beware litter bins with ads

Posted on March 20, 2023 by David Giacalone

. . . . above and below, examples of COA recycling centers presented in COA sales materials . .

For more than a month now, the Schenectady City Council has been under pressure to approve a proposal by Council Member John Polimeni that would allow Mayor Gary McCarthy to negotiate the terms of an agreement with Creative Outdoor Advertising of Tampa, Florida, for large, free litter recepticles bearing ads.

The Gazette has made the situation worse by changing its March 7 original, online headline from, “Schenectady council considers proposal to acquire ad-supported garbage bins”, which is informative and neutral, to the accusatory “Council slow walks plans for garbage bins”, in the March 8 newsprint version. Neither version of the article mentions the size of the proposed bins.

My Letter to the Editor, published in the Gazette, March 24 2023, tries to be more informative:

. . please excuse the broken link to this webpost that appeared in the Gazette. You can cite or share this posting with this URL. https://tinyurl.com/BinBanter .

COA appears to be an advertising firm that creates places for its ads to be shown by offering to give Street Furniture that serves a municipal function (such as large “recycling stations” and Benches) for free to municipalities, with the added offer of a small share to the City of any ad revenues generated. See Council Committees Agenda for Feb. 6, 2023 at pp. 219-243.

. . are these COA scenes analogous to the urban locations in Schenectady that have the most need of Litter Reform?

In return, COA is able to sell what are known as “off-premises” ads to businesses that want to reach customers through signs featuring goods or services not provided at the location of the sign. This is a valuable service for businesses interested in placing off-premises advertising because many municipalities in America have been banning such ads since the 19th Century. The U.S. Supreme Court noted last year in the case of City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising (April 21,2022) that cities may do so to enhance aesthetic value or public safety, and that “tens of thousands of municipalities nation-wide” have adopted on-/off-premises distinctions in their sign codes.

COA gets around such laws by placing all of its products on municipal property after receiving the authorization of the municipality, its partner in the service. That would be its goal entering an agreement with the City of Schenecetady.

The Zoning Code of the City of Schenectady (§264-62) prohibits “Off-premises ads”, in fulfillment of the stated intent of the Code, in §264-59 (B):

Intent. The article is intended to protect property values, create a more attractive economic and business climate, enhance and protect the physical and historic appearance of the community, preserve the scenic and natural beauty, enhance the pedestrian environment, and provide a more enjoyable and pleasing community. The article is further intended hereto to reduce sign or advertising distractions and obstructions that may contribute to traffic accidents, reduce hazards that may be caused by signs overhanging or projecting over public rights-of-way, provide more visual open space and improve the community’s appearance.

Whether a long-time resident, newcomer, or tourist in Schenectady, we enjoy the benefits of the off-premises ban all over our City. We do not have the visual pollution of myriad off-premise signs along our streets and sidewalks, nor added advertising distractions and obstructions reducing traffic safety. To control litter, we have recepticles of modest size and open design, readily recognized for their role, that only minimally, if at all, detract from visual open space.

. . above and below, examples of COA Recycle Center Bins . .

At least in their public documents, the proponents of entering such a pact with COA have not mentioned the existence of our off-premises ad ban, nor even alluded to the benefits we will surely lose by spreading dozens of giant MetroBin recycling Centers along the heaviest traffic routes and public gathering places in our City. When the issue was raised by citizens like myself, we and Council Member John Mootooverin are told the off-premises ban does not apply to activity on public land authorized by the City.

BALANCE. Surely, that is not a sufficient reply. The question is whether entering an agreement with COA will diminish the accumulated aesthetic and safety benefits of the off-premises ad ban, and whether it is a trade-off in the public interest to give up such blessings to gain some unknown amount of reduced litter, receive free trash bins, and garner the paltry revenue likely to come from the ad sales. Doing that calculation, of course, has many problematic factors, not the least of which is that we have not been told how many trash cans would have to be purchased to replace bins in unacceptable shape, nor the added cost of purchasing more receptacles based on prudent assessment of additional litter-fighting needs.

FROM COA’S RECENT FACEBOOK ENTRIES

Looking beyond Creative Outdoor Advertising’s glossy brochure, I browsed COA’s Facebook photo postings, especially hoping to find scenes comparable to our urban structure. Judge for yourself whether COA’s product suits your image of Schenectady or its progress in beautification. One question you might ask yourself is How Many of these Fixtures would be Too Many to see on a regular basis, or when driving up State Street with friends from out of Town. Or, when discussing how beautiful Schenectady is with Ray Gillen.

At the March 20, 2023, Council Committees meeting, one Council member supporting the COA proposal stated we probably could use 20 of the bins just along State Street. Can you picture that?

[click on an image for a larger version]

SCHENECTADY’S LITTER PROBLEMS

What picture do you have in your mind when you are thinking about Schenectady’s Litter Problem? For me, litter nightmares come as trash (including furniture) piled on the top and around a trash can or litter bin, or trash repeatedly tossed by the young or immature during a pot party, or blown across pavement up against a wall.

I am not at all certain that those who irresponsibly litter will act differently when confronted with a massive receptacle that must be within arm’s reach to use so a cover can be opened. Why won’t the tossers just see a MetroBin as a tempting target and throw litter as close as they can, or as a bigger platform for their Litter Architecture?
Mr. Polimeni has not explained why the giant bins will improve the behavior of Litter scofflaws or attract litter more effectively than traditional litter recepticles. His best explanation, as far as I have discovered is this gem:
“Quite frankly, we need garbage cans. We have a litter problem. If we put the cans out, hopefully people start using them.” (Schenectady Gazette, March 7, 2023)
If you are viewing a MetroBin from the road, how will you even know it is there for the deposit of litter. If you do know what it is, will you look for a driveway to get closer to the Recycling Center, or run out from the car, blocking traffic, to please your sweetheart?

If the typical litter problem on your walk home is more annoying than large, why would you need more than the conventional 28-32 gallon container that leaves more of the scene visible? Wouldn’t a big bin somehow make these scenes more industiral, rather than more beautiful? And, shouldn’t the response of a prize-winning Smart City with cameras continuously capturing scenes all over town be to simply send a crew to empty the overflowing bins as frequently as needed?

Current City Litter Receptables: How would a giant MetroBin look instead?

Also, if installed curbside, will the mini-dumpster MetroBin reduce available parking spaces? Make it more difficult to open or close the doors on your vehicle? More difficult to see the street from your restaurant patio or inside table, or vice-versa?

HOW MANY RECYCLING CENTERS?

19 COA bins for Desjardines!

The COA rep told us “at least forty”, but browsing through the Company’s online pages, I found many businesses buying ad space on a dozen or more Bins, urged on by a multitude of pitches urging them to seek more locations. They are reminded: “The extra large-ad feature ensures that yourmessage achieves more than the usual exposure!”

And, does this boast mean that people on the sidewalk side of the road have to view yet another advertisement on the backside of the Bin?

The unit boasts not one, but two extra-large ad spaces that cater to cars passing by! The extra large-ad feature ensures that your message achieves more than the usual exposure!

It sounds like COA makes its line-up of Recycle Centers especially distracting to drivers. That cannot be a good thing. Will the draw be so great that those in City Hall who worship revenue streams urge more and more local businesses to climb aboard a COA bin? And, even ask COA to bring Schenectady into the COA world of advertising benches, marring more and more of the public right of way with insurance, injury law, and pun-ishing proctology ads (see above)?

Sacrificing the aesthetics and safety protections inherent in the off-premise ad ban, seems too big a price to pay and risk to take for the savings and revenue projected by Mr. Polimeni, who is perhaps the worst predictor of expenses and revenue on the Council (e.g., his Sidewalk Assessment Plan).

Why should our City risk aesthetics and safety for an iffy $10,000 to $15,000 a year? Or, wrangle over what can be advertised (pot, gambling, guns?) and which competitors and neighborhoods will be impacted by a City litter bin? Why, indeed?

FOLLOW-UP

(March 26, 2023) Prior Agenda items on the topic of COA litter bins recommended that the Council “Authorize the Mayor to enter contract negotiations with Creative Outdoor.” The proposal was approved at the March 20, 2023 Committees meeting.[discussion starting at 46:20] Also, Corporation Counsel Koldin stated the contract would state the City empoyees will pick up the gargage and litter. In addition, Council President Porterfield stated the council and neighborhoods would have input on the locations. However, the resulting proposed Resolution on the Council Agenda for March 27, 2023 (at 57) is not very specific on these points:

RESOLVED, that the Schenectady City Council authorizes the Mayor or his designee to enter into an agreement with Creative Outdoor Advertising of America, Inc., subject to a provision in the agreement stating that the collection of garbage and recycling from the units will be completed by the designated City staff for such services so long as the City has staff designated for such services, and subject to the Mayor or his designee providing a list of the locations at which the collection units will be placed prior to their placement to the City Clerk.

At no point did I hear any Council member mention issues such as undermining the off-premises advertising ban; aesthetic losses due to visual pollution from many large recycling centers and signs; or safety concerns due to increased driver distraction.

COMMENTS TO CITY COUNCIL for March 27, 2023 COUNCIL MEETING:

(March 27, 2023) This morning, I submitted the following email Comments to the Council concerning the proposal on Council’s March 27, 2023 agenda:

let’s not give Rivers Casino a tax break

Posted on January 27, 2021 by David Giacalone

. . there are lots of reasons to say NO . .

The issue of reducing the gaming tax rate Rivers Casino must pay on slots revenue is back in the news and again threatening to harm Schenectady’s finances. See “Rivers Casino in Schenectady could benefit significantly from Cuomo proposals” Daily Gazette, John Cropley, Jan. 23, 2021). Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new executive budget summary includes a provision that would allow Rivers to petition the state to cut its tax on slot machine revenue to as little as 25 percent, from its current 45% level. As the Gazette article pointed out:

In the last normal fiscal year, before COVID, Rivers generated $57.9 million in tax revenue, 91 percent of it from slots; the city and county of Schenectady each got 5 percent of this, or $2.9 million.

