say something about the environmental conditions in the park, adding another layer of interest. In addition to providing energy for the park, it would also serve as a piece of art that tells a story.

As actually implemented and constructed, of course, there is not a Wind Turbine in sight, just the “fast-rusting” Girders for focal point sculpture. Were there engineering or financial problems that made a working or purely artistic wind turbine impractical? When was the wind turbine concept abandoned and the search for a substitute made? When and why were the Cor-ten Girders selected? Were they, for example, the $20,000 item in the submitted expense estimates? Who participated in the change and new selection process? If the public was asked to participate in the discussion, I am not aware of it.

. .  [R] sample of attractive wind turbine HerculesWindTurbine-Eng

PubWorkshop-Lighting LIGHTING: When asked “How would lighting work in the park?” at the Public Design Workshop for the Implementation Plan [image to the right], the design team representative responded (emphases added):

There would be perimeter lighting at levels similar to those along the 400 block of State Street and it would be in the form of street lights at a pedestrian scale. There would also be lighting along the central axes and likely some low level lighting as needed to ensure visibility and safety within the park, especially since it will likely be used in the evenings by students and others if restaurants move into the area. The internal fixtures would likely be more contemporary and should utilize low energy technologies.

What about using bollard lighting? Response: There are certainly opportunities for some creative lighting, but maintenance needs to be considered and whichever fixtures are chosen will need to be easy to maintain, inexpensive to replace parts, durable, and efficient.

GP-lightpoledetail Having reviewed many proposals over the last several decades by government staffers and contractors, and by attorneys, the vague wording “The internal fixtures would likely be more contemporary” should have raised red flags for me and others even more familiar with the planning process. Including that phrase looks like an attempt by the designers to give themselves more than a little “wiggle room”, to later justify diverging from the light fixtures shown in the Plan rendering of the internal Pedestrian Way [image detail to the right]. When was the switch to the “light sabers” made, and who was included in that decision process?

How did we get something so different? You’ll have to ask Mary Moore Wallinger, whose LAndArt Studio is administering the construction of Gateway Plaza. She is Owner/Principal of LAndArt Studio and incidentally, as noted above, the Chair of the City of Schenectady Planning Commission. You might also ask her protectors-partners-sponsors, Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen and Mayor Gary McCarthy. [For more pictures of the finished Gateway Plaza, please see this posting at “suns along the Mohawk”].

  • One wag has suggested that maybe Ms. Wallinger had the wrong definition of “execute” in mind, when given the task of executing the approved Plan for Metroplex and the City.

Should we care? How should our elected officials (City Council or the County Legislature) and the public react, as a matter of either public process or aesthetics, when a result is so different from a proffered and approved Plan, with no intervening input from our representatives or the public?

GP-PlansChangeCollage

 . . De gustibus non est disputandum . . . .

HOW MUCH DISCRETION? The cliché is that “There is no accounting for taste” — that there is no objective way to resolve disputes over a matter of taste. That is certainly true about private matters, although promises should matter and be taken into account. But, when one person’s taste is thrust upon the public, in a visually inescapable and financially significant way, what safeguards should be in place? Here, we add the important factor of expectations created when a plan is produced after broad participation and then officially approved.

erasingG In Schenectady, approved plans have been changed on projects for preserving or replacing buildings at important locations — usually, with City Hall or the Planning Commission pointing to “engineering” reports that they say indicate a safety issue or unknown factors that make the approved plans impossible, impractical, or immensely more expensive, to achieve. No such reasons were available for the belated exiling of Lady Liberty from Liberty Park and its extension into Gateway Plaza. Instead, Mayor Gary McCarthy spoke of recommendations from “the Design Team,” giving no further details or explanation. The Design Team is, or is headed by, Mary Wallinger.

Similarly, as a member of the public who tries to keep abreast of such issues, I have heard of no reasons for the change in installed sculpture and lighting poles. I have no idea whether or not the changes were brought to the attention of the City Planning Office staff, Operations Bureau, the Mayor, or other City Hall officials or staffers, before the selections were made, purchased or installed.

LLspotwinter 

Given the great emphasis the City and County have placed on creating this “gateway” to Schenectady, and supposed influence on the image presented by the City, shouldn’t we expect more monitoring and oversight of the final product? And, shouldn’t we require that significantly more attention be paid to the likely reaction of the public to significant stylistic and design changes to major elements of an approved plan?

  • IMG_8671Public Reaction? The best review of the Lamp Pillars that I have heard is that they look really cool at night. Of course, ignoring their bland appearance all day so that relatively few people might see the lamp portion at night is not a great trade-off.
  • Similarly, as to the girders, [1] Some passers-by think the off-the-shelf pillars must be remains from the 9/11 Tragedy at the World Trade Center or perhaps are an allusion to the City’s once-great industrial past. I do not know whether Ms. Wallinger was trying to make such references, despite her professed goal this year of honoring Schenectady’s future. [2] Close up, I find the blue light glowing in the Open-Pillar Lighting Columns fun to view and photograph. But, how many people will have that experience after sunset, especially when the glow is scarcely noticeable from State Street even in full darkness (perhaps because the light pillars are so bright)?
  • Even if you like the Girders and Sabers and have no problem in the abstract of having them in the Plaza, the process that brought them there is troublesome.

When Ms. Wallinger addressed City Council at a public meeting to explain her exiling of Lady Liberty, she asserted that “plan’s change” (without differentiating among initial brainstorming, drafts and alternatives under consideration, reaction to public input at workshops, and municipally-adopted plans, much less those with post-approval emergencies), and she insisted Lady Liberty was only a “small part” of the overall Plaza Plan, seemingly talking about square footage, not emotional and historic value. Her  breezy attitude about her authority over final design choices is especially worrisome to me, because she (or her alter ego landscape architecture studio) has been given design control over so many municipal projects, and because of her influence over the Planning Commission agenda and procedures, and its staff. Thus, her LAndArt Studio website proclaims:

 Principal and owner Mary Moore Wallinger has been working in the field of Landscape Architecture since 2000  – designing, managing and overseeing projects both large and small. Ms. Wallinger’s robust portfolio includes municipal parks and plazas, institutional and corporate campuses, site planning, master planning, urban design, sustainable site design, healing gardens, and streetscapes.

For example, in Schenectady City and County, Mary Wallinger has been the principal designer for:

dscf3324-001

How Much Discretion is Appropriate? Perhaps Schenectady City and County (and especially Metroplex) should take a close look at the various guidelines on the selection of public art that have been promulgated by interested professional and community groups (for example,  the Standards and Guielines adopted by the College Art Association, CAAA), to renew their commitment to broad participation and respect for public input. The CAAA guidelines, for example,  call for early public participation and reconsideration of a draft design after receiving public comments on the draft.

  • With Gateway Plaza, the public’s desire for the return of Lady Liberty and keeping the name of Liberty Park has been ignored after approval, while being placated during the plan-making process. [see images just below this blurb] In addition, the public’s ability to influence the appearance of the Plaza/Park was greatly undermined by switching two of the most important elements, with choices that are met at most with indifference.

 . .

Public Workshop comments on [above] name of the Plaza; [below] location of Lady Liberty

It seems that the City and County of Schenectady are giving too much discretion on important and highly-visible municipal projects to too few people. And, even after official approval, too much leeway to the person entrusted with implementing plans. Especially when it comes to highly visible pieces of public art or important public spaces, the public’s role and opinion must be protected and honored.

IMG_8665 . .

. . share this posting with this shorter URL:https://tinyurl.com/pillaried

. . hm: maybe a real pillory like one on display at Williamsburg VA would bring back a little history, at least for Halloween . . 

poorly planned safety railing erected along Mohawk Harbor trail

 mhtrail29octa1 update (Oct. 29, 2018):  With no help from City Hall or the County to delay the installation, the fence is finished, without the needed improvements. . . It is too close to the Path [should be 3′ clearance or more, not 2′], too short [should be 54 inches high, not 42″], and has no rub rail to protect bicyclists. There is adequate space for the preferred 3- to 5-foot buffer, but the installers were instructed to use a 2-foot buffer. The public was never given the chance to raise the issues and the regulators apparently never bothered. See discussion below.

MHTrail29OctD. .  photo to the right shows: 2-foot buffer between Path and guardrail/fence, and sufficient space on the riverbank side to widen the buffer for the safety of all path users and those who come merely to watch the River.

MHTrail29OctC . . MHTrail29OctB

ALCOTrailWestEnd . . westendwall-buffer . . at the west end of the Mohawk Harbor trail, the new fence along the riverbank has only a 24″ buffer from the edge of the path; while the wall on the other side of the path has a much safer 50″ inch buffer. 

. . above photos taken October 29, 2018 . . 

ORIGINAL POST . . October 15, 2018

“poorly planned safety railing going up along Mohawk Harbor trail”

IMG_8948

orangesafetyconeBelow is an email message that I sent today (October 15, 2018) to Christine Primiano, the City of Schenectady’s Chief Staff Planner. It outlines why I believe we must halt the installation of a railing/fence along the riverside of the ALCO Heritage Trail in Mohawk Harbor, and seek to achieve a better, safer guardrail. The 42″ high guardrail is being installed only two feet from the paved edge of the Hike-Bike Trail.  Best practices for shared-use paths and relevant regulations call for a 3-foot buffer (including the Bike Schenectady Master Plan adopted just last year). A taller guardrail, with a rub rail, is also needed. Following the regulations and guidelines can help increase the likelihood that hikers, cyclists, tourists and other visitors will avoid injury along the Mohawk Harbor trail and guardrail, and reduce liability exposure by the City and County.

[update (Nov. 5): I have received no reply from the Planning Office, nor Corporation Counsel, nor any other City or County official on these issues. When I visited the Trail on October 14, the fence was only 220′ long, with no cables; when I visited it on Friday, October 19, the guardrail installation had continued, extending at that time almost to the east end of the Landing Hotel, but still without the cable strung.]

IMG_8953 . . ALCOtrailFence2

From: David Giacalone
Subject: the Mohawk Harbor trail railing is not safe enough
Date: October 15, 2018 at 11:55:10 AM EDT
To: CHRISTINE PRIMIANO, Chief Planner, cprimiano@schenectadyny.gov
Cc: meidens@schenectadyny.gov, cfalotico@schenectadyny.gov, RGillen@schenectadymetroplex.org

Hello, Christine,

A guardrail is finally being erected between the steep riprap riverbank and ALCO Heritage Trail at Mohawk Harbor. For that I am grateful. But, there are so many ways a guardrail should and could have better protected cyclists, hikers, tourists, and River-watchers (including those in wheelchairs), that I wish there could have been an opportunity for comment by experts and the public.

Given that this is the end of the hike-bike season, and safety cones or caution tape could readily be used to line the top of the steep slope, I believe we should halt the current installation, which as of yesterday, was only about 220’ long, with no cable strung, and then decide how to do it in a way that is more appropriate from a safety point of view for all likely users. 

  • IMG_8956 Note, the fence being installed is taller than, but otherwise the same style and materials as the fencing along the Casino and Landing Hotel patios.
  • the first (gray) photo-collage below has shots taken on October 11 of the fencing; the last photo was taken yesterday, from the east end of Riverside Park
  • the second (green) photo-collage below demonstrates why I have been arguing that a safety rail is needed. A fuller discussion of those issues can be found at http://tinyurl.com/HarborTrailSafety


Was the design of this fence and its placement submitted to your Office for review? Did anyone have the opportunity to remind the County or Metroplex that the Bike Schenectady Master Plan states, in the Shared Use Path guidance section (p. B-21 of the Appendices):

“A 2 foot or greater shoulder on both sides of the path should be provided. An additional foot of lateral clearance (total of 3’) is required by the MUTCD for the installation of signage or other furnishings.”


BikeSchdy-TrailClearanceI hope no one in authority will try to argue that a fence 3/4 of a mile long is not a furnishing and not as troublesome as a sign post in presenting a hazard to trail users. A screen shot of the BikeSchenectady page is inserted to the right (click on it for a larger image]; also, click here to see a relevant page from Schenectady’s 2001 Master Bike Plan (mandating a three-foot clearance to obstacles); and a useful page from the Cayuga-Seneca Canal Trail Master Plan. , which explains (at 29, emphases added):

Railings

Railings are generally used to protect trail users from steep gradients located close to the edge of the trail. A general landscape guideline from the NYS Building Code is that if there is a sheer drop of 18” or greater then a railing should be provided. In New York State, all railings along bike paths should be 54” high. While there are no specific warrants for providing safety railings where steep slopes are adjacent to a trail, the NYS Highway Design Manual does indicate (Figure 18-16 Safety Railings Along Bicycle and Multi-Use Paths) that a 54” high (1.4 meter) safety rail be provided when a significant slope is closer than 5’ from the trail edge. Sound professional judgement should be used to assess whether the slope gradient, vertical drop or dangerous obstacles on the slope (trees, poles, concrete structures, etc.) warrant the installation of a safety rail.

IMG_8946 On Friday, the supervisor of the fence/rail installation firm (Access Anvil Corp.) told me that there was no obstacle to putting the structure three feet from the trail edge, but his specs called for two-feet. Of course, in many places along the slope, there is room for the railing to be the 3-5 feet that many studies and regulatory bodies have said is preferred for the shoulder. That would allow bikes or pedestrians making evasive moves a safer landing, and permit groups of river-watchers (and those in wheelchairs) to enjoy the River without worrying about hanging over or inadvertently stepping back onto the Trail.

For such an important location and project, we need a real discussion of how to do it right. For example, shouldn’t there be a “rub rail” so that handlebars do not catch on the rail? The main “silver” portion being installed is 42” high; the “black” section on the western end is apparently 5’ high. Why isn’t the entire railing 54” high? Would such a long railing/fence be aesthetically more pleasing if it were at different heights and distances from the trail edge? Etc., etc. I don’t know the answers, but I do know a discussion might have produced useful answers and maybe a consensus.

Before more of the railing is installed, let’s pause and decide that Mohawk Harbor and the people using it deserve as good a safety rail as best practices can achieve.

Thank you for your time and review of these important issues.

David

 P.S. I still have never been given an explanation for the failure to follow the C-3 zoning requirement that there be the customary two-foot shoulder PLUS ten additional feet buffer on the riverside of the Mohawk Harbor shared-used path. Nor, do I understand why the April 2015 trail submission, posted by the County as Riverside Trail Map, showing 10’ of mulched and planted shoulder between the trail and the steep riverbank was not followed, and we instead have a shoulder of 4 to 7 feet, covered in unstable gravel. [annotated detail from plat inserted at right of this p.s. blurb]

ALCOTrailFence11Oct

IMG_8987

ALCOTrailSafety

complaintbill In addition to the points made in the email to the Planning Office, I continue to wonder why taxpayers are paying 90% of the cost of constructing the bike-hike trail, and for the guardrail, when the Schenectady Zoning Code for the Harbor District [C-3, §264-14(1)E(4)] says that: “A single multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail shall be constructed by the applicant.” “Applicant” refers to the developer or owner of the harbor property.

through September all added Casino revenue is still from Slots

The numbers are in for September 2018, and the scary “slotsification” process continues:

SlotsGrandmaFor the eight months since the first anniversary of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, all of the increased gambling revenue over the same 8 months of operation in 2017 has been produced by Slots/ETG revenues. Slots/ETG gambling is up significantly, while both Table Game and Poker Table revenues are down.

Here are the totals for February through September 2017 and February through September 2018 (compiled using figures from the Rivers Casino Weekly Website Report):

RiversRevenues-8monthCompare

YourAngryGrandma Slots are the most addictive form of casino gambling, and draw many of the most vulnerable members of our community. If the County and City of Schenectady are receiving more gaming tax revenues from the State because of the “improved” revenues during its second year of operation, those added receipts are coming from Slots Players alone. As we like to say around here, Grandma and Aunt Tillie are paying for your (measely) property tax reductions related to Rivers Casino.

A few thoughts on what Rivers is doing for Schenectady:

  1. Non-Gambling Revenues. Rivers Casino is attracting large crowds for many events, with the Mohawk Harbor Marina and other amenities, and the Landing Hotel. But, those customers are earning money for Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor’s owners and tenants that is taxed locally — sales, food and drink, room occupancy, etc. — at a far lower level than gambling revenue. All the publicity and boosterism Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor garner from our business and development “leaders”, and our Convention and Tourism Bureau, is profiting Rush Street Gaming, Galesi Group, and their associated businesses, far more than local property tax payers.
  2. Substitution/Cannibalization Effect.Non-gambling revenues at Mohawk Harbor are clearly taking dollars from other local businesses in the entertainment and leisure markets, surely leading to job reductions and business closing. [see a Casinos are Good for Business Poster used in Ontario, Canada]
  3. FossGaz-PGStop Problem Gambling Prevention. The County and City are still not acting to help reduce the incidence of Problem Gambling through Education that prevents gambling disorders by helping to make gambling a safe, occasional leisure activity, not an obsession or addiction. If Rivers Casino and soon Sports Betting are here to stay, we must educate our youth, and help adults learn to recognize the signs of problem gambling in themselves, their friends and loved ones, their employees, and co-workers. [More information on Prevention, here.]
  4. More Information Needed. When will our local media companies start demanding numbers from the County and City on things such as the effects on other local businesses; the number of Schenectady residents getting jobs at Rivers Casino, and the kinds of jobs; and extra expenses paid for by City and County and State taxpayers that should be paid for by Rivers Casino and the Galesi Group.

 

 

Photo-Rally for Lady Liberty

RallyCollage

  • The two dozen photos below were taken Friday evening, September 28, 2018, at Liberty Park [a/k/a Gateway Plaza], when a small, protest “photo rally” was held, centered on a Silhouette of the Statue of Liberty. The Silhouette Lady was a poor, two-dimensional stand-in for our missing replica Statue of Lady Liberty. The Statue had been standing in Liberty Park since 1950, and was removed for its protection during construction, in August 2017, due to the re-design of Liberty Park and its expansion into Gateway Plaza.
  • The Final Report of the City of Schenectady Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan called for the return of Lady Liberty after the completion of construction, which was accomplished in Spring of 2018. (Lady Liberty was even shown in the Plan’s cover sketch.) For a full discussion, see https://tinyurl.com/TimelessLiberty .
IMG_8630

kids with views and dry shoes

.

Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation and Schenectady County cancelled their event “Groovin’@Gateway” [page removed by DSIC], with no public statement that it was being cancelled. Nevertheless, a dozen lovers of Lady Liberty and Her Park gathered at Liberty Park around 6 P.M. on Friday, September 28, 2018. DSIC’s Executive Director Jim Salengo told me by phone late Wednesday morning they had, despite all of the hard surfaces at the Park/Plaza for vendors and the public, already decided to cancel the event because he feared the grass/lawns/field would be too soggy. (DSIC has been cutting the grass at the new Plaza, according to Mr. Salengo.) It did rain on Thursday and for much of Friday morning, but the forecasted sun did a great job drying out all the grassy areas.  Jim also told me he had not heard I was planning a Rally for Lady Liberty until I mentioned it during that phone conversation.

1IMG_8608 . . IMG_8575

. . above: [L] Silhouette Statue of Liberty with sign bearing the theme of the Photo-Rally (click on the image for a larger version); [R] Silhouette standing at the center of the Park’s still-empty Modern Sculpture fixture, which was the approximate location of Schenectady’s replica Statue of Liberty. The Silhouette is only 76″ tall, and has no pedestal. The replica Statue is 100″ high, and had a pedestal 7′ tall.

IMG_8600-001

GP-Rendering-LibertyDetailabove: Silhouette Lady stand at the location designated by the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan for the return of Lady Liberty, along State Street, near the CDTA bus shelter. To the right is a detail from a Final Plan rendering depicting Lady Liberty returned at that location.

. . share this post with a shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/LLPhotoRally

. . . For a larger version of an image in the Slideshow below, pause on the photo, right-click, and choose View Image in a New Tab. 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

.

As you can see from the Slideshow, it was a lovely early-autumn evening at Liberty Park, and everyone seemed to be in a good mood, including the friendly patrolman. As happens whenever I speak with strangers in Liberty/Gateway Park, there was enthusiastic support for our position demanding the return of Lady Liberty. More than once I heard, “but there’s so much room here for the statue.” My handout photo of Lady Liberty in her Park in September 2016 was much in demand at the bus stop:

LadyInPark6x4BE

BTW: Happily, the largest and grandest tree survived the redesign of Liberty Park.