If approximately 90 percent of tax revenue to the State, City and County is from slots, reducing the slots tax rate from 45% to 25% (which amounts to a forty-four percent reduction in the tax on slots), would mean about a 40% reduction in overall gaming tax payments to the State by Rivers Casino, with the same reduction to the City and County (and neighboring non-host counties). Similarly, reducing the slot tax rate to 35% from 45% would mean about a 20% reduction in the gaming taxes paid by Rivers Casino.

My arguments for refusing such tax cuts are set forth at length, with links to relevant materials, in “Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid” (March 29, 2019) and “Not again, Mr. Steck!“ (June 19, 2019). My main point: The 45% rate is not keeping Rivers Casino from competing against MGM Springfield, which is located 104 miles away. The Springfield casino pays a gaming tax rate of 25%, but also pays $25 million annually to the City of Springfield, under the Host Community Agreement between the City and the Casino. Massachusetts has structured its casino revenue tax differently, putting far more money in the hands of the host community.

A quick summary of the major points is found in a Letter to the Editor in the Daily Gazette, Saturday, Jan. 30, 2021, at C7:

UncleRiversChicago

NO PANDEMIC EXCUSE. At a time of pandemic-induced fiscal crisis for the State and its municipalities, it does seem strange to give Rivers Casino a large tax break. Are there nonetheless any pandemic-related equities that would make such a tax break reasonable, despite the harm to the treasuries of NYS and Schenectady? Lots of businesses had to close down or reduce their level of operation, due to COVID-19 restrictions. Rivers Casino, which imposed major furloughs on its employees, had 55% lower gaming revenues in 2020. While, MGM Springfield revenue declined by 52% (see Gazette article). However, River Casino’s owner, Chicago-based Rush Street Gaming, with its billionaire CEO Neil Bluhm, has not suggested their Schenectady Casino will have to fold, unless it gets the very indirect and delayed benefits of a permanent gaming tax reduction.

If tax breaks or direct payments are going to be used to help local businesses hurt by COVID-19, we should be starting with assistance to those who need it to survive, not those with deep pockets, whose profits are sent mostly out of state. If Schenectady wanted to help such small businesses it could be hampered by the fear of losing gaming tax revenue from Rivers Casino.

Assemblymen Angelo Santabarbara and Phil Steck (seen with shovels, State Senator Jim Tedisco, in the first image above at the Casino groundbreaking) should make sure the public and legislative colleagues know that Rivers Casino is not losing business to MGM Springfield because of their different tax rates on slots. The transfer of slots gaming tax revenue from the City and County of Schenectady and their taxpayers to Rivers Casino can only be a net loss for our community.

betting on sports betting?

Posted on August 2, 2019 by David Giacalone

We’ve been quiet here at Snowmen At The Gates about sports betting since our post in May 2018, when the U.S. Supreme Court opened the way for all states to authorize sports betting. A couple weeks ago, Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor became the first facility in the State of New York to offer legalized sports betting at its Rivers Sportsbook lounge. [see Times Union coverage, and the Gazette article, July 16, 2019]

Having succeeded in keeping all but full-fledged casinos out of the sports betting game in Upstate New York for now, Rivers Casino is secure in the knowledge that its nearest competitors will be Resorts World International Catskills (123 miles away); del Lago Casino (156 miles away); and Tribal casino Turning Stone, in Verona, which is 97 miles away (see: “Turning Stone sports betting opens” (Syracuse.com, August 1, 2019, by Ben Coin).

As a racino, Saratoga is not permitted to offer sports betting under the current NYS law.
What about Tribal Casinos, such as Turning Stone? Tribal Casinos are not included in the new sports wagering rules, but “tribal casinos in New York have legal reciprocity to offer any gambling games allowed at the state’s commercial casinos”. See LegalSportsReport] Earlier this year, the Oneida Nation announced that it is working on receiving the needed approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission for a partnership with Caesars Entertainment to offer sports betting at its three NYS casinos. And, Follow-up: Sports Betting opened at Turning Stone Casino on August 1, 2019. See NYCentral, July 31, 2019..

Being slow learners, or good actors, our local pols have been brimming with optimism about all the new business and revenue, and tourism, sports betting will bring for Schenectady (City and County) and the State. [photo detail to the left by Paul Buckowski, Albany Times Union] Naturally, beyond the usual hyperbole and uncertainty of any wagering projection, no one has mentioned what will happen if existing Rivers customers substitute Sports Wagering (taxed at 10%) for their Slots betting (taxed at 45%), the only form of casino betting at Rivers that has been growing since its first year of operation; or, if they simply spend time at the Sports Lounge that would have been spent at the Tables.

Rivers Casino has apparently spent a million dollars preparing its 5000 square foot Sports Wagering Lounge. We now have figures for the first two weeks of Sports Wagering at Rivers Casino, as shown in this screen shot compilation, from the Rivers Casino weekly reports to the NYS Gaming Commission [click on the image for a larger version]:

I have no idea whether the total of Sports Wagering for the first two weeks, $260,334, should be considered large or small; I do not think Rivers/Rush Street gave any public projections. But I will note that the two weeks included two very successful Saturday evening Harbor Jam concerts at Rivers Casino and the Mohawk Harbor Marina, creating the potential for thousands of the curious to check out the Sports Wagering Lounge.

Just looking at the numbers, I do see that:

Sports Betting Week 1: $168,743.
SB Week 2: $91,591
Week 2’s Sports Wagering total was down $77,152, which is 45.7% lower than Week 1
Slots Revenue during SBWeek 2 was down $4,918 from the week ending 7/14/2019, the week prior to the launch of Sports Wagering at Rivers.
Table Game revenue during SBWeek 2 was down $401,697 — that is down 45% — from the week ending 7/14/2019, the week prior to the launch of Sports Wagering at Rivers. Table Game revenue had also gone down the first week of Sports Wagering at Rivers Casino.
$2,898,960, Total Gaming Revenue at Rivers Casino for SBWeek 2 (the week ending July 18, 2019) was the second worse figure in over five months at Rivers Casino.

lifepreserver Of course, two weeks may not tell us much. But, Rivers Casino certainly got a lot of publicity for the opening of Sports Wagering in New York State. Fans of legal sports betting might have been expected to rush over to Mohawk Harbor. So far, totals at Rivers Casino suggest less overall revenue and therefore lower tax receipts than prior to the New Age of Sports Betting. If your tummy is easily upset, I’d suggest some dramamine to deal with the Spin Tsunami that may be coming. On the other hand, when it comes to less-than-rosy news about Rivers Casino, we mostly get deafening Silence from Rush Street Gaming, Rush Street Schenectady, and their handmaidens at City Hall, Metroplex, and the County and State Legislatures. Their unwitting public relations departments at our local media tend to run out of words (and follow-up questions), too, when casino news is not good.

update (Aug. 9, 2019): According to the Rivers Casino revenue report for the week ending 08/04/19, Sports Wagering GGR for the 3rd week at Rivers Sportsbook was $25,386. That’s two-thirds less than its dismal 2nd Week, and a mere 15% of the Week 1 sports wagering take. Total GGR at Rivers Schenectady was up 13% last week over the prior week, with Table Game revenue up 43% and Slots revenue up about 7%.

For another perspective, see “Rovell: Sports Betting Launched in New York and No One Cared” (Darren, Rovell, TheActionNetwork, Jul 19, 2019). “Put all the shine you want on it. Have comfortable plush chairs and good lines, without mobile, and with hard to get to retail sportsbooks, it won’t make an impact.”

Our elected leaders at Schenectady City Hall, who love to call the Casino their Partner, were all too thrilled to support Sports Betting on the Mohawk. Not one word was said by the Democratic majority or the Mayor’s Office about the not insignificant chance that overall tax receipts could decline, even if Rivers Casino got more profitable. I, for one, have no interest in throwing the ones seeking re-election at this time a life preserver. The least they could do is demand that the projection numbers be crunched to see how the net receipts are likely to work out for the City and County. And, start thinking of the people of Schenectady as their partners, not the Mohawk Harbor Gang.

Also, to bring up a pet peeve of mine, Mr. Kosiur or Mayor McCarthy should insist that Rivers Casino tell us their overall Visitor numbers for 2018, which they have not yet done, despite being halfway through 2019. Around Schenectady, No News is never good news. It is more likely to be a cover-up of bad news.

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

follow-up FYI (August 4, 2019): Capital Region media never mentioned it, but in March 2019, Rush Street Gaming sold 61% of its ownership of the Des Plaines (Ill.) Rivers Casino, the largest casino in Illinois, to Churchill Downs. That surely got Rush Street a powerful influx of cash, despite all its crybaby antics at the NYS Legislature seeking tax breaks. The folk at Rivers Casino Des Plaines have announced a very large plan to get into sports betting big time. See “Rivers Casino owner is betting big with plans to expand Des Plaines casino, add sports wagering and go after a new casino license” (Chicago Tribune, August 2, 2019, by Robert Channick)

not again, Mr. Steck!

Posted on June 19, 2019 by David Giacalone

The Assemblyman from Mohawk Harbor is at it again. Phil Steck (ostensibly, D-Colonie) is trying to sneak in a last-minute, end of Session treat for his No. 1 Constituent, Rivers Casino. The Editorial board at the Schenectady Gazette rightly wants to know:

[W]hy — as state lawmakers scramble to pass bills during the final days of the 2019 legislative session — is anyone in Albany focused on providing tax breaks and cost savings for casinos?

[See “Editorial: Put taxpayers, horse industry above casinos: Rivers casino is making plenty of money. It doesn’t need more breaks” (Daily Gazette, June 19, 2019); also, see “Steck proposes casino funding adjustment” (by Pete DeMola, Gazette, June 18, 2019); Sara Foss’ Gazette column, “Casino proposal a bad idea” (June 20, 2019).]

As the Editorial explains:

One bill (A8400/S6562) sponsored by Assemblyman Phil Steck would allow full-service casinos like Rivers in Schenectady to pay half what they currently pay to support the state’s horse-racing industry.