Had the Groovin’@Gateway event been held Friday evening, we would have celebrated the new public space, and done some gentle advocacy on behalf of Lady Liberty. Whether Plaza patrons and revelers were warmed with craft brews or not, I have no doubt “conversions” to our cause would have come readily, AND no one would have come up with a reasonable excuse for not returning Lady Liberty to her Home.

Frankly, because designer Mary Wallinger no longer wants the Statue in “her” Plaza; or because the Mayor and Chairman Gillen want to please Mary; are not good enough reasons. Common sense, public support, historic preservation principles, and the integrity of the public planning process and the City Council review and approval process (Resolution No. 2013-206), all cry out for the return of the replica Statue of Liberty to her home of 67 years.

mayorgarymccarthy2013bw In a Time Union article last March: Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy told reporter Paul Nelson:  “I’m sure whatever decision I make that Mr. Giacalone will be opposed to it.” The article also stated that the Mayor “will soon make his final decision public.” Six and a half months later, Mayor McCarthy is still saying he has no statement on Lady Liberty’s fate, but “has something in the works.” Of course, with no engineering or other safety issue, and no financial crisis to blame, there should be no decision to make: Execute the Plan, don’t kill it.

Mr. Mayor, you can make Mr. Giacalone and many others very happy by simply saying, “Of course, we will fulfill the Implementation Plan and return the Statue to Liberty Park, her home.” What he should “have in the works” is some funding for the Veterans Memorial at Steinmetz Park, and an apology to the good people of Goose Hill for raising their hopes that a City-wide treasure would be moving to their Park.

IMG_8575-001 The cardboard Silhouette Statue was a pale representation of our real Lady Liberty Friday evening, but seeing it at what the Plan called the “Central Sculpture and Seating” area, on or very close to the Statue’s original location, makes it clear to me that the Lady would look and feel fine at that location.  Last March, we noted at this website:

  1. Every public comment about the Liberty statue was positive for keeping her at the Plaza (App. G, at 94, 110 of the Final Report), with notable support to make Her more prominent, keeping Lady Liberty at her original location in the renovated “urban plaza” area.

Mary Wallinger or DSIC staff should have noticed that for much of the day, there are CDTA buses blocking the view of the spot next to the Bus Shelter from State Street. So, putting Lady Liberty on the still empty sculpture fixture, which should feel like Home, should be fully considered, to give Her the prominence she deserve. The replica is 100″ tall (Lawrence the Indian is 66″) and could command that space, even on a pedestal shorter than her original 7-foot pedestal.

  • A portion of the funds saved not buying another “modern sculpture” piece (the three rusted girders apparently cost $20,000) could surely be used for the Steinmetz Park Veterans Memorial.

Finally, as has been said before at this site:

The excuse that Lady Liberty is not contemporary enough for that Plaza is simply silly. Designer Wallinger embraced keeping the Statue in the new Park/Plaza throughout the design process. There is no symbol that better fulfills the Implementation Plan’s goal of “celebrating our past, present, and future.” Lady Liberty is Timeless.

p.s. Does anybody think the youngest and eldest members of the Schenectady community want Lady Liberty exiled for her failure to ooze the contemporary spirit? “Contemporary” often means “temporary,” but — as we like to say — in America Liberty is timeless.

IMG_8589

IMG_8665

. . above and below “contemporary enough Plaza fixtures” . . 

IMG_8626

Rally “Photo Op” for Lady Liberty on Sept. 28 at 6 PM

Photo4Liberty UPDATE (Sept. 26, 2018): DSIC has cancelled Friday’s “Groovin’@Gateway”, saying that they fear the grounds will be too soggy, even if rain does stop by Thursday or Friday morning. (They have, in fact, taken all mention of it off the DSIC website, not even bothering to show it as cancelled on their Events calendar, and taking down its webpage.) Nonetheless, as I say on my Facebook Page,

 Despite the Cancellation of Groovin’@Gateway, let’s have a PHOTO-OP for LADY LIBERTY, at the same time, 6 PM FRIDAY, to highlight our hope that Lady Liberty will soon be brought back to her home in Liberty Park at Gateway Plaza. There will be no worry over getting in the way of the DSIC Event, no stress, just some fun romping around with signs and snapshots with Silhouette Lady Liberty. I suggest:

SilLiberty 6 PM Friday, Sept. 28 we hold a Quick Photo-op Rally for LADY LIBERTY’s RETURN.

— at the Central Sculpture area, the Lady’s pre-construction location for 67 years
— a 76” Silhouette of Lady Liberty will be there (photo on right), with foam Liberty crowns
— I’ll bring props and signs (Family-rated)
— and, hand-out souvenir 4×6 photos of Lady Liberty in her Park (see photo below)
— and, my camera and monopod to capture the event

It will be a short session, unless some folks want to schmooze a bit. So, please be there at 6 PM.

Partially cloudy skies should mean great sunset potential. There is no rain forecast for Friday afternoon or evening.

LadyInPark6x4BE

Please Join Us!

. . for more info see:  https://tinyurl.com/TimelessLiberty . .

ORIGINAL POSTING 

This Friday, September 28, 2018, Downtown Schenectady Improvement Corporation  and Schenectady County are throwing an event called “Groovin’@Gateway“, so the public can

GroovinLogo . . experience Downtown Schenectady’s newest public space, Gateway Plaza. Enjoy live music, food & craft beer vendors, and family art activities in this beautiful new destination at State Street and Washington Avenue at the western gateway to downtown. Free and open to the public.

September 28, 5:30-7:30pm
Gateway Plaza, 12 State Street

We think this event is the perfect opportunity, while celebrating the new public space, for a peaceful, neighborly Rally asking that Liberty Park’s Statue of Liberty replica be returned to her home, as was promised by the City in its Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan.
  • The Rally will take place at 6 PM at the Central Sculpture Area (near Washington Avenue and State Street, across from SCCC), where Lady Liberty stood from 1950 to 2017.
Here is a printable, jpg. flyer announcing and explaining the Rally; click on it to see a larger version. Please help to distribute it widely, including on Facebook pages.
.
Rally4Lady
  • All are welcome, young, old and in-between. Silhouette Lady will appear and bring some Liberty Crowns for the kids.
  • LadyTree Come join lovers of Lady Liberty and Her Park to ask that the Plan to return Lady Liberty, approved by the public and City Hall in 2012-2013, be implemented: Bring Back the Lady to Best Celebrate the Past, Present & Future of our City and County, and to support preservation and the integrity of our planning process.
  • For more information about the very avoidable controversy over where Lady Liberty will be relocated now that reconstruction of her Park and creation of Gateway Plaza are complete, see https://tinyurl.com/TimelessLiberty .
  • GazLTE-JWilson27Jun2018 Click the following link for a collection of Letters to the Editors written in support of bringing Lady Liberty home.
  • Leave a message, if you would like to help with the Rally.
  • Share this posting with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/Rally4Lady
  • See you at Liberty Park at Gateway Plaza!

. . fortunately, I took photos of the Lady in Her Park in September 2016, as soon as I heard she would be removed during the re-construction:

LadyParkCollage2016e

.

LadyInParkSept2016

Lady Liberty in Liberty Park, Sept. 2016

more doldrums after River Casino’s best week & month

.  .it’s back to Doldrums Along the Mohawk . . 

As the Daily Gazette reported on September 9th, the week ending September 2, 2018 was the best week in the history of Rivers Casino for generating gambling revenue, with the first $4 million GGR at the Casino. In addition, August 2018 was the best single month yet at the Mohawk Harbor casino.  [See “Rivers has best month ever but loses top spot among N.Y. casinos: Schenectady casino grosses $14.4 million but new Catskills gambling destination tops it with $15 million” (Daily Gazette, by John Cropley, September 9, 2018)]

But, even a Best Month and Best Week should not make Government tax-counters and citizen taxpayers particularly optimistic. As reporter John Cropley noted:

The monthly numbers do not, by themselves, indicate a trend. Annual or year-to-date figures are better for drawing such conclusions.

So far in 2018, Rivers is averaging $12.94 million a month in gross gaming revenue and $219,131 a month in tax payments to Schenectady.

For 2017, it averaged $11.66 million per month in gross gaming revenue and sent an average of $189,136 in taxes to Schenectady.

`Those numbers demonstrate a 10% growth in average monthly Gross Gambling Revenue at Rivers Casino Schenectady. As we have argued before, 10% more than last year’s 30% shortfall from Rush Street Gaming’s projections for the first year of operation at its Schenectady Casino is not exactly an impressive turn-around. That is especially true when we consider that Rivers Casino has achieved or experienced virtually its entire “Wait Until We Have” List. – – from the opening of its Landing Hotel, to a year of rentals at its 200-unit River House apartments, to thousands coming to Harbor Jamboree concerts, and much more.

Beyond the fiscal doldrums, despite one very big Table Game week at the end of August, we fear the Slotsification Undertow. For the seven months since Rivers Casino’s 1st Anniversary, February through August,

  • Total GGR increased 10.6% over the same months in 2017
  • But, both Table Game and Poker GGR are down (respectively, down 3.4% and 9.0%)
  • While GGR from Slots/ETG has increased 19.1%

Increased revenues from Slots undoubtedly means an increase in Problem Gambling and gambling addiction in our community, with all of the damage to the gamblers, their families and friends, and our entire society. That added hazard for Schenectady is especially true if slots players are predominately local residents.

As we wrote last month:

AddictionByDesign-Schüll-CoverRev The New York Times article cited above, Slot Machines Are Designed to Addict(October 10, 2013), gives a good explanation of how/why slots are so addictive. It was written by Natasha Dow Schüll, and anthropologist and the author of Addiction by Design: Machine Gambling in Las Vegas”(Princeton University Press, 2013).