Racinos like Saratoga Casino Hotel, which offer both video gaming and harness racing, would pay the other half

Furthermore, the Gazette points out:

That 100 percent payment was put into the agreement because the new casinos were expected to draw significant business away from the existing racinos, and by extension take money out of the horse-racing industry. And they have.

To further punish the racino by forcing it to absorb half the horse-racing obligations, in addition to the revenue losses to the casino, adds insult to injury.

Mr. Steck – Eyes Shut [TU photo]

This tax-break ploy at the expense of racinos such as the one in Saratoga is especially cynical at a time when Rivers Casino has consistently increasing slots revenue and is about to be the only casino in the state offering both sports betting and live horse racing (at track odds, too). update (June 21, 2019): By the way, Mr. Steck made this proposal to help poor little Rivers Casino at a time when the Schenectady Casino was having its second-best week for Gross Gaming Revenue since its rush of opening hoopla in March of 2017. Its GGR for the week ending 06/16/2019 was $3,535,273.

Steck and Rivers Casino made the same lame arguments just three months ago, trying to reduce the gaming tax Rivers would have to pay on slots revenue. For our complete reply, see: “Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid” (March 29, 2019). Their excuses include the whiny refrain that MGM Springfield is unfair competition, because of its lower slots tax rate. They keep forgetting that:
- (1) MGM Springfield pays the City of Springfield $25 million a year over its State gaming tax obligations under a Host City Agreement, whereas our Mayor never asked for such an agreement and we get nothing extra;
- (2) Rivers Casino has had over a 10% increase in gaming revenue since MGM Springfield opened last year; and
- (3) MGM Springfield actually looks and feels like a destination casino, which surely gives it a competitive edge with customers willing to travel. Thanks to our Mayor and Planning Commission (and Metroplex) refusing-fearing to demand better, Rush Street Gaming and Galeshi Group have given us a homely, mediocre regional casino, which will not attract the tourists we had hoped for.

. . followup (January 27, 2021): The issue of reducing the gaming tax rate Rivers Casino must pay on slots revenue is back in the news and threatening Schenectady’s finances. See “Rivers Casino in Schenectady could benefit significantly from Cuomo proposals” Daily Gazette, John Cropley, Jan. 23, 2021). And see our posting, “why not give Rivers Casino a tax break” (Jan. 27, 2021).

a bargeful of yellow bollards on the Mohawk

Posted on May 13, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . but, first, a Mother’s Day Bouquet for Mama G. :

2 of 180

A Conversation We Might Have Over-Heard at Mohawk Harbor on Mother’s Day:

Q: “What are all those big yellow things called, Son?” A: “Bollards, Mom.”

Q: “Why are there so many and why are they so tall?” A: “Only God, Ray Gillen, and maybe Mayor McCarthy, know”.

Q: “Weren’t they supposed to make Mohawk Harbor and the Casino a classy, attractive destination?” A: “That’s what they promised.”

Q: “Then, how the heck did all those yellow bollards get here?”

“They” — the Developer Galesi Group, Casino Owner Rush Street Gaming, the Planning Commission, Mayor Gary McCarthy and City Hall in general, Ray Gillen and Metroplex, and County government — could have and should have made this crucial project more attractive, to help bring in tourists and repeat business, and for the sake of residents who deserve a beautiful harbor district. Instead, there are, by my recent count, at least 180 bright yellow bollards (that is,15 dozen) surrounding Rivers Casino and detracting from its attractiveness.

The bollards are, in addition, taller than the average bollard (which is 3.5 ft., and not 4′, 5′ and 6′, as at Mohawk Harbor), increasing their visual impact.[see photo above] In the opinion of many folks in Schenectady, parking areas and pedestrian walkways should not be this pedestrian.

The Sentries assigned to protect Schenectady from harmful outsiders on the day of the 1690 Schenectady Massacre instead went off to a Mill Lane pub for some brew, leaving behind snowmen and open stockade gates to greet French and Indian marauders from Canada. Sadly, it seems, weaponless and voiceless Snowmen have been appointed or hired to oversee design and implementation of Schenectady’s most important development of this Century. They’ve permitted a bumper crop of bright yellow bollards to sprout along Mohawk Harbor. For my taste, if they had spawned at least a few snowman-shaped bollards, we would have been better off.

You can see the results of the City’s planning and oversight omissions for yourself with a quick look at the next two collages; one shows bollards at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor on the west side of the facility [L], and the other shows bollards along the east end and rear of the Casino complex [R].

. . click on either collage, or any image in this posting, for a larger version .

share this posting with this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/YellowBollards

What Is a Bollard and What Do They DO?

A bollard is a sturdy, short, vertical post. The term originally referred to a post on a ship, wharf or dock used principally for mooring boats, but is now also used to refer to posts installed to control road traffic and posts designed to provide security and prevent ramming attacks, as well as provide a theme or sense of place. [see Wikipedia; Reliance Foundry; TrafficGuard.]

Bollards are available in many different sizes and styles, including removable or fixed versions, designed to evoke virtually any era or taste. The type chosen depends on the purpose of the bollard, and the location. For example, Reliance Foundry displays illustrations, specs, and prices for 143 bollard models at its website, including bollard covers in many styles and choice of materials. And, see: its Pinterest Creative Bollards display. Bollards can be serious or stately, artsy or whimsical. The style or mood can even be mixed on the same site or project.

- - For example, Jan Mitchell’s Waterfront Bollards, at Geelong (Australia). More Geelong images here.

Bollards are not, therefore, merely practical, and definitely do not have to detract from a landscape or streetscape. Reliance Foundry notes that “Bollards enhance the visual quality of buildings and landscapes while providing visual and physical barriers for safer, more controlled environments.” And, relevant to our discussion of Mohawk Harbor and Rivers Casino:

When used to complement new or existing architecture, bollards can create or reinforce thematic visual cues and enhance a sense of place within a neighborhood or community—and for approaching visitors. [click the collage at the head of this blurb to see samples of Reliance Foundry bollards]

Despite the hundreds of bollard styles to choose from, and their coincidental nautical history, tall bollards with bright yellow covers are so ubiquitous on the lawns, parking areas, and walkways of Schenectady’s Rivers Casino, that they are the most prominent architectural feature defining the otherwise uninspiring, and unnamable external design of the Casino complex.

Thus, whether you are . . .

. . entering the Rivers Casino parking lot from the west on Front Street:

. . coming from the east on Harbor Way:

. . . visiting next-door at STS Steel:

. . driving over the Mohawk from Glenville on Freeman’s Bridge:

. . .

. . aboard your yacht on the Mohawk River:

. . .

. . entering the ALCO Trail on foot from the west:

. . or, even checking out the ALCO Trail signage from your bike:

your first and subsequent views of the site at Rivers Casino are highly likely to be populated by an inert army of tall, bright yellow bollards.

WE DESERVE(D) BETTER

In the posting “Why does Rush Street give Schenectady its scraps” (June 19, 2015), we pointed to the image created by the Applicants before the Location Board, when they sought a gaming license from New York State, and noted our disappointment in the eventual design of Rivers Casino:

A flashy digital brochure submitted to the New York State Gaming Commission, “The Companies of Neil Bluhm,” touts his having “developed and acquired over $50 billion in world class destinations,” his “Establishing international beacons to successfully attract the tourism market,” and “placing an emphasis on superior design” for his casinos. Unfortunately, instead of an “international beacon” like Fallsview Casino in Ontario, Canada, we get a design that reminds us Neil Bluhm “pioneered . . . the creation of urban shopping centers.”

Why did we get such a disappointing, second-rate design? I got no reply when I emailed the Schenectady Planning Office and City Engineer, on April 15, 2019 and asked, regarding the yellow bollards:

Did the Applicant designate the color, style and size for its bollards for its Site Plan review?
Did the Commission either approve or direct such bright yellow bollards?
Did Staff review this choice and okay it?

That leaves me to speculate on my own. In our June 15, 2017 “scraps” posting, we stated:

Our first guess as to why Rush Street does not try very hard for Schenectady is that it has had our “leaders” fawning over it ever since the first rumor of a casino was in the air early last year. This morning’s Schenectady Gazette suggests another reason: As with the earlier zoning amendments, the normal Planning Commission process has been aborted (hijacked?), with the skids greased by the Mayor to make sure Galesi and Rush Street never have to wait very long to get their wish list fulfilled, and with public input stifled whenever possible.

In their Casino License Application, Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group were required to submit detailed renderings and sketches of the proposed Casino project. For example, the July 2014 Application included an overview sketch with the detail at the right of their west parking lot, the largest ground-level parking area. [full sketch] There are well over 100 trees in the west parking lot in the submitted sketch. That presentation shows that the Applicants/Developer/Owners knew what a parking lot meant to attract and keep tourists and other customers should look like. If nothing else, the image should also have reminded the Planning Commission and planning staff what their goal should be regarding the landscaping and appearance of this prime location. Unfortunately, the public and perhaps also the Planning Commission never again saw such detailed proposals for the casino compound.

from 2nd Casino Design

The limited 2nd design images submitted for public review of the Casino compound did not include the full parking lot, but still seemed to have quite a few trees. [See the image to the left.] The third design submitted to the public only revealed a tiny part of the front and back of the Casino, giving no parking lot views. Of course, nothing prevented, and their duty demanded, that the Planning Commission require more detail and allow more public comment; more important, their duty demanded the construction of far more attractive parking lots, especially given how much of the total footprint of the Casino Compound and Mohawk Harbor they would consume.

The the next four images below show the actual west parking lot, with its mere handful of trees along the rows. Click on a photo for a larger version.

. .

. . photos taken, Nov. 4, 2018 [above] and May 4, 2019 [below] . .

. .

You have to wonder: “What happened to all those trees?” Indeed, the Minutes of the July 22, 2015 Commission Meeting, which included the Casino Site Plan Review, have Commission Member (now Chair) Mary Moore Wallinger noting (at 5):

[T]hat she very much appreciates the detailed planting plan and that she feels that the applicants listened to the feedback from the Commission regarding the landscaping and pedestrian walkways and took it into account when revising the design.

What could Ms. Wallinger, a leading Schenectady landscape architect and designer of major municipal projects in the City and County, have meant, if the result is a swarm of yellow bollards that would seem to be the antithesis of good landscaping and site planning at an “international tourist destination” and unique, new, upscale neighborhood? The beauty and shade added by robust and numerous trees in a parking lot are, of course, much appreciated by urban designers, and by passersby, drivers, and passengers coming from near and far.

BTW: I recall being in the Commission hearing room when, at one point in the process, Ms. Wallinger spent a lot of time worrying with the applicant over the size of the parking lot tree beds. Did she have any follow-up with the Planning Office staff on this issue?

Throughout the Casino design and site plan approval process, this website and local media complained that the public and the Planning Commission were receiving far fewer and far less specific details about how the casino site would look as proposed by the developers than we would expect in even the most insignificant project. We were shown only incomplete “peeks” at segments of the proposed plans, often with sketches and not complete renderings, and the Commission never demanded more, despite the importance of this project and its clear authority to require more. Instead, phony deadline pressure arguments from the Applicants were accepted without complaint, and last-minute incomplete submissions were accepted. For example, see the limited-view renderings submitted for the rear (river-side) of the Casino and its Hotel on the Right for the 2nd Rivers Casino Design, and immediately below for the 3rd design.

. . .

By the way, despite their prominence on the actual constructed site, there are no yellow bollards in sight in either version of the rear of the Casino complex.

How could this happen at a project hailed so often as Schenectady’s premiere new, upscale location, and hope for its future? The City’s Planning Commission purportedly gave the Casino and Mohawk Harbor a full Site Plan Review (see our disappointed coverage). Site Plan review is not merely meant to make sure that all zoning laws have been followed. As we explained during the Site Plan process for the Casino complex in July 2015:

“[T]he commission has the ability to evaluate the aesthetic visual impact of the project even if the plans satisfy zoning requirements.” [Gazette article citing Corporation Council Carl Falotico, Feb. 3, 2015.]

Also, see the section “What a site plan accomplishes” in the “BEGINNER’S GUIDE TO LAND USE LAW”, by the Land Use Law Center of Pace University School of Law, at 19.

- By the way, at the end of the July 22, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, chair Sharron Coppola announced it would be her last meeting as chair, and that she would be resigning her position as Planning Commissioner. I certainly wish Ms. Coppola had written a Memoir of her time at the Commission, including the entire Harbor District zoning and Casino site planning experience.

POSSIBLE EXPLANATIONS?

at OrthoNY Liberty Street

Some of the most imaginative people I know have not been able to figure out or conjure up a justification for the excessive and near-exclusive use of bright yellow bollards at Rivers Casino Schenectady. In addition, in none of my readings have I found any indication that bollards need to be bright yellow in order to effectively serve their functions. My inquiry to City Engineer Chris Wallin about requirements that bollards be yellow in certain situations never got a reply. (Of course, in a location where one might not expect to find the protected item, a bright color to signal its existence does make sense, but that issue does not seem to warrant the ubiquitous choice of bright yellow at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor.)

A Schenectady Tradition? No, it isn’t, despite their use to protect utility cabinets at recent projects downtown. City Hall, County, civic and business leaders are surely aware that there are other kinds of affordable and more attractive bollards, or similar security measures or screens available. A short outing around Downtown Schenectady should suffice to prove that proposition; here’s the result of my recent bollard tour:

at S. Church & State St. . .

Also, the first tenant at Mohawk Harbor, Courtyard by Marriott Hotel, did a nice job looking like a tasteful place to stay, without using even one yellow bollard to protect the building and utility units. Here are a couple of sample views of the Hotel; for more, click on the Collage Thumbnail to the head of this paragraph.

. .

Unfortunately, Marriott’s example did not rub off across its driveway at Galesi’s Harborway Drive office-retail buildings.

A Rush Street Gaming Branding Tool or Trademark? And, No, bright yellow bollards are not a design theme uniting all Rush Street Gaming properties. The collage below (on L) has images compiled from an extensive on-line Google Street Map tour of the exterior of Rivers Casino at DesPlaines, Illinois, which has a design similar in many ways to Schenectady’s Rivers Casino, but without yellow bollards. Similarly, the collage on the Right shows exterior scenes from Rush Street’s Sugar House Casino in Philadelphia, where yellow bollards are also absent and do not appear to be a design element for exterior spaces. Similarly, Google Images we located of Rivers Casino Pittsburgh contain no yellow bollards.

Furthermore, Rush Street Gaming and their development partner Galesi Group used not-yellow bollards and non-bollard alternative devices in strategic spots at and near Rivers Casino. Click on this Collage:

. .

A few years ago, we documented at this website how much better Rush Street Gaming has treated the cities that host its other casinos or potential sites than how it treats Schenectady [see, e.g., Rush Street Giveaways, and Money on the Table]. So, it is not surprising that we have not been able to find similar aggregations of bright yellow (or even similarly unsubtle or unsightly) bollards at other Rush Street casinos.

at Waterfront Condominiums, Mohawk Harbor

Finally, Is Bright Yellow a Galesi Group Trademark or Branding Tool? Despite a minor outbreak of similar bollards at the Galesi-built and owned Price Chopper/Golub headquarters (example), there does not seem to be any internal imperative for yellow bollards within the Galesi Group. Indeed, we see a far more tasteful/tolerable (and less conspicuous) set of bollards at the eastern end of Mohawk Harbor, performing protection service for utility cabinets and similar objects at Galesi’s high-end Waterfront Condominiums [asking price, $500,000 to $700,000]. There’s not a yellow bollard in sight on site.

Like the westside of Mohawk Harbor, the eastside (between Harborside Drive and Erie Boulevard), sits on the banks of the Mohawk River, has a bike-pedestrian path running through it, and features ALCO Heritage signage sponsored by Schenectady County. Both ends of Mohawk Harbor sit within the City of Schenectady, with site plans reviewed by its Planning Commission. And, both ends were proudly godfathered/mid-wived by Ray Gillen of Metroplex. Why such a visually-different result?

. . Mohawk Harbor riverbank bollards protecting utility boxes: [above] at Rivers Casino; [below] at Waterfront Condominiums . .

Discount Bollards? Did a literal bargeful of yellow bollards or bollard covers show up at Mohawk Harbor or another Schenectady County location with great price breaks for buying them in bulk? What amount of savings could compensate for their lack of aesthetic virtue?
Peoples’ Choice? I know that taste can be very subjective, and that some “leaders” want to force constituents out of their confined preferences, but I believe that the great majority of Schenectady area residents, if asked the question directly with photos, would strongly prefer non-yellow bollards.

As with the failure of our Mayor to demand financial, employment, purchasing benefits, etc., in a host community agreement, it appears that our City Hall and its appointed Civil Snowmen neither demanded attractive landscaping and protective installations around the Casino, nor required that the developers fulfill any specific promise they may have made in the site plan process.

The collage to the Right gives a stark example of Galesi Group promises in a site plan meeting that were apparently later ignored by the developer and by any enforcement officials reviewing the execution of a Mohawk Harbor project. According to June 17, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, during review of the Site Plan for what would become the 220 Harborside Drive office and retail building, project engineer Dan Hershberg:

.

[E]xplained that because there is underground parking beneath the parking lot, landscaping option are more limited in this space.He stated that large planters are proposed for the islands in the parking lot, and that they will be cast in concrete on site and will be quite substantial in size. He added that they are proposing to add trees to the site wherever possible, but there are some spots where easements are located which will be planted with more seasonal, less permanent options. [emphasis added]

.

There are, as you can see in the collage above, no islands, no planters, and no trees. Who in our City government is responsible to follow-up on such matters?

Why is this Bargeful of Bollards Story Important? It is a prime, very visible example of The Snowman Effect: The inadequate protection of the public interest in Schenectady, due to the appointment and retention at City Hall by Mayor Gary McCarthy of subservient, ineffectual or disinterested public servants (with dismissal of those who do not cooperate), resulting in both rushed, superficial review of submissions from favored applicants, and lax follow-up and enforcement of City Code provisions and applicant promises. [as symbolically depicted here] It has meant, in the Casino Design and Yellow Bollards context, suffering a less attractive and less successful Rivers Casino in Schenectady, and in other contexts, such as the ALCO Bike-Pedestrian pathway, a less safe Mohawk Harbor for those who visit and use the facilities (see this and that).

For more on the Snowman Effect, see “McCarthy only wants snowmen on the Planning Commission“. For an explanation of the Snowmen Metaphor, see our posting “have we learned the lessons of the 1690 Schenectady Massacre?”; for examples, some of which are more subtle than others, check our postings in the Snowmen Effect Category.

The unspoken attitude of our Mayor and the Metroplex Chair seems to be that Schenectady is the old Mohawk term for “Second-Rate-City“. Consequently, they have failed to demand, or at the least strenuously bargain for, the best for our City from Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group. The result is a tremendous lost opportunity for Schenectady to truly shine and succeed at our only remaining riverbank land suitable for commercial development and public recreation. The bollard crop along the Mohawk also suggests that Schenectady’s Snowmen/women are not merely on the Boards that review projects, but also in the offices that are supposed to see that reviewed plans are implemented as approved or as promised by an applicant. The situation with readily visible aspects of Mohawk Harbor also makes us wonder what is going on with items that are not readily seen by the public (such as the “shoddy work” recently alleged at a Harborside Drive building).

Having beget a “bummer” crop of bright, yellow, too-tall* bollards, the same municipal officials now stand as mute as snowmen when Rivers Casino complains that it is losing business because of an unfair tax structure compared to its competitors, and seeks tax breaks that would cost the City hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in lost revenue. See “Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid.”] Leaders and residents should instead point out that one very big reason Rivers Casino finds it hard to compete is that they have built a homely, mediocre, regional gambling facility, with the acquiescence and cooperation of City Hall and Metroplex, despite the promise to create an international tourist attraction for Schenectady.