The Week After Labor Day: One last reason for City and County leaders to show restraint in counting unhatched gambling tax eggs: Although week-to-week comparisons can be tricky, the week after Labor Day appears to have many unique characteristics for the American workforce and families. Here is how that Week after Labor Day, the first full week of September at Rivers Casino, compared to the cognate week for 2017:

Compared to the week ending 9/10/17, the week ending 9/9/18 at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor saw:

  • Only a 2.6% increase in total GGR
  • A reduction of 21.4% in Table Game GGR
  • A reduction of 10.9% in Poker Table GGR
  • An increase in Slots/ETG GGR of 11.7%

August continues Casino tilt to Slots

In the seven months since its 1st Anniversary celebration in February, Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor in Schenectady has seen an underwhelming increase of 10% in its Total Gross Gambling Revenue compared to the first seven months of the Casino’s operation. Frankly, considering Rivers only taking in about 70% of its first-year revenue projection, and the coming into existence of so many of its “wait-untils,” a ten percent increase is simply not all that impressive.

RiversRevCompareAug Moreover, after tabulating the numbers for the first four weeks of August 2018, it is clear that the “slotsification” we worried about last month continues.  Slots/ETG revenue is up 19.7% from February through August, but both Table Game and Poker Game revenues are down compared to the same months in 2017. Therefore, the vaunted increase at Schenectady’s Casino continues to be all from Slots — all from the most addictive and victimizing form of casino gambling.

. . share this post with the URL: https://tinyurl.com/SlotsTilt

 Here are the number totals for February to August 2018: HotSlotsFacade

RiversRevs-Feb-Aug

  • 68.7%: Slots/ETG were 63.2% of the Total Gross Gambling Revenues at Rivers Casino in its first 7 months of operation (Feb. to August of 2017). That percentage has increased to 68.7% of Total GGR for the same months of 2018, the first seven months of the second year of operation of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor.

We are, therefore, in the very Catch-22 situation that any thinking person (especially those not hoping to cash in on the coming of a casino to Schenectady, or any urban location), and any thoughtful politician or leader (especially those realistically looking after the interests of the entire community) would have foreseen and avoided when the Casino-In-Schenectady process started in 2014.

  1. Catch22logo Revenues will never reach the levels that were used to justify the risks to the community from an urban casino.
  2. Attempting to increase the revenue levels at the Casino will almost certainly increase the social cost, including increasing the incidence of problem gambling, and especially increasing slots revenue.
  3. Politicians, like Ass. Phil Steck (“from Mohawk Harbor”), will suggest tax breaks for the Casino owners and developer, that will actually reduce the amount received by the State, City and County, and increase profits for the Casino Gang, which does not need to meet its phony projections to reap a profit.
  4. No significant efforts will be made to bring the community the kinds of Problem Gambling Education and Prevention efforts that might ameliorate the social pain that is and will be generated by a casino in our midst, because the State and City do not want to lose the gambling tax revenues and the Casino does not want to prevent the evolution of more and more problem gamblers, who fuel their profits.
  5. Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor efforts aimed at Millennials, who prefer drink (esp. craft beer), food, and live entertainment to gambling, will aid the bottom line of the Casino Gang, without a corresponding increase in revenue to the State or municipalities.

Slotsification on the Mohawk

SmokinHotSlotsB

a Smoking Patio with slots & drinks means non-stop slots play!!

The lower-than-projected total of gambling dollars and customers brought in by Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor in its first year of operation disappointed just about everybody. (See, e.g., our post on Projections vs. Reality.) So, it is understandable that the increase so far this year in Gross Gambling Revenue [the amount bet minus winnings paid out, called “GGR”] has been broadly welcomed in our community. Nonetheless, Sara Foss at the Schenectady Gazette was correct to voice concerns last Sunday about the significant increase of gambling revenues this year earned from Slots and other Electronic Table Games [ETG]. See “Foss: Increase in casino revenue comes with social costs” (Sunday Gazette, Aug. 5, 2018).  That is because the clear consensus of experts and observers is that slots are the most addictive form of casino gambling.

emptyPockets Indeed, from the perspective of potential social costs and harm to gamblers and their families, the situation is very serious. I’ve tabulated the numbers, and it is clear that additional revenue from SLOTS/ETG (Electronic Table Games) is alone fueling the increased gambling revenue at Rivers Casino in its 2nd year of operation. I call this process “Slotsification”.

RiversSlots Below is a comparison of the first six months in which Schenectady’s Rivers Casino was operating [Feb. to July of 2017] with the same six months in 2018, after one full year of operation. I used the most recent Monthly report posted at the Gaming Commission’s site, and the Casino’s weekly reports.
.
.
FEBRUARY to JULY 2018 – Gross Gambling Revenue [GGR] at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor (Schenectady), compared to February to July 2017, the first six months of operation at Rivers Casino:
 
TOTAL GGR – 9.7% increase [$6,830,160]
    2017 Feb-July            $70,080,214
    2018 Feb-July            $76,910,374 
.
SLOTS/ETG GGR – 19.3% increase [$8,510,139]
    2017 Feb-July            $44,054,616
    2018 Feb-July            $52,564,755 
.
TABLE GAME GGR – – down 6.0% [$1,297,613]
   2017 Feb-July             $22,886,161
   2018 Feb-July             $21,588,548 
 .
POKER TABLE GGR – – down 11.7% [$368,091]
   2017 Feb-July            $3,145,137
   2018 Feb-July             $2,777,046 
 .
In sum, Total GGR is up almost 10% at Rivers Casino, with Slots/ETG revenue up 19.3%, but both Table Game and Poker Game GRR down compared to the same months in 2017. The increase is all from Slots.
.
riversrevenues-8monthcompare follow-up (Oct. 21, 2018): The same trend has continued through September, and into the first two weeks of October. Click on the image to the right for figures.
.
.
In addition, looked at in the aggregate, Slots/ETG revenues were 63% of GGR in Feb-July of 2017; but they were 68% of GGR in Feb-July of 2018. It would be helpful to know whether more people are choosing to play slots, or whether slots players are playing longer. [update (September 1, 2018): see our follow-up, “August continues the casino tilt to slots”.]
.
  • AddictionByDesign-Schüll-CoverIt may be merely a coincidence that this is happening after Rivers Casino operated for a year in Schenectady, but “Studies by a Brown University psychiatrist, Robert Breen, have found that individuals who regularly play slots become addicted three to four times faster (in one year, versus three and a half years) than those who play cards or bet on sports.”  From Slot Machines Are Designed to Addict(New York Times, October 10, 2013, by Natasha Dow Schüll). 
 
Compare other Casinos: Although Slots revenue is up somewhat in Las Vegas recently, slots have been down or sluggish in other regions. Notably, not one of Rush Street’s three other casinos (one in Illinois at Des Plaines; and two in Pennsylvania, SugarHouse in Philadelphia, and Pittsburg Rivers) has had more than a small uptick in slots this year, and many months have been down. [Click for an example of recent Pa. stats; the Des Plaines IL Rivers Casino shows only a 1.32% increase in their slots category (“EGD”) for the first half of 2018; see p. 4 of this Report.]
 
Is Rivers Casino in Schenectady trying to “slotsify” its casino revenue, to maximize its profits? Is this also a result of growing problem gambling among Schenectady’s slots players, along with a growing indifference by those who like table games to spending time along the Mohawk?
.
  • What about Millennials? Has Rivers also decided to make more money by luring in millennials, who spend on food, drink and entertainment, rather than on gambling when at Mohawk Harbor? That helps Rush Street and Galesi Group profits, but does not increase gambling tax revenue receipts for the City and County. [See the article on Millennials and Casinos quoted at length below.] The Casino does not have to reach its bloated projections to be a business success. 
 
Whatever the cause, Slotsification will increase the social costs to individuals, families and the community from having this Casino in our midst. If the portion of Rivers Casino revenue from slots keeps growing, it will surely lead to the very situation casino opponents most feared: Significant growth in problem gambling and all its consequences, but with a disappointing boost in revenues for the City and County, far less than our “leaders” promised when selling the project and deciding to take the risk of inviting an urban casino to Schenectady.
.

AssPhilSteck Will community leaders such as NYS Assemblyman Phil Steck, who say we must help the Casino succeed, turn a blind eye to the added hazard to our Community? Steck, who we’ve been calling “the Assemblyman from Mohawk Harbor” since his letter in support of Rivers Casino in June 2014, recently wrote that “Revenue raising is paramount”, after bemoaning the negative effect on the poor and vulnerable. This is, of course, the dilemma casino opponents saw when they opposed bringing one to Schenectady. The monograph “Poverty and Casino Gambling in Buffalo” (Center for the Public Good, by Sam Magavern and Elaina Mulé, January 19, 2011, gives a good summary of the dangers for already-struggling cities that turn to casinos for revenue. And, it highlights the obvious:

“any trend away from slot machines, which are the most lucrative form of casino gambling, would hurt the state’s revenues from casinos. [quoting Allen Godfrey, executive director of the Mississippi Gaming Commission]

And, consider “State Gambling Revenue Takes Hit as Millennials Bring New Habits to Casinos” (Pew Trust, Stateline Article, by Elaine S. Povich, Sept. 15, 2015), which opens with this statement:

Casinos across the nation are suffering from a generation gap, especially at the slot machines, as young people seek more exotic electronic games like the ones they can play on smartphones from anywhere.

That’s a problem not just for casino operators, but for the 23 states that rely on revenue from casino taxes, particularly from lucrative slots, to help balance their budgets and fund new priorities.

WHAT CAN WE DO?

see-no-evil-monkeyBlue It is easy to be flippant and say, “Don’t ask Casino Opponents, we told you so,” back when our elected and appointed political leaders, and businesses hoping for a Casino Gravy Train, refused to even acknowledge the risks. Well, we did tell you so (e.g., this post), precisely because we feared just this situation: Big Problems without Palatable Solutions. No Answers for getting out of the Casino Casualty Syndrome and the related suffering of families and individuals; lots of temptation to seek more favors for the Casino, such as legislation with tax reductions or gimmicks (such as a marketing allowance), or spending $2 million on a Large Vessel Dock along Mohaw Harbor; plus, a lot of uncertainty and pain for employees at the Casino and associated businesses, if the Casino declines slowly, and especially if it fails and closes.

316-vector-no-evil-monkeys Even if they secretly know the damage that is likely to happen to our Community, the temptation for our “leaders” to push on is great, refusing to confess their short-sighted mistakes, pressuring local businesses and civic groups to patronize Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, and looking for legislative “solutions.” One thing for sure, the cognitive dissonance that we hear from politicians like Phil Steck does not help one bit. The Assemblyman tells us:

Perhaps some day there will be no casino at Mohawk Harbor. No one can predict the future; it is sensible to plan for an alternative. But, Rivers is here, so we need it to be as successful as possible. One constituent wrote to me on this subject citing the old adage: “Let’s take the lemons and make them into lemonade.”

LemonLawLogo No one should be surprised that the Assemblyman from Mohawk Harbor offers us no Lemonade Recipe and suggests no likely ingredients for the mix (other than a “not-a-bailout” tax break in the form of a marketing allowance that is too silly to even call specious). There is no secret, magical “sugar” to sweeten our Casino Lemons, and no law that will tow the wreck away. We are all left puckering up, and wincing, as the future rushes toward Slotsnectady, a City that once could Light and Haul the World, but now glories in “smart” lamp-posts, its homely-but-bossy Casino, and its beer-cultured Renaissance.

. . share this post with this short URLhttps://tinyurl.com/Slotsification

. . this is one of the mastheads we used when this website was called StopTheSchenectadyCasino.com:

noalcocasino-mastb1

. . they gambled with Schenectady’s future, putting possible revenues ahead of the social costs, and acting as if there was nothing to lose . .

Appendix: Why are Slots so Addictive?

Continue reading

doldrums along the Mohawk (and, an undertow, too)

The press has told us that revenues are up significantly the first half of 2018 compared to the same period last year (see our posting). So, I was somewhat surprised this afternoon looking at the Gross Gaming Revenue figures for the first three full weeks of July 2018: Despite a 17% increase in Slots/ETG GGR, the Total GGR was down 9.5% compared to the same period of 2017 ($9,475,893), while Table Game GGR fell a remarkable 53%. Click for the Rivers Casino Weekly Revenue Report. And, click to see a chart of the numbers for the first three weeks of July in 2017 and 2018.

RiversGGR-CompareJuly2018 full-month follow-up (August 4, 2018): Rivers Casino Gross Gaming Revenue numbers for the week ending July 30, 2018 were posted today, allowing us to tally the full comparison of the two Julys at Schenectady’s Rivers Casino. The numbers and totals can be seen on this chart. Here’s the summary:

The Gross Gaming Numbers at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor for July 2018 were:

  • in Total, at $11,644,566, down 3.3% over July 2017
  • for Slots/ETG, at $8,574,114, up 19.4% over July 2017
  • for Poker Tables, at $454,123, up 9.5% over July 2017
  • for Table Games, at $2,616,325, down 41.1% over July 2017

. . share this posting with this short URLhttps://tinyurl.com/MohawkDoldrums

questiondudequestionmarkkeyRed Moreover, revenue so far in for the full month of July 2018 was down 3.3% over July 2017, despite:

  • the opening of the 200-unit River House apartments in August 2017 at Mohawk Harbor
  • MHMarina-Amphi3Jul2018the availability for the summer boating season of Mohawk Harbor Marina, which was opened in November 2017.
  • opening of the Harbor Amphitheater, and presentation of free Harbor Jam concerts this summer at the Marina every Saturday night since June 23. And, note this follow-up (Aug. 2, 2018): In today’s Gazette article “Harbor Jam heats up in Schenectady: Free outdoor concert series is packing them in at Mohawk Harbor” (at 8 of the Ticket section, by Indiana Nash),  are told: “The series has drawn more people into the casino as well as to places like Druthers Brewery and Restaurant, which is located on Harborside Drive.” In the print edition, the sub-headline states “Fans flock to free series, helping casino, restaurants.”
  • another big crowd for a set of impressive Fourth of July Fireworks
  • MHDruthers30May2018 the much-publicized and anticipated opening of Druthers Brewing Co. at Mohawk Harbor on June 21
  • The Casino’s Landing Hotel being open the entire month of July (only a week last year)
  • The installation of a “CYCLE!” bike-share station at Mohawk Harbor
  • MohHarb30ftPylonthe erection of a giant (30′ by 18′) shopping-mall style pylon sign, with large and bright LCD screen, advertising the Casino and many amenities of Mohawk Harbor, at the intersection of Mohawk Harbor Way and Erie Blvd.

DiscoverSchenectadyLogo In addition, the new Schenectady County Tourism and Convention Bureau, has been active all year, with a budget over $400,000. The Tourism Bureau, with its Discover Schenectady website, puts a lot of stress on Schenectady’s Casino, giving it its own “Casinos” Category (and related webpage) on the Things To Do pull-down menu. The Casino’s Convention Center is also a focus of Bureau activity. It is funded with Schenectady County’s recently-raised room occupancy tax and other sources, including the state’s “I Love NY” program.

  • The Board of the Convention and Tourism Bureau, naturally, includes representatives of the Casino, and its business partners, and Mohawk Harbor. The vice president is Brooke Spraragen, director of project planning at The Galesi Group, the developers of Mohawk Harbor, and owner of the land under the Casino parcel.

redflag-circle Our July 16, 2018 posting noted that the increase in gambling revenue at Rivers for the 2nd Quarter of 2018 came totally from Slots and Electronic Table Games. We need to raise a red flag about just whose money is floating Rivers’ boat and helping to fill the tax coffers of the City and County of Schenectady. Many detractors of casinos, especially casinos in urban areas, fear that a worrisome percentage of slots dollars come from local problem gamblers, and the most vulnerable members of our society, not from traveling high-rollers or members of the comfortable middle class simply spending disposable leisure dollars. For example, the Report Why Casinos Matter states that:

Problem gamblers account for 40 to 60 percent of slot machine revenues, according to studies conducted over the past decade or so.

If such concerns are valid, cheerleaders celebrating increased revenues at our Casino might want to pause to ask about the potential social costs of choosing to base our financial policy on such regressive taxation. As MIT professor Natasha Dow Schüll, author of Addiction by Design, wrote in the New York Times (Oct. 10, 2013): 

Surely, civic leaders looking to close budget gaps can find more ethical alternatives than capitalizing on such traps.

Ms. Schüll also noted: “Studies by a Brown University psychiatrist, Robert Breen, have found that individuals who regularly play slots become addicted three to four times faster (in one year, versus three and a half years) than those who play cards or bet on sports.” That “has to do with the solitary, continuous, rapid wagering they enable. It is possible to complete a game every three to four seconds, with no delay between one game and the next. Some machine gamblers become so caught up in the rhythm of play that it dampens their awareness of space, time and monetary value.”

  • DownGraphPeople One number that jumped out at me from the Rivers Casino report for this past week, ending July 23, 2018, is the total GGR from Table Games: $225,435. That is by far the worst week yet for Table Games at Schenectady’s Rivers Casino. It is 46% lower than the prior worst Table Games week, and one-ninth the take of the best Table Games week at Rivers Casino ($2,039,456). With slots use rising and table games flat or declining, it is more and more difficult to accept the notion we get from Rush Street and our City Hall that people see Rivers Casino as a Destination Resort.
  • MGMSpringfield-renderMGMSpringfield-rend2  And, speaking of destination resorts and trouble ahead, see the Times Union “New competition for Capital Region gambling dollars(by David Lombard, July 26, 2018), an article about MGM Springfield, the almost-billion-dollar casino opening August 24th, just 100 miles away in Western Massachusetts, and already being advertised heavily on local tv as a true Las Vegas-style casino
redflag

Slots

 follow-up (Sunday, August 5, 2018): Sara Foss has again used her Gazette column to raise the issue of the social cost of casino revenues on gamblers and our community. See “Foss: Increase in casino revenue comes with social costs” (Sunday Gazette, Aug. 5, 2018). The column notes a 21.8 percent increase in slots revenue from February through June 2018 from the same time period during 2017.  Sara then states: “This is an impressive increase, but here’s the thing: Slots are highly addictive.”

Sara also quotes Phil Rainer, director of clinical services at The Center for Problem Gambling in Albany, saying “I find slots particularly deplorable.” Sara concludes by saying:

But I find it difficult to celebrate the boom times at Rivers’ slot machines.

For most people, playing the slots is harmless entertainment.

But for others, it’s a huge waste of time and money.

Local governments might reap the benefits of an increase in gaming revenue. But the social costs that go along with it shouldn’t be ignored.

Tellingly, Sara Foss says (emphasis added):

Now that [the Rivers Casino is] here, I want it to be a success. 

But it isn’t always clear to me what that means, because a casino isn’t a benign presence

Similarly, from my own point of view, it is difficult to come up with a formula that attempts to wish the Casino well in growing its gaming revenue (and keeping its employees employed), while somehow limiting the additional injury caused by problem gambling.  I wish we could figure out a way to improve gambling revenues with the least damage to the community.

Screen Shot 2017-09-11 at 11.21.31 AM The ability to attract more non-slot gamblers might be a benefit in several ways:
  1. If they are from out of town and stay overnight, they add sales tax revenues (sales, food & beverage, room occupancy)
  2. Also, if from out of town, they do not steal Leisure Dollars from other local businesses {the “Substitution Effect”); and,
  3. If Table Game players are in general less poor than Slots players, and not on fixed-incomes, they are less likely to wreck havoc on family budgets and tranquility, and to increase the need for more social services.

PGAMlogoEVERY One thing for sure: Our community (and perhaps especially our schools) needs Problem Gambling Education and Prevention Programs. New York State has promised a small amount of funding for such programs, but — unlike other NYS communities with casinos — neither the City nor County of Schenectady has done so. See, for example, our posting here.

disbelief-foreheadsmack

For more on the very predictable dilemma Schenectady faces trying to protect the community from the negative effects of Rivers Casino, and especially the growing reliance on slots dollars, see our post “Slotsification on the Mohawk” (July 13, 2018).

the Large Vessel Dock at Mohawk Harbor

LargeDockView2

 A Gazette article today reports that the City Council of Schenectady unanimously approved a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to seek State funding for a Large Vessel Dock along Mohawk Harbor. “City to apply for funding for new dock at Mohawk Harbor: The dock would be used for larger boats to dock at the harbor” (by Andrew Beame, July 24, 2018) The article tells us that:

The resolution allows the city to work with Schenectady Metroplex Development Authority to submit the application [to the state Regional Economic Development Council].  Ray Gillen, chairman of the authority, said the grant would cover 80 percent of the cost to construct the $2 million dock.