Financial Realities. Rush Street does not have to meet its bloated projections for Rivers Casino in Schenectady to prosper on the Mohawk. Failing to attract visitors beyond a small geographic radius, Rivers Casino seems content to focus on: Seeking tax breaks; Slots (the most addictive form of casino gambling) as the focus of its gaming growth; Sports gambling (which might siphon off gambling dollars that are taxed at a much higher rate); and attracting Non-gambling spending at the Casino, which helps the bottomline of Rush Street and its associated enterprises, but reduces gaming tax revenue to the State, County and City, and hurts other local businesses. And, City Hall and The County Building seem content with this situation, continuing to call the Casino their Partner.
New Attitude Needed. Schenectady’s government leaders disarmed themselves when dealing with the Casino applicants, giving away leverage that could have assured many additional benefits for the City and County and its residents, like The Giveaways Rush Street has made or promised other prospective casino towns. They will have few if any comparable opportunities, now that the project design and the zoning changes demanded by the Applicants have been approved. Nevertheless, a new attitude that, at the very least, asserts the position of Senior Partner for local government can hopefully salvage a few benefits, avoid some disadvantages, and help restore some civic pride.

Continue reading →

Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid

Posted on March 29, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . . or, don’t care about the facts or taxpayers

The points made below are still very relevant.

. . prior update (June 19, 2019): They’re at it again; see “Not again, Mr. Steck!“

Rush Street Gaming’s billionaire CEO/Owner Neil Bluhm is back walking the halls of the New York State Legislature trying to get a tax break for their Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor. [See “Schenectady casino seeks lower tax rates: Tax credit floated as relief” (Albany Times Union, by David Lombardo, March 29, 2019); “Rivers Casino takes another crack at a tax cut: Schenectady facility says highest tax rate among New York casinos puts it at a disadvantage” (Schenectady Gazette, March 28, 2019)].

openpalmg They are again whining about the unfairness of the gaming tax structure, and have bolstered their specious arguments with a flood of misleading statements about their new competitor, MGM Springfield. They are also acting as if an Advertising Allowance tax credit is not a tax break. [follow-up (April 14, 2019): According to the Sunday Gazette, Rivers Casino just had its best month ever, but continues its whining and seeking tax breaks.]

Below is the slightly edited text of an email that I sent to members of the media this afternoon (Friday, March 29), in the hope that the press will dilute Mr. Bluhm’s Casino Chicanery with facts, and that our Legislators will care about the facts. It has been supplemented with arguments against the Marketing Allowance.

. . Left: MGM Springfield Tax Revenue Report . .

Email Message

Rush Street Gaming is again seeking tax cuts from Albany for its Schenectady Rivers Casino, using misleading information and half-truths, plus a boatful of whining.

Here are the facts:

When it applied for a casino license in July 2014, Rush Street Gaming knew:

The gaming revenue tax on a Capital Region casino, as stated in the 2013 enabling legislation, would be 45% on Slots and 10% on all other gaming revenue, with lower rates on slots in other Regions (that had less population density, fewer economic resources, and more competitors, i.e., racinos, Indian and Canadian casinos).

MGM Springfield had received its license in June 2013 and was planning to build a spectacular casino resort on a bend of the Connecticut River, in the historic and cultural center of Springfield.

The gaming tax in Massachusetts would be 25% on all casino gaming revenue proceeds (slots and table games).

There might be a second full casino in western Massachusetts (but that has not happened).

Rivers says that this unfair rate differential has lowered its Slots income, however:

In the six full months since MGM Springfield has been in operation (Sept. 2018 through February 2019), Slot GGR at Rivers Casino has increased 10.4% over the same months the prior year, from $46,090,049 to $50,902,095. Update: In both 2018 and 2019, the total increase at Rivers Casino in gaming revenue (slots/ETG, table games, and poker) over the prior year was in fact from Slots/ETG play. See Monthly Reports

Rivers says its unfair tax burden makes it impossible to fairly compete with MGM Springfield, and they need a slots tax rate below 40%, but:

From Sep 2018 through Feb. 2019, Rivers paid approx. $24 million in Gaming Tax, that equals a blended 34% gaming tax on its Total GGR. See Rivers Casino Monthly Financial Reports. While, from Sept. 2018 through Feb. 2019, MGM Springfield paid approximately $33 million in Gaming Tax, 25% of Total GGR. See MassGaming Revenue Report on MGM Springfield. HOWEVER,

Rush Street is not mentioning that, under its Host Community Agreement with Springfield:

MGM Resorts paid upfront and advance payments, totaling $15 million to the City of Springfield during the construction phase including pre-payment of taxes for general city purposes as well as:

$2.5 million to purchase equipment and to provide training for police, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel.

$1 million to redevelop Riverfront Park.

Once opening for business, MGM Springfield must make more than $25 million in annual payments to the City. This includes $17.6 million in lieu of tax payments as well as, among other things:

$2.5 million to fund operating and other costs for police, firefighters, emergency medical services and education.

$2.5 million for a Community Development Fund to be administered by the city to support early childhood education, higher education, libraries, health initiatives, and the betterment of the city and its residents.

And, another $50 million coming up: Just last week, MGM Springfield reported to the Mass. Gaming Commission that it intends to invest in the proposed $55 million redevelopment of the long-vacant Court Square hotel building in downtown Springfield as part of an obligation to build housing within one-half mile of its resort casino. See WAMC Report.

See the MassGaming 4-page Summary of Springfield HCA, for the amazing array of extra obligations MGM Springfield has undertaken while Rush Street just pays what it has to pay under the 2013 Legislation, refusing to enter a Host Community Agreement.

It should be clear that the Massachusetts gaming tax structure intentionally took into account the obligation of any casino applicant to negotiate an HCA or Mitigation Agreement with the host municipality, with its consequent large financial obligations over and above the State gaming revenue tax.

.

RIVERS CASINO never entered into an HCA with the City of Schenectady, as Mayor Gary McCarthy refused to negotiate for one, as did Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen. It paid no upfront money during construction, and no economic development funds for the community. (see our posting “answering Mayor McCarthy on HCAs“, June 28, 2015)

NYS Assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow (Dem., Mt Vernon), the Chair of the Assembly Standing Committee on Racing and Wagering, has been insisting that Rivers Casino offered to pay an “exorbitant” amount over the mandated gambling revenue tax, and should now be given a break. However, Rivers pays exactly the amount called for in the 2013 Legislation, under which it would have to pay more if it had offered to do so as part of its Application. Instead, The Report and Findings of the New York Gaming Facility Location Board (Feb. 27, 2015, at 261) specifically states in the section captioned “Maximizing revenues received by the state and localities. (§ 1320(1)(b))”, that: “Rivers does not propose a supplemental tax payment or increased license fee.“

Mr. Pretlow may be confusing Rush Street’s generous offering in its failed application for a gaming license at Beacon NY, with its parsimonious approach to Schenectady.

. . .

above: the $960 million MGM Springfield Casino Resort; below: the $340 million Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor (front entrance on R, rear and hotel on L)

. .

WHY DO PEOPLE TAKE BUSES TO MGM Springfield?

MRM Resorts spent $960 million to build a spectacular, true destination casino, in a bustling, interesting neighborhood

Rush Street, after bragging that it builds spectacular international destinations in its Applications, spent merely $320 million at Mohawk Harbor, and has produced, at best, a homely, mediocre regional casino, which targets and predominantly attracts local residents and perhaps those living within a 60-mile radius

By failing to insist on a true destination casino, Schenectady’s Mayor, City Council majority and Planning Commission, and the County’s Metroplex and Legislature, condemned our City to a mediocre Casino that will be constantly failing to meet its bloated projections and wanting tax breaks. See, e.g., our posting “casino choices in Upstate New York: who will choose Schenectady?” (January 19, 2017)

Exactly a year ago, we were in the same situation, waiting to see if the rush to the Legislative Budget Deadline (April 1), would bring with it a budget that included casino tax breaks. See “bum’s rush needed” (March 28, 2018). We were pleased at the time that Gov. Andrew Cuomo did not favor casino tax breaks. Also, the Gazette Editorial Board wrote a piece entitled “Editorial: No state financial deals for casinos” In addition, on Sunday March 30, 2018, the Times Union editorial board weighed in with “Editorial: Say no to casino subsidies“, which included the nifty illustration by Jeff Boyer that is at the head of this paragraph.

Follow-up (January 17, 2020): The results at Rivers Casino for calendar year 2019 help demonstrate why the Capital Region casino has a higher Slots gaming tax rate (45%) than the commercial casinos in other regions (38%). See the Albany Times Union article “Rivers best-performing of NY’s original Vegas-style casinos: Schenectady venue up 11 percent compared with 2018″ (by Lauren Stanforth, Dec. 25, 2019), which reports that: “Rivers Casino and Resort continues to outperform among the state’s three original commercial gaming facilities — growing the most in percentage of overall revenue compared with last year.” And,

Tioga Downs owner Jeff Gural said he always assumed Rivers would be the most successful of the four facilities because it is the only one located near an urban center.

“You just have to look at the population and the type of people,” said Gural, a New York real estate magnate who also owns the Meadowlands Racetrack in New Jersey. “With sports betting trends, they’re probably getting a lot of college kids. … Del Lago is in the middle of nowhere; Monticello (Resorts World) is in the middle of nowhere. Without a question the best location in New York is Rivers.”

The article notes that, of course: “Despite the favorable revenue uptick, Rivers had lobbyists at the Capitol earlier this year trying to sway state legislators to provide tax or other relief in the face of what it describes as competition coming from MGM Springfield two hours to the east.” We have consistently pointed out that the higher rate was used in the Capital Region because of its higher population density and greater wealth. Casinos get most of their business from within a 30 to 40-mile radius. It is pretty clear that Rivers Casino does not “out-perform” the other commercial NYS casinos on the metric of “revenue per capita” within their respective core focus areas; it gets more gaming dollars because so many more people live in the Capital Region.

Phil Steck at Rivers Casino

Marketing Allowance? For some reason, we are supposed to believe that a Marketing Allowance is not a tax break, although it would reduce River Casino’s gaming tax burden by 10% of the Casino’s marketing expenses. Last year, we noted on this topic that: “In the TU article “Casino seeks state help in marketing” (Sept. 29, 2018), Assemblyman Phil Steck is far from elegant defending Rivers Casino request for a 10% marketing allowance reduction in its gaming tax obligations to the State”:

“It’s not saying, ‘State, come in and give us money’; it’s saying, ‘We believe we need to expand the market for our product, we need an allowance for marketing,’ and I think that’s a reasonable position for a business to take,” said Steck, a Democratic lawmaker from Colonie, of the request by the Schenectady casino, which is located on the former Alco site on Erie Boulevard.

“What they’re saying is, ‘If we spend 10 cents on marketing instead of giving you 100 cents on that dollar, we’re going to give you 90 cents,’ and that makes a lot of sense because if the total amount of revenue expands as a result of their marketing effort, the state’s going to make more money anyway and so will the city,” Steck said.

Assemblyman Steck apparently still supports such a Marketing Allowance, if it brings in more revenue, but does not demonstrate how that would happen. As I noted last year in correspondence with Mr. Steck, Rivers Casino already does a lot of advertising and marketing (a rather basic expense for doing business in a capitalist market), and if doing more would increase its revenue in any way, it would be doing just that. Moreover:

Much of Rivers’ marketing appears to be aimed at bringing in non-gambling customers to the Casino complex and Mohawk Harbor. That business (drinking, dining, conventions, fight shows, concerts) does not add to Rivers’ gaming tax obligations (45% on slots, 10% on table games and poker). Instead, it merely increases profits for the Casino and its business associates, and generates the much lower taxes based on food and similar sales taxes (often “cannibalizing” the business of other local businesses).
Rivers Casino is already a major beneficiary of the County’s Tourism Bureau and Discovery Schenectady programs for gaming and convention programs.
Mohawk Harbor was allowed to put a giant shopping-mall style 30′ high by 18′ wide pylon sign, that looms over Erie Blvd. at a location that normally would permit only a 7′ high sign under our Zoning Code. The Harbor said it needed a sign with lots of space for its commercial tenants to advertise (and the sign has always had far more planks spaces that advertising tenants)l In permitting the sign, after literal begging for the favor by Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen, the Board of Zoning Appeals reversed a decision it had made just weeks before. The pylon sign contains a large LCD screen that changes message every 8 seconds; safety-conscious cities and planners discourage such distractions so close to a busy intersection. Isn’t this quite enough favoritism at the expense of the public interest for Mohawk Harbor and its Casino tenant?
1. All the pressure on the Planning and Zoning Appeals board for a sign with space for many tenants, ironically compromised those Boards for no good reason. Long after the sign was erected, Mohawk Harbor has virtually no retail and the sign is predominately made up of blank spaces.

Phil Steck balked when I called him “the Assemblyman from Mohawk Harbor” last year. But, I cannot imagine the normally-thoughtful Mr. Steck offering even his current conditional support for the Marketing Allowance, were Mohawk Harbor not in his Assembly District.

. . share this post with this URL: http://tinyurl.com/WhiningRivers

. . many locals believe this northeast Harbor Way entrance to Rivers Casino, with its utility bollards, parking garage, and Hotel, is the more attractive (and far less tacky) view of the Casino . .

Year Three Begins: slots still reign at Rivers Casino

Posted on March 11, 2019 by David Giacalone

. . .

February 8, 2019 was the 2nd Anniversary of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor. As we’ve previously reported, all increased gambling revenue at Schenectady’s Rivers Casino during its second year of operation came from Slots/ETG play, which were up almost 15%, while table games and table poker had reduced revenue. Here’s the breakdown, using the Monthly Reports made by Rivers to the NYS Gaming Commission:

A comparison of the two Rivers Anniversary Months, February 2018 and February 2019, shows the same relationship as the revenue figures in its first and second years of operation: All added revenue is coming from slots:

We can see, then, that the worrisome trend continued into the first month of the 3rd Year of Operation for Rivers Casino, despite Anniversary Month efforts to promote Poker and Table Games [see, e.g., Casino LED screen at right].

Is Rivers Casino turning into that cursed form of urban “development,” a mediocre regional casino attracting predominantly local patrons who can least afford to gamble, and siphoning off entertainment dollars that were once spread across the local market for leisure activities — and, with no palatable solutions in sight?

No matter what you call this phenomenon — “slotsification”, “slotsploitation”, “Slotsnectady”, etc. — we should be concerned, because slots are the most addictive form of casino gambling. Slots also appeal more than other forms of casino gaming to many members of the most vulnerable groups of prospective gamblers, seniors and the elderly and low-income.

. .

Just in time for the 2nd Anniversary of Rivers Casino operating at Mohawk Harbor, the State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli issued a 17-page Audit report the first week of February which concluded that the State has failed to assess the human toll of its gambling expansion and needs to better understand the problem, so that its limited resources can be best used to prevent and treat gambling addiction. The stated purpose of the report, “OASAS Problem Gambling Treatment Program (Report 2018-S-39, Feb. 2019), was “To determine whether the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) has sufficient treatment programs for problem gamblers.” See, a Gazette article (Feb. 7, 2019), and related column by Sara Foss. ; and a Times Union article and editorial. It seems clear, that we need to understand who is playing slots at Rivers Casino and how we can help assure that having a casino in our midst does not spread the infection of problem gambling in our community.

As we noted in our posting “slotsification on the Mohawk“:

It 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).

We also noted in that post:

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.

March is Problem Gambling Awareness Month, and we will soon be posting a piece about Problem Gambling and Slots.

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

2018 gambling revenue at Rivers Casino

Posted on January 5, 2019 by David Giacalone

Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor posted its final Weekly Gambling Revenue Report for 2018 yesterday morning (Jan. 4, 2019), at the website of the NYS Gaming Commission. Here’s my summary in a nutshell:

PROJECTION COMPARISON: The $152 million total Gross Gaming Revenue (GGR) in 2018 is only 71% of the projection for 2018 [$213.9 million] given in Rush Street Gaming’s Application for its Rivers Casino gaming license. As discussed below, that shortfall exists despite the Casino having achieved virtually all of its important “wait-untils” that we were told should produce the projected revenue.
MONTH TO MONTH COMPARISON: For the eleven months of 2018 that correspond with the first eleven months of operation of the Casino in 2017 (February through December), GGR increased 10.5%, with all of the increase coming from Slots/ETG play, the most addictive form of casino gambling, and no increase in table games or poker table gambling.
ANNUAL COMPARISON: The gaming revenue for the full 52 weeks of 2018 was $152 million, compared to the $129 million GGR generated in the 47 weeks that Rivers Casino operated in 2017. Thus, with 5 extra weeks of operation, GGR was about 18% more than the $129 million of GGR from 2017, which was itself a 30% shortfall from the 2017 projection. More than half of the increase in 2018 GGR over 2017 was in fact due to the 5 extra weeks of operation.

. . Here are charts with those numbers:

Projections – from Rivers Casino Application for gaming license (Item VIII.B.4, at 3)

update: Comparing the first twelve months of operation (Year One) with the second twelve months of operation (Year Two) at Rivers Casino, all growth in gambling revenue continues to be from Slots/ETG:

How will the “Casino Gang” spin the 2018 GGR numbers? I’m betting the owners of the Casino [Rush Street Gaming] and Mohawk Harbor [the Galesi Group], and casino-affiliated businesses, plus elected and appointed officials, who have risked their reputations on casino results, will be merely touting a “significant” increase in gaming revenue over the 2017 results, with corresponding uptick in tax revenue. If you’ve been reading revenue comparisons reported at this website throughout 2018, you already know we are not exactly impressed with the Gaming Revenue situation at Rivers Casino, especially if this is what “stabilization” of operations at Rivers Casino looks like.

A year ago this week, we analyzed the year-end numbers for Rivers Casino in a posting titled “Casino Projections vs. Casino Reality” (Jan. 7, 2018); the image at the head of this paragraph is a detail from a collage called The Rivers Casino Projection Game. It is difficult to feel any more optimistic a year later about the benefits to our community that will flow from Rivers Casino as compared with the risks our leaders took bringing it here. That is especially true when recalling that plans for Mohawk Harbor were well on their way before talk of a casino, and would have brought most of the benefits, more green-space, and maybe a downtown supermarket. Mohawk Harbor without a casino would have meant avoiding the increased risk of problem gambling and addiction, and DWI incidents; along with the dispiriting sight and sound of supine “snowman” leadership, and the disappointing failure to fulfill tax-relief promises, that have come with the Casino.

The downsides seem no less daunting, including the ethically-bankrupt decision to use casino revenue as the source of tax relief (as a wag has put it: Robbing Grandma to pay our property taxes); and the downsizing of Schenectady’s image from Lighting and Hauling the World to home of a mediocre regional casino. The benefits seem scarcely worth the risks taken, especially since Mohawk Harbor and the rebirth of our downtown were already bringing most of those benefits without the downsides.

After reviewing the August 2018 revenue figures, we mused over the predictable Catch-22 our civic “leaders” and Casino Cheerleaders have thrust upon our Community. [There is a slightly edited version at the foot of this posting.*] Efforts to increase gaming revenue, especially gambling dollars from slots, threaten our most vulnerable community members. And, general efforts by Discover Schenectady and local leaders to increase non-gambling dollars spent at Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor, will benefit their owners, but bring in lower levels of tax payments (since sales taxes and food/beverages and entertainment and retail are so much lower than gaming revenue taxes).

Rush Street Gaming has a history of over-predicting its gambling revenue, and there is apparently little risk when it does so. Rivers Casino’s gaming business does not need to come even close to its projections to be profitable. And, sadly, even lower than predicted gaming revenue will not be likely to reduce problem gambling, when so many of the gambling dollars are generated by “slotsification“.