The Galesi Group, the developer of the harbor, would be donating the rest, Gillen said.

Gillen said the dock would be 680 feet long and 12 feet wide. He also said it would be able to be removed during the winter months.

In addition, “The project would allow for larger boats that pass by the harbor to dock there, visit the casino, tour the city and a host of other activities.” Mr. Gillen noted that the facility would also allow the city to host regattas and other rowing events.

“This will be a public amenity,” Gillen said. “If we get the grant, it assures total public access to the riverfront.”

As a longtime advocate for true public access to the riverfront, I hope this project will help achieve that goal. I may be adding more information in the very near future, but especially wanted to get online for public review the two renderings (one above and one immediately below) of the Large dock presented by Ray Gillen to the City Council Committee meeting on July 16, 2018.

LargeDockView1

As the Council Resolution mentions a Matching Grant, I asked for more detail, and Mr. Gillen wrote me that:

“The match is 15%.  The state proves 85% if we win the grant. The match is being donated by the developer.  The developer built the amphitheater and major sections of the trail and the marina at their cost with no public support.  these are all very nice and well used public amenities.”

  • My thanks to Ray Gillen for providing me with the two renderings above. Our “Smart City’s” City Hall should have provided them in the Agenda appendix, making use of its website’s Agenda page. Council member Vince Riggi was good enough to send me a link to the video of Gillen’s presentation made to the Council Committee on July 16. It is very difficult to see details from the picture at the Committee Meeting. See my best screen shot of it (at about 2:30 into the video) here: https://tinyurl.com/MHLargeDock.
  • Share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/LargeDock

largedockkid The funding process, and any resultant construction, will take quite awhile, and I hope that lots of thought will be given to how such a dock can in fact be used by the public, including families with children and dogs, in a safe manner. For example:

  1. If the dock is successful — that is, busy — how welcome will non-boating members of the public be?
  2. How will the dock be supervised? The proposed dock at Riverside Park several years back was to have no supervision.
    1. Will adolescents with bikes or skateboards take them from the Trail to the dock?
  3. Will there be pedestrian access after dark? River access for the kind of beer parties that take place at the Gateway Landing dock late at night?
  4. What happened to the Site Plan approved by the Planning Commission, in which the bridge from the Trail went to a quiet Overlook that would allow safe viewing of the River, close-up, but with a railing for safety?
  5. etc.

It is disconcerting that another Resolution impacting Mohawk Harbor and Rivers Casino was brought before the Council in what has now become a customary rush. The State proposal requests and development decisions are made annually, with submission deadlines this time of year. The fact that this was “merely” permission to submit a proposal should not have justified a lack of fuller discussion, with public viewing of the images prior to the Council vote.

As happened with the proposal for a dock at Riverside Park in 2010 (see the discussion of issues and concerns in our comprehensive posting), we need to ensure that the availability of State funding — Getting Something For Free, with no local dollars spent — does not preempt thoughtful consideration of the impact of the Large Vessel Dock on waterfront use at Mohawk Harbor. And, especially on its ability to achieve, as Mr. Gillen promises, “total public access to the riverfront.”

how is Rivers improving its numbers?

Schenectady Gazette business editor John Cropley wrote an article today describing the improved financial numbers coming from Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor for the first six months of 2018, compared to 2017. See “Rivers Casino financials improve in first half of 2018“, July 16, 2018) Cropley tells us:

abacus Halfway through 2018, Rivers Casino & Resort is showing improved financial performance, with revenue in every month so far this year stronger than in the same month of 2017.

The facility, which opened on the Schenectady waterfront in February 2017, reported gross gaming revenue — money gambled minus winnings paid to gamblers — was up 15 percent for the February-June 2018 period.

Taxes paid on the gross gaming revenue in February-June 2018 were up 19.7 percent from the same period in 2017.

If Casino revenues continue at this pace for the entire year, Schenectady’s reduced projection of its casino income for 2018 — $2.3 million in gaming tax dollars from the State — will be met.  [For background, see our posting “Casino Reality vs. Casino Projections“; and “TU compares casino revenue reality to casino projections“.]

NoComment-thanks My curiosity was piqued, of course, when I saw these words in today’s Gazette article:

 Officials at Rivers would not comment on what the casino has been doing to improve its financial performance.

GGR-Apr-JunCompare

That got me wondering what they are hiding, since simply saying something like “we’re advertising more and doing more promotions”, or similar explanations, would not be compromising their competitive position by leaking trade secrets. Several possible reasons came to mind, and related questions led me to look at some of the Rivers casino revenue figures from 2017 and 2018. I focused on the past three months of 2018, April through June, and the same period for 2017. (I hope that journalists or policy wonks with better tools and incentives than I will want to compare all the available months.) Click the image to the right above to see the figures for April to June; and click this link to do your own number crunching: Rivers Casino Weekly Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) figures.

As a result of my dipping into the Rivers GGR numbers, I learned that, for the second quarter of 2018, the 14 weeks from April through June, as compared to the same period from 2017:

  • Total GGR was up just over 18%
  • GGR from Slots/ETGs was up almost 33%
  • GGR from Table Games was down about 1%

The Slots increase is, therefore, driving the improved 2018 numbers on the Mohawk. There is no obvious reason to expect the trend the rest of the year is or will be significantly different.

senior-playing-slots As we reported here, 63.6% of total GGR in 2017 at Rivers Casino Schenectady was from slots and electronic table games. It appears that an even larger percentage will come from slots in 2018.  Dependence on Slots GGR almost certainly means that Rivers is not attracting high-rollers from distance places, but is instead counting on a very local market and more than casual customers. And, while we know that not every slots player is a senior citizen, and many seniors are quite savvy about gambling and its risks, researchers tell us that senior are particularly susceptible to casino pitches, while being less likely to seek help for problem gambling symptoms. Moreover, our prior remarks seem pertinent still:

Thanks, Gramps! [B]ecause Slot revenues are taxed at 45%, but table and poker revenues at 10%, slot players are transferring their money to the State, County and City to reduce our taxes to a much higher degree than Table Game players. Indeed, about 89% of the gambling tax paid by Rivers Casino [in its first year came] from slot dollars. If slots are mostly played by senior citizens, any local tax break is mainly being paid for by Grandma and Grandpa, and Auntie Tillie (and, of course, other vulnerable groups, such as the poor).

In addition, reporting by Times Union “data journalist” Cathleen Crowley suggests another potentially disturbing factor related to reliance on slots for increased GGR: Rivers Casino may be paying out too little to its slots players. See “This is how much the casinos are making from slots, poker and table games” (Times Union, Cathleen F. Crowley, Sept. 24, 2017). According to the TU article, Rivers has far more money at the end of the day in each slot machine [“win per unit”] than its Upstate competitors: $222 earned per day for Rivers; $197 for Tioga Downs; $155 for del Lago, while the Las Vegas average win per slot machine in 2016 was $209. Here’s a chart from the Times Union (click on it for a larger version) that makes the point:

TU-DailySlotRevs

  • Looking at the Win Per Unit over the same three-month time period, the average per week went from 191.28 from April-June in 2017, to 252.85 for those months in 2018.

So, it seems Rivers is bringing in more of the type of player who plays slots and ETGs (Electronic Table Games), or getting them to sit longer and visit more, and is paying out less on Slots/ETGs than other casinos. Has the mix between Slots and ETGs change significantly? Is Rivers working harder at bringing folks in from Senior Centers or churches? Is “grandma” paying even more this year for our gaming tax revenues, while waiting to see how much Mayor Gary McCarthy and City Council will cut her property taxes?

It seems the moaning we hear and read about the poor returns from slots at Rivers may be warranted. How long can that go on? Is this why Rivers does not want to talk about how it gets its increased GGR? As always, if we have gotten this wrong or even slightly askew, we hope the folks at Rivers Casino or other experts will explain it to us, so we can fine-tune, reconsider, explain it better. 

01_sm0714_cover107-border

For background on how slot machine revenues might be optimized, see “Management” (by A. Cardno and R. Thomas, from Slot Management & Marketing Magazine). The authors suggest that a high WPU [win per unit] may be problematic from the player’s perspective.

. . share this webpost with this URL: http://tinyurl.com/MoreRiversSlots

ooh update (July 20, 2018): The GGR for the week ending July 15, 2018, $2,709,766, is the worst since the week ending April 1, 2018. And, it is 30% lower than the GGR for the week ending July 16, 2017, which was $3,882,454, although Slots revenue last week was up 10% from the corresponding week in 2017.

too many underage gamblers at Rush Street facilities?

underagegambler The Times Union (here) and the Gazette (here) are reporting that Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor’s operator, Rush Street Gaming, is appealing a penalty under consideration by a NYS Gaming Commission hearing examiner for violations of “regulations regarding permitting an underage patron on the gambling floor” and “permitting a person under 21 to make a wager at its facility.” Rivers wouldn’t discuss the dispute at this point, pointing to the pending hearings.

You may recall that Rush Street was fined $6000 last year for allowing a minor to gamble at its Schenectady Rivers Casino. See “Underage gambler caught — but only after he won $1,300 on slot machinesSchenectady casino fined for letting him on the gambling floor” (Albany Times Union, by Paul Nelson, March 24, 2017); “State fines Rivers Casino $6k for underage-gambler” (Schenectady Daily Gazette, by Steven Cook, March 23, 2017). 

In 2016, Rush Street touted its record for ensuring that only appropriate persons are allowed in its casinos:

“We have a strong history when it comes to responsible gaming at our other properties, including operating under statewide self-exclusion policies, and we look forward to continuing that same record of excellence in Schenectady.” (See “New York to step up effort to battle problem gambling“, by Haley Viccaro, Schenectady Gazette, March 2, 2016).

SugarHouseEntryway

Despite that assertion, a bit of Googling this evening uncovered numerous instances of Rush Street casino cousins in Pennsylvania being fined for violating underage gaming regulations. For example, on October 4th, 2017, the Pennsylvania Gaming Board fined Rush Street’s SugarHouse Casino $10,000 for failing to prevent underage access to the gaming floor. As we noted two years ago, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board had also announced, in a press release on May 23, 2012, that SugarHouse was fined $70,000 “for seven instances where underage individuals [ranging in age from 17 to 20] engaged in gaming.”