Nonetheless, a Civic Booster might ask: Aren’t the final numbers a reason to be optimistic? Isn’t the 17% increase in GGR at yearend 2018 over yearend 2017 truly significant? A Casino Realist might answer: Not, I am afraid, when you realize that there were 5 extra weeks of operation in 2018 than 2017. If 2017 had been a full 52-week year, and monthly average GGR remained the same, we would have expected about $142 million in GGR for 2017. The 2018 result of $152 million, is only 7% higher than the full-year estimate of $142 million GGR.

Continue reading →

after 44 weeks all added revenues still from slots

Posted on December 13, 2018 by David Giacalone

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.

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 – 1% increase

Nov 2018 $11,434,584

Nov. 2017. $11,326,616

SLOTS/ETG- 6.4% increase

Nov. 2018 $7,847,001.

Nov. 2017. $7,376,744

TABLE GAMES – 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:

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?
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.

Rivers Casino table games revenue still down from 2017

Posted on November 3, 2018 by David Giacalone

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:

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.

. . 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.

more doldrums after River Casino’s best week & month

Posted on September 18, 2018 by David Giacalone

. .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

Posted on September 1, 2018 by David Giacalone

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.

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:

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.

Revenues will never reach the levels that were used to justify the risks to the community from an urban casino.
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.
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.
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.
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

Posted on August 13, 2018 by David Giacalone

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”.

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.

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.

follow-up (February 9, 2019): The figures for the full 12 months of February 2018 to January 2019, Rivers Casino’s 2nd year of operation, continue the Slotsification process. Total GGR was up 9.25%, with Slots up 14.7%, but Table Game and Poker Table revenues down slightly over the first 12 months of operation at Rivers Casino. (Click on this chart for a larger version.)

Furthermore, for the full year since the 1st Anniversary of Rivers Casino, Slots/ETG revenues were 68% of the Total GRR for the Casino.

It 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.

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.

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 URL; https://tinyurl.com/Slotsification

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

. . 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)

Posted on July 27, 2018 by David Giacalone

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.

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 URL: https://tinyurl.com/MohawkDoldrums

questiondude questionmarkkeyRed Moreover, revenue ~~so far in~~ for the full month of July 2018 was down 3.3% over July 2017, despite Rivers Casino and Mohawk Harbor having achieved/installed virtually all of the “wait-until” features that we were told will stabilize and generate the projected revenue:

the opening of the 200-unit River House apartments in August 2017 at Mohawk Harbor
the 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
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
the 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.

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.”

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.
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

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.

The ability to attract more non-slot gamblers might be a benefit in several ways:

If they are from out of town and stay overnight, they add sales tax revenues (sales, food & beverage, room occupancy)
Also, if from out of town, they do not steal Leisure Dollars from other local businesses {the “Substitution Effect”); and,
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.

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).

how is Rivers improving its numbers?

Posted on July 16, 2018 by David Giacalone

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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

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.

a slow week at Mohawk Harbor?

Posted on June 2, 2018 by David Giacalone

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.

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 . .

SPORTS BETTING along the Mohawk (with updates)

Posted on May 14, 2018 by David Giacalone

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which dates back to 1992, and is known as PASPA. PAPSA prohibited most States, including NJ and NY, from allowing sports betting. For a good analysis of the decision (understandable for the non-lawyer) see the premier weblog covering the Supreme Court, SCOTUSblog, “Opinion Analysis: Justices strike down federal sports gambling law“. The Court decision is called Murphy [as Governor of New Jersey] v. NCAA; click here for a pdf. version of the full opinion.

This website will surely treat this topic again, to see how it impacts NYS and especially commercial casinos such as Rives Casino at Mohawk Harbor. Two important points (and see the Red Check below for updated information from theTimes Union):

Under the current gaming law, only full casinos may offer sports betting once it is legal under federal law. They must get a specific license for that. “Racinos”, such as the Saratoga Casino, already have let it be known that they want a law letting them do it, too.
Under the current NYS Gaming Law, slot machine revenues at Rivers Casino are taxed at a 45% rate, and any other type of gaming revenues are taxed at 10%. And, according to the Times Union, “State Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee Chair John Bonacic carries legislation that would . . . impose a state tax of 8.5 percent on sports wagering gross revenue.” So, if Rivers Casino slots players move a significant amount of their money over to the Casino’s Sports Betting lounge, or another Sports Wagering location (including online offerings), tax revenues from Rivers may decline, despite more betting go on at the Casino. Naturally, Rivers Casino hopes to lure sports bettors into other parts of the Casino, adding to gaming revenues.

Before 11 AM today, the Albany Times Union put online a good, short explanation on the possible impact on NYS casinos and racinos, in “Supreme Court ruling opens prospect of NY sports gambling: Four major NY casinos may be able to offer sports books” (by David Lombardo, online May 14, 2018). Here are excerpts from the TU article:

The state law that allowed commercial live-table casinos in New York included a provision authorizing wagering on sporting events if the federal law was found unconstitutional or changed. Casinos must have a license specifically to offer sports gambling and gambling on sports can only be offered in “lounge” areas at a casino.

. . . Under current law, gambling operators besides the commercial live-table casinos, such as NYRA, the Saratoga Casino Hotel and Capital OTB, would be shut out from offering sports betting. But legislation from Sen. John Bonacic, an Orange County Republican and chair of the state Senate’s racing committee, would allow those operators to act as affiliates to the casinos and offer sports wagering.

. . James Featherstonhaugh, a minority owner in Saratoga Casino Hotel, anticipated the state Legislature could begin working on legislation addressing sports gambling this week.

“I would expect it to be a lively topic between now and the end of the legislative session,” he said.

update (May 14, 2018, 7 PM): The Times Union has updated its article significantly, changing its subheadline to “State legislature will likely overhaul gambling landscape”, and reporting that

“Gambling operators and state legislators in New York are scrambling to craft a new regulatory framework”
” The state Gaming Commission must also adopt regulations and issue a sports gambling license before the casinos could offer sports wagering. That process will likely be preempted by the state Legislature and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo. . .Cuomo, speaking to reporters in Manhattan on Monday, rejected the idea that sports gambling in New York could be rolled out using the broad framework crafted in 2013. He said a new law was needed if the state wanted to proceed with sports gambling.” “We’ll do an economic analysis and a legal analysis, but nothing’s going to happen this year because there’s literally just a number of days left in the legislative session and this would be a very, very big issue to tackle,” Cuomo said.
The only local player with the potential to offer sports gambling under current law is the Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady, which has been eagerly preparing for the Supreme Court decision, according to their parent company, Rush Street Gaming.”We look forward to adding sports betting across all our gaming platforms as soon as possible,” Rush Street Gaming CEO Greg Carlin said in a statement.
State Senate Racing, Gaming and Wagering Committee Chair John Bonacic carries legislation that would allow for sports gambling on online platforms, impose a state tax of 8.5 percent on sports wagering gross revenue, collect fees for the operators of sports leagues, and authorize gambling on college sports.

follow-up (1 AM, May 15, 2018): The Schenectady Gazette put up a comprehensive piece online this evening. See “Sports betting legalized, will be added in Schenectady as soon as possible“, by John Cropley. In the article, both Greg Carlin of Rush Street Gaming and Schenectady Mayor Gary McCarthy say they want to bring sports betting to Schenectady as soon as possible. In a comment to the Gazette article, I raised the same theme as above on the questionable size of any increase in overall tax revenues to be paid by Rivers:

[Comment by David Giacalone:] Mayor McCarthy is already counting chickens early and praying for golden eggs. If enough slots betting (taxed at 45%) is instead bet on sports (taxed at 5 or 8.5 or 10%), taxes paid by Rivers Casino to the State may amount to a lot less than expected, even if Rivers revenues rise. Grandpa and Uncle Joe might just head for the Sports Wagering Lounge at Rivers, leaving Grandma and Aunt Tillie at the slots; or, all four of them might decide that sports wagering can be a lot more stimulating than a slots trance. As a result, former slots players might generate a lot less tax revenue even though visiting Rivers Casino as often as before.

I know why Rivers Casino wants to start sports wagering ASAP, but I am not so sure why the Mayor of Schenectady is in such a big hurry.

In a related matter, in case you missed the news, as of May 4, 2018, Capital OTB now has a branch inside Van Slyck’s Bar at Rivers Casino.

update (July 17, 2018): David Lombardo of the Times Union Capitol Confidential Blog posted a piece yesterday afternoon titled “State looks to offer online sports gambling without new law” (July 16, 2018). That position by the State Gaming Commission is contrary to Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s stated preference in May. Commission acting-Executive Director Ron Ochrym said to the board. “There are however, a number of thorny policy [areas] that staff have been considering, including whether the existing law can be read so as to authorize mobile wagering without new statutory enactments, and, if so, whether to limit the number of skins available.” The TU blog notes that the State law reads: “An operator shall accept wagers on sports events only from persons physically present in the sports wagering lounge”.

And see, “New York preps limited rollout of sports betting” (Times Union, August 8, 2018, by David Lombardo). “The state Gaming Commission is working on regulations that would make sports gambling available at New York’s four privately run full-scale casinos, including Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady.

“But beyond the casinos, sports gambling probably won’t initially be allowed at other wagering-industry operations, such as the New York Racing Association tracks or the Saratoga Casino Hotel. It’s also unlikely to be available on mobile platforms, according to state Sen. John Bonacic. . . . It’s not clear when those draft regulations will be publicized, even though [Gaming Commission acting-Executive Director Ron Ochrym] said at the commission’s May meeting that they would be available ‘in the near term. The consensus of the gambling community in New York is that the commission is waiting for a green light from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to release the regulations.”

BTW: Amy Howe’s analysis of Murphy v. NCAA for SCOTUSblog points out that:

Today’s ruling could also have a much broader reach, potentially affecting a range of topics that bear little resemblance to sports betting. For example, supporters of so-called “sanctuary cities” – cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials to enforce immigration laws – have cited the 10th Amendment in recent challenges to the federal government’s efforts to implement conditions on grants for state and local law enforcement. Challenges to the federal government’s recent efforts to enforce federal marijuana laws in states that have legalized the drug for either recreational or medical use may also be based on the 10th Amendment.

share this posting with the short URL: https://tinyurl.com/RiversSportsBet

bum’s Rush needed

Posted on March 28, 2018 by David Giacalone

. . “get dose bums outta here!” . .