Similarly, the Rivers Pittsburgh casino has had multiple underage gaming fines. For example, in February 26, 2014, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board levied a fine of $15,000 against Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh for permitting an underage patron to gamble and consume alcohol at its property. The Pa. Board had also levied a $45,000 fine, in November of 2012, for four such incidents earlier that year.

  • Moreover, Schenectady’s Pennsylvania Cousin Casinos have both also had multiple fines for permitting persons on the self-exclusion list to gamble, and even for extending credit, and sending solicitations to such persons. E.g., here and there.  Should we expect the same here, too?

The fines are obviously meant to motivate better procedures and practices to prevent underage and self-exclusion-list patrons into the Casino. Perfection can’t be achieved, but a real commitment, starting at the top and embraced by all Rivers employees, will hopefully mean a lot fewer violations. “Expect Tough Monitoring” should be the message in our community — especially aimed at our area colleges and high schools.

Here is an excerpt from an earlier post at this website, discussing underage gambling:

propshopsrules Many people are concerned that the younger you are when introduced to casino gambling the more likely it is that you will develop a gambling problem. The mixture of alcohol and gambling is even more worrisome. See our posting “what will the casino mean for Union College students?“, which discusses such issues, and our particular concern over Rush Street Gaming’s practice of targeting younger gamblers. And see “Rush Street takes aim at adolescents” (Sept. 9, 2014).

Reallyatstake.png

 

 

Also, check out a program sponsored by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board, called “What is Really At Stake“, to learn about the risks of underage gambling.

Consequences

. . share this post with this shorter URL: https://tinyurl.com/UnderageRushSt

still waiting for Lady Liberty

LibertyGazLTE-Snyder . . GP-DiotteLadyTU24Feb2018 

update (July 9): Still no Lady . . LL9Jul

LadyLiberty15Sep2016

 Lady Liberty is indeed timeless. But, Schenectady should not have to wait even one more week for Mayor Gary McCarthy to relent on the strange and belated notion of installing our replica Liberty statue somewhere other than her home in Liberty Park, once construction and expansion of the Park into “Gateway Plaza” was completed. That return was the only alternative for Lady Liberty in the Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan, which was created in 2012 and approved in August 2013 (Resolution No. 2013-206). Nevertheless, years later and behind the scene, Gateway Plaza designer Mary Wallinger somehow got the Mayor and Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen to agree to ignore the official Plan and instead to exile Lady Liberty.

Why? Because Ms. Wallinger (who is also Chair of the City Planning Commission) now insists Lady Liberty is not “modern” enough for her current vision of the Plaza as a symbol of Schenectady. She and the Mayor also lured the good folks of Goose Hill into asking to place Lady Liberty in a Veterans’ Memorial in Steinmetz Park, creating totally unnecessary civic turmoil. [for a fuller explanation of the Decision Disruption Process, see this post.]

OUR POSITION: Lady Liberty should be immediately returned from its storage-during-construction to Her original home, Liberty Park (a/k/a Gateway Plaza), and McCarthy and Wallinger should apologize to the people of Goose Hill for offering them a treasure that was not available for relocation.

mayorgarymccarthy2013sep The Mayor says he has not made his decision yet about where the Statue will be installed. But, there should be no new decision to make. The Decision was made in 2013, in the publicly supported and officially approved Final Gateway Plaza Implementation Plan.  All the Mayor need do now is say that, after full consideration, he fully endorses the Original Decision for returning Lady Liberty after the new Plaza is completed, as there is no safety or fiscal reason, and no other justification, to change a Final Plan.

GP-Rendering-LibertyDetail . . GP-Rendering-ViewWash-State

Above is a detail [L] from an Implementation Plan rendering [R], which shows the designated spot for the replica’s return, along State Street, next to the CDTA bus shelter, only yards away from, and more visible than, the Lady’s original location.

Nonetheless, neither a batch of Letters to the Editor since mid-March nor a Gazette Editorial in April supporting the return of the Lady to Liberty Park, has produced Her popular, commonsense, and Plan-promised return. Nor has the coming of Spring and now even Summer, which should make frozen ground excuses a moot issue. Not even a plea in the Gazette last week from Schenectady County’s “Mr. Veteran”, James A. Wilson, did the trick. (“Return Lady Liberty on July 4th” June 27, 2018):

There will not be a better time than to have the famous “Lady Liberty,” or the Statue of Liberty replica, put back in her rightful home in Liberty (Gateway) Park in Schenectady. It’s still the center part of the city for beauty and visibility to all residents and the statue was there for over 50 years.

Put the statue back on the 4th of July.

As of today, July 7, 2018, almost a full year after the Liberty Replica was removed to protect her from construction, Lady Liberty is apparently still in a municipal storage facility.  So, what will it take for the Mayor to step up and Do the Right Thing (or, passively, Not Do the Wrong Thing)? Yes, he has been busy making our City smart, but this is not a complicated decision. It is late, but not too, late for Gary McCarthy to be the Lady’s Champion.

gpladylibertyspot.jpg . . . LadyLibertySpot25Jun1

Above: At the end of June, for the first time, the designated spot for the return of Lady Liberty had substantial plantings (several small trees; photo on Right). When asked about the new trees, Mayor McCarthy told Gazette reporter Andrew Beam that he had not known of the planting. Those trees can and should be replanted, to honor the planning process, the City’s promises, and Lady Liberty’s importance in the past, present and future of Schenectady.

the riverbank Trail at Mohawk Harbor is not safe

MHtrail3Jul2018a

 . . Updates (Oct. 15, 2018): see poorly planned safety railing going up along Mohawk Harbor trail 

(July 3 and Oct. 5, 2018): Below we explain the reasons why we believe the Alco Heritage Trail is unsafe. When pressed on the safety issue in June, Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen insisted that a fence or guardrail would be installed “soon”. But, I have continued to wonder why neither the County or City, nor the hosting Casino, has installed temporary warnings signs and devices (i.e., quick and inexpensive orange safety cones and yellow tape), to keep visitors away from the steep, rocky slope, and slippery gravel. They plan to host thousands at Mohawk Harbor to see the Fireworks and concerts on July 3 and 4, and many events all summer. [photo at right taken at 11 AM, July 3] So far, the media has shown no interest in this issue.

cautiontaperoll(Oct. 5, 2018): Ray Gillen wrote in an email to the editor of this weblog, in the third week of September, that a fence would be built along the trail buffer “in October.” As of noon October 5, there is neither a fence or guardrail and no temporary warning devices; see the photo below, taken today:

AlcoTrail05Oct2018

Original Posting

ALCOTrailSafety

. . the above collage summarizes issues discussed in this web-post (click on it for a larger version)

What did you think the ALCO Heritage bike-pedestrian Trail would look like when completed? The Trail runs through Mohawk Harbor, past the Marina and amphitheater, and behind the Rivers Casino and its Landing Hotel. In each rendering submitted by the developers, Galesi Group and the casino owner and operator Rush Street Gaming, the riverside buffer between the Trail and the Mohawk River is shown green, landscaped and gently sloping to the riverbank. For example:

 . .

. . renderings of rear of Rivers Casino and Hotel: above June 2014; below July 2015 . .

 In addition, when the Site Plan was approved by the Planning Commission in 2015, the relevant and still-current provisions of the C-3 Waterfront Zoning Code of the City of Schenectady stated [emphases added]:

(4) A single multi-use pedestrian and bicycle trail shall be constructed by the applicant with the following construction and design standards .. :

[1] The trail shall have a width of at least 10 feet along the length of the Mohawk River shoreline and shall endeavor to be located reasonably adjacent to the undeveloped shoreline whenever practicable.

[2] There shall be an additional two feet of graded area on either side of the trail and an additional ten-foot buffer between the trail and the river.

[3] The trail shall be constructed of asphalt, synthetic composite, concrete, pavers, or other materials as approved by the Planning Commission.

[4] Trails and esplanades may include landscaped areas, sitting areas, benches, gazebos and suitable lighting facilities.

At no place has the required 12-foot buffer been installed on the riverside of the Trail. There also is no place for any sitting areas, benches, etc., along the riverbank side of the trail.

Also, the New York State Department of Transportation has issued guidelines to apply when a bike trail is near a steep slope. If the slope is less than 4.92 feet from the Trail, a safety rail 4.59′ high is required. The design requirements of State DOT depicted in the following  image appear to be directly applicable to the Mohawk Harbor trail, given the steepness of the slope and the drop of far more than the 0.3 meters [0.98 ft.] over the slope:

NYSDOT-ShareUseRailingSlope

Despite any expectations created by the above materials, the next set of photos shows what the ALCO Heritage Trail actually looks like, as do photos in the top collage:

IMG_4915

IMG_4939

IMG_8691 . . IMG_8688

IMG_7240

With only a loose gravel buffer of 3.5′ to 7′ on the river side of the trail (rather than the required 12 feet of graded buffer), and a very steep slope covered with sharp, rip-rap rocks, without guardrails installed, it certainly does not look safe enough to me.  Part of my concern, of course, in addition to the normal mishaps on a busy shared use path, is the fact that the Trail passes within a couple yards of casino, restaurant and barroom patios, whose patrons will not all be sober, as well as by the Mohawk Harbor Marina and amphitheater.

CasinoRearFromBridge30May2018 copy-001

. . above: ALCO Heritage Trail seen, with zoom lens, from Freeman’s Bridge (May 29, 2018) ..

Nonetheless, because I am neither a bike-ped trail planner nor engineer, I decided to share my concerns with Paul Winkeller, the long-time Executive Director of the New York State Bicycling Coalition, to see if my concerns were valid. I sent Paul an email containing the collage at the top of this post and a few other photos. Paul wrote back the next day and forwarded my materials to a few other NYBC Board members, including Emeritus Board Member Ivan Vamos, a retired engineer and official for several relevant New York State agencies, who spent a few decades helping to implement bike trails and greenways. [read more on the backgrounds of Mr. Vamos and Mr. Winkeller, here.]

Engineer Ivan Vamos wrote back less than an hour after he received my forwarded inquiry, saying:

I agree, it looks like a bad solution for bicyclists and perhaps also for the handicapped with “walkers” and other aid devises. The rough gravel shoulder above the rip-rap was probably the selected solution to handle significant run-off from paved areas upslope; this was a cost-effective solution for that issue, versus a more sophisticated drainage plan.  The problem is that if a bike or other wheeled devise, women with high heeled shoes, or people with walking aids (like canes) stray on to the gravel, they will fall onto the sharp rip-rap.

I suggest a fence with “rub-rails” that keeps bicyclists of different heights and others on the trail. If observed use of the trail looks to attract a lot of strollers who tend to come to look at the River/harbor as part of their outing, it may be advisable to have the rail at a height that can be leaned on, benefiting walkers, but still giving some protection for bicyclists.

Screenshot_2018-06-20-09-00-31_kindlephoto-140184987

Although noting that he was not a planner or engineer, Executive Director Winkeller wrote, “Of course it does not look safe!” A few days later, he offered the assistance of New York Bicycling Coalition to Metroplex Chairman Ray Gillen in designing a safe shared use path (and got no reply), and added that he hoped I would continue to press the safety concerns:

“This is the height of the cycling season which means higher trail use and more of a chance of crashes. This is not a safe design, of that we all agree.”

  • County Legislators Have Not Replied. After three weeks, I have had no reply from several County Legislators to questions I  had sent them about the timing of the official opening of the Trail and whether additional safety measures were planned. That was prior to my correspondence with NYCB.
  • Corporation Counsel Has Not Replied. At the end of May, I also wrote to Schenectady’s Corporation Counsel, Carl Falotico, informing him of the comments from NYCB leaders, and asking whether the developers had received some sort of waiver from the Zoning Code requirements for the Harbor Trail. Three weeks later, I have not received a substantive reply from Mr. Falotico, who promised a reply when he was “ready to schedule a meeting” on the issues.
  • update (Oct. 4, 2018): More than four months later, I have yet to receive any substantive reply from the City’s Legal Department, the County Legislature of Law Department, or Metroplex, nor any suggestion as to why/how the specific requirements of our Riverfront zoning code for this specific trail could be ignored when constructing the trail.
  • Jennifer Ceponis, of the Capital District Transportation Committee, raised the issue at a Committee meeting on June 12, 2018. Jennifer reported that the City of Schenectady was “working on the problem.”

Bicyclists are already using the ALCO Heritage Trail, which connects Glenville’s Freedom Bridge road and Erie Boulevard with a riverside trail now ending at River Street in the East Front Street neighborhood, and then the Stockade. The CDPHP Bike Share program recently installed a bike share station at Mohawk Harbor, adding to the number of cyclists using the Harbor’s shared-use trail. Summer concerts at the Marina’s amphitheater, drawing audiences in the thousands, and other Harbor and Casino events will also increase the number of pedestrians using the Trail.

IMG_7225

If the information above leaves you wondering about the safety of the ALCO Heritage Trail, or the  process that has created a shared-use path quite different from our expectations, please let County and City legislators, and staffers working on bicycle planning and implementation know of your concerns.

.. . share this posting with the short url: http://tinyurl.com/HarborTrailSafety

  • questionmarkkeyBW$$? FINANCING THE TRAIL: The City of Schenectady C-3 Waterfront District zoning code, as quoted above, states that the pedestrian and bicycle trail “shall be constructed by the applicant.” (emphasis added) Nonetheless, the County and Maxon Alco (the Galesi Group company that owns Mohawk Harbor) entered a Harbor Trail Easement Agreement in March 2016 stating,  “The parties agree that the maximum cost to Maxon Alco for the construction of the Trail shall not exceed $100,000.00. County shall be responsible for all costs and expenses for Trail construction which exceed the Maxon Alco Contribution.” 
    • Any additional expense to build the trail, perhaps over a million dollars, is coming from New York and County taxpayers.
    • In a March 2016 news article in the Albany Times Union, the Galesi Group bragged about “donating $100,000” to the cost of the Trail.
    • Maintenance. The Harbor Trail Easement Agreement also states that:

      “4. Maintenance of the Trail. Following construction of the Trail and the commencement of the Uses, Maxon Alco agrees to perform the non-structural maintenance including snowplowing and removal of debris/litter from the Trail. County shall be responsible for all other Trail maintenance, including any required repair or replacement of the Trail pavement/surface and all the Trail fencing, signage, striping and other trail related materials located upon the Easement Areas.”

    • The original C-3 Waterfront Mix-ed Use District provisions included the following sentence, which was removed in the 2015 amendments requested by the Developer: “All maintenance of the waterfront esplanade and amenities shall be the responsibility of the developer.” The original permanent, perpetual easement “assuring public access to and public enjoyment of the waterfront” was, of course, also removed at the “request” of the developer.
  • Taxpayer-funded Amenity: Having a shared-use path running through Mohawk Harbor is clearly an asset in selling and renting homes in the complex, and attracting tourists to its hotels. Thus, the short list of Extras on the Amenities page of the project’s River House apartments includes “Direct access to the NYS Hike Bike Trail.” In Philadelphia, Rush Street Gaming has spent millions of dollars to expand an already grand promenade and bike trail. Do our local leaders need more training in negotiating on behalf of our residents and taxpayers?
  • IMG_8698 . . . img_8681.jpg update (Oct. 4, 2018): A set of informational markers were recently installed along the ALCO Heritage Trail. See “Trail markers highlight locomotive plant’s heritage” (Albany Times Union, Sept. 21, 2018, by Tim Blydenburgh). The TU article states, “The county Department of Economic Development and Planning built the signs using $30,000 provided by the county Legislature.  Paul Singer Design, based in Brooklyn, designed the 11 trail markers.”
    • The signs are also worrisome from a safety perspective, as they seem to be placed much closer than necessary to the shared-use path, creating a hazard for pedestrians stopping to read the signs and for cyclists. When this safety point was made to Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen, he wrote back “We think the markers look great.”

p.s. You may recall my first Infamy Montage which “celebrated” the opening of Rivers Casino on the anniversary of the Schenectady Massacre, when only Snowmen guarded the open gate of the Stockade (while the assigned guards relaxed at a nearby pub), allowing a band of French soldiers and marauding Indians to burn down the Stockade.  Below is my 2nd Infamy Montage below, which suggests that having Snowmen at the Gates of our City has led to an unseemly, unsafe, riverbank, trail, and harbor scene.

BikeTrailInfamy

 follow-up (June 26, 2018): At a public meeting on June 21, 2018 (on the Extension Feasibility Study for the riverfront trail), Schenectady County Metroplex Authority chair Ray Gillen, told the author of this posting that there will be a fence or rail put up along the slope near the ALCO Heritage Trail in Mohawk Harbor. Given this acknowledgement of the possible safety hazard, I wondered whether any temporary safety measures were taken along the Trail — such as yellow tape or safety cones — in anticipation of the first Harbor Jam outdoor concert last Saturday, June 23, at the Amphitheater of Mohawk Harbor, which is across a lawn from the riverbank.

  • follow-up: When taking photos from Riverside Park of the Casino’s July 3 fireworks, using a powerful zoom lens, I saw — as would be expected — a line of people of all ages and sizes standing along the top of the slope in the dark and gazing out over the River at the fireworks.

why not? . . cautiontaperoll . . orangesafetycone

There were no such temporary safety measures Saturday afternoon. At about 3 or 4 cents a yard, what excuse is there for not stringing Caution Tape? Is this another case of our fearless leaders avoiding bad publicity at any cost — and at any risk?

Moreover, apparently due to heavy rain earlier that day, the gravel  between the Trail and the slope was slippery underfoot. When trying to shoot a photo from the gravel, my foot sunk into it, and the gravel slipped toward and under some of the rip-rap stones at the top of the slope. In addition, I saw a full-grown man, while in conversation with another man while standing on the gravel buffer, absent-mindedly step up on the rip-rap on the edge of the slope behind the Casino. What do you supposed little boys and girls will do?

a slow week at Mohawk Harbor?

Amphitheater, 3 PM Memorial Day

 Quick online searching* confirmed my assumption that casino resorts would be among the most popular destinations for America’s millions of travelers over the Memorial Day Weekend. So, given a refreshing breeze and blue skies, I was a little surprised by how few people were out and about at Mohawk Harbor mid-afternoon on Memorial Day. I had stopped by to catch the tail end of the Rollin’ on the River Car Show and Auction, hosted by Rivers Casino, and then spent about an hour sitting and strolling around the grounds and taking photos.

During my visit on Memorial Day:

  • There was only one boat docked in the Marina the entire time. [The same was true on my return the next day; however, on May 30, there were three boats docked, the most I have ever seen in the Marina.]
  • No kayaks appeared to be checked out [ditto May 29, 30]
  • No one else used any of the picnic tables or played on the large lawns between the River House and the Casino
  • A few pairs of bicyclists and a couple of dog walkers used the mixed-used path that runs through Mohawk Harbor, but I saw none of them stop while traversing Mohawk Harbor.
  • No one spread a blanket or sat at the lovely, manicured Amphitheater, despite its unobstructed view of the Marina.

CasinoRevs01Jun2018 Perhaps all the Holiday Weekend trekkers had already started their return trips home, or were squeezing in one last cook-out at a relative’s or friend’s backyard. It made me wonder, though, how much gaming action had been going on at Rivers Casino over the weekend. The weather on Saturday and Sunday had enough rain in the forecast to motivate indoors activity such as that found inside the Casino. So, I checked out the weekly Revenues report for Rivers Casino that went online yesterday, Friday June 1st. However, as you can see by clicking on the image to the left of this paragraph, last week Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor had its worst week for gaming revenues since the end of March, with a total GGR of $2,876,146 for the week ending Sunday May 27, 2018.

If you have not spent time on the greener side of Mohawk Harbor, you might enjoy this Slideshow, which has photos taken May 28, 29 and 30, 2018.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

.

view north toward River from Amphitheater

*/According to the AAA, the draw of gambling made Las Vegas NV the 4th most chosen destination for Memorial Day Weekend. 2018. Gambling hubs such as Denver and Phoenix were also in the top ten destinations list for the holiday weekend.

 coming in June, Druther’s at River House . . MHDruthers30May2018