And, so it begins: “Rivers, Del Lago casinos ask state for better terms: All four non-Indian casinos in state are missing their financial targets” (Schenectady Daily Gazette, by John Cropley, March 28, 2018):

Little more than a year since their grand openings, two of New York’s four non-Indian casinos are asking the state for financial help.

Rivers Casino & Resort in Schenectady and Del Lago Resort and Casino in Seneca County are both making their cases with state lawmakers as the negotiations for the 2018-2019 state budget wind down to the final hours in Albany.

Details on their requests are elusive and, given the secretive nature of deal-making in the Capitol, quite possibly subject to change or outright rejection.

. . . Details were likewise hazy on the request by Rivers.

A New Jersey public relations agency working for Rivers said there would be no comment on the matter.

A lobbyist reportedly working for the casinos did not return a call seeking comment.

. . . However, Assemblyman Phil Steck, D-Colonie, whose district contains Rivers Casino & Resort, said he has been given a rough idea of what Rivers is requesting, and said he endorses it.

Trying to save Schenectady’s Lady Liberty from pols and pirates is monopolizing my time again today, so I can’t go into detail about taxpayers getting the Bum’s Rush from Rush Street, but it probably makes more sense to see what, if anything, is done with their request. [see update below: Cuomo won’t play]

Here is what I said in a comment at the Gazette article:

On July 14, 2014, we asked at the “Stop the Schenectady Casino” weblog: “How big of a gamble are the casino cheerleaders willing to take?. . . Does the shiny future they predict for Schenectady include the sight of a failing casino project along Schenectady’s riverfront and the inevitable request for tax breaks and financial assistance that we can expect once gaming revenues shrink along the Mohawk? [see https://tinyurl.com/unpromisingCasino ]

When Rivers hired Rob Long as its new General Manager last December, we also noted that Long had guided the development and opening of Rush Street’s very first casino, Riverwalk in Vicksburg, Mississippi. Rush Street sold that Casino in 2012, just four years after it opened, and after failing in their request for a 60% reduction in their property tax assessment. Have Rush Street and Galesi Group drawn up their tax assessment challenges yet? Are they looking for a buyer? What will Mr. Steck do for them next?

In addition to checking out https://tinyurl.com/unpromisingCasino, see “casino projections vs. casino reality” and links therein. Stay tuned, and watch out for those pick-pockets and Rushing Bums.

update (4 PM, March 28, 2018): See “Cuomo says he is not interested in bailing out casinos” (State Of Politics. March 28, 2918). Article also has letter from State Senator Micheal Ranzenhofer, wanting help for existing casinos hurt by creating del Lago Casino, not for del Lago.

[8PM update] See “Cuomo: No bailout for Rivers, del Lago casinos” (Gazette, John Cropley, March 28, 2018).

The Gazette Editorial Board posted a piece online this evening, titled “Editorial: No state financial deals for casinos” They got themselves into this mess; they can get themselves out”. It concludes:

There are many others in this state that aren’t getting what they need and that deserve more money from the state — many others in severe need through no fault of their own.

The casinos don’t fall into that category, and state lawmakers shouldn’t cave in to their appeals.

[March 29 update:] In the TU article “Casino seeks state help in marketing” (Sept. 29, 2018), Assemblyman Phil Steck is far from elegant defending Rivers Casino request for a 10% marketing allowance reduction in its gaming tax obligations to the State:

“It’s not saying, ‘State, come in and give us money’; it’s saying, ‘We believe we need to expand the market for our product, we need an allowance for marketing,’ and I think that’s a reasonable position for a business to take,” said Steck, a Democratic lawmaker from Colonie, of the request by the Schenectady casino, which is located on the former Alco site on Erie Boulevard.

“What they’re saying is, ‘If we spend 10 cents on marketing instead of giving you 100 cents on that dollar, we’re going to give you 90 cents,’ and that makes a lot of sense because if the total amount of revenue expands as a result of their marketing effort, the state’s going to make more money anyway and so will the city,” Steck said.

The article continues, making Steck sound rather conflicted:

“While Steck declined to call the request by Rivers a bailout, he conceded he is not a big fan of casinos, arguing they are a tax on the poor and middle class.”

Moreover, good luck figuring out what State. Senator Jim Tedisco is thinking:

State Sen. Jim Tedisco, R-Glenville, said that since Cuomo “has seemingly closed the door to any tax adjustment,” he believes “a more plausible approach would be to ask for marketing assistance with also a good portion to go toward property tax reduction for Schenectady and surrounding communities.”

update (March 30, 2018): The Times Union editorial board weighed in this morning with “Editorial: Say no to casino subsidies“, including a nifty illustration by Jeff Boyer [click on the thumbnail to the left]. It notes which of our representatives are for and against such handouts, and concludes:

All the signs were there years ago that the casino expectations and promises, especially upstate, were overblown. Now that those warnings are proving true, these enterprises seem to hope New York will behave like a classic loser who digs deeper into his pockets in the hope of a winning hand. There’s a gambling term state leaders would do well to learn: Pass.

Rivers anniversary hoopla yields so-so results

Posted on February 17, 2018 by David Giacalone

front page Gazette ad

You have probably seen or heard the newspaper and digital advertising blitz and all the media coverage the past couple of weeks for the 1st Anniversary of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor in Schenectady. [click on image to the right for a sample] The Anniversary occurred on February 8, and is being celebrated at the Casino throughout February, with drawings for free cars, special entertainment, and more. Yesterday afternoon (Friday, Feb. 16), I checked the NYS Gaming Commission website to see if promotions for last week’s big Anniversary-cum-weekend have meant better gaming revenues for Rivers for the week ending February 11. After its disappointing shortfall from projected GRR in its first full year, the ability to create some Anniversary excitement might suggest whether our municipal leaders are correct about the coming of a better year.

The total Gross Gaming Revenue for the week ending last Sunday was $3,232,728. That makes Anniversary Week the 5th best week since the opening of Rivers Casino. Naturally, its owner-management, Rush Street Gaming, will say they are delighted with that figure, even after considering all the promotional and entertainment expenses. To me, the results seem rather “so-so” [“mezza mezza”] as Celebrations of a treasured community asset go. Underwhelming. [update (Feb. 23, 2018): GGR for the next Anniversary week, ending 02/18/2018, went down slightly, amounting to $3,221,484, making it Rivers’ 6th best week in Schenectady.]

To put a $3.2 million Anniversary Week into perspective:

Averaging $3.2 million over all 52 weeks would yield $168 million total GGR for the year.
$168 million is only 83% of the $201.9 million Rivers Casino projected as its base first-year estimate for GGR. (see “Casino bets are off the mark”, Albany Times Union, by Lauren Stanforth).
$3.2 million is $600,000 less that the Casino’s best week ($3,882,454) which ended on July 16, 2017. [It would take 52 $3.88 million weeks to achieve the base year projection of approximately $202 million.]

Was It the Weather? Rush Street Gaming can’t blame weather for its Anniversary Week results. It was a normal-moderate Schenectady early February week, with one snowfall of 7 inches starting on February 7, but streets cleared by early on the 8th, and moderate weather through the weekend.

follow-up (Feb. 24, 2019): Here is a comparison of the 1st and 2nd Anniversary Weeks’ revenue at Rivers Casino.

CasinoAnniversaryWks

If First Anniversary revenues seemed so-so, the 2nd Anniversary Week Revenue looks even more disappointing. Although Total GGR for the 2nd twelve months of operation was up about 10%, the Total GGR for the 2nd Anniversary Week was up only 4.8% over the 1st Anniversary Week. And, the advertising focus on Table Games resulted in a decrease in Table Games GRR of 8.3% and of Poker Table GRR of 5.4%. As, has happened for the full year, the increase in Total GRR was totally supplied by slots play, which went up 13% in the 2nd Anniversary Week.

Meanwhile, how did the new competition in the Catskills — Resorts World Catskill in Monticello, NY — do in its “soft” opening week? RWCatskills had an early, soft opening on February 8, to prepare for this weekend’s celebration of Chinese New Year, with its hopeful influx of high-rollers from the other Far East. According it its NYS Gaming Commission Financial Report: the total for its 4-day first week was $3,403,955. Over its first 53 weeks, Rivers Casino in Schenectady has had only 4 weeks better than RWCatskills’ first, four-day week.

We will report back at the end of next week on RWCatskills’ second week, which will include three days of the Chinese New Year celebration. [see next bullet note]
update re Chinese New Year (Feb. 23, 2018): Resorts World Catskills has announced that it will hold its Chinese New Year Celebration on September 25, 2018. Its press release describes aspects of the Celebration, and also its attempts to serve the Asian gaming market, as well as the multi-cultural communities in New York City (with many bus lines offering service to the Catskills Casino from NYC locations). More information is available on the RWCatskills Facebook Page.

. If you’d like to see why many observers say that the new Catskills Casino has a “wow factor”, including a 19-story hotel that serves as a palette that reflects its changing surroundings, that sets it apart from Schenectady’s casino, check out RecordOnline.com’s “Exclusive behind the scenes video tour of Resorts World Catskills” (Feb. 6, 2018, 8 min.).

. . share this posting with this short URL: http://tinyurl.com/So-SoCasino

Rivers Casino Visitation is another shortfall on the Mohawk

Posted on February 4, 2018 by David Giacalone

update (Feb. 5, 2018): The Schenectady Gazette reports this evening that Rivers Casino has released a set of statistics for its operations in 2017 at Mohawk Harbor. Included was the statement that “More than 1.5 million patrons entered the casino” in 2017. See “Rivers Casino counted more than 1.5 million guests in year one” (by John Cropley, online, Feb. 5, 2018). The article notes that:

“A 2014 consultant’s report prepared in support of the casino’s license application projected 2.5 million to 3 million patron visits per year. That would come once the casino achieved “stabilized operations,” the report stipulated, presumably not in its first year.”

Since the Gazette did not put the 1st vs. Stabilized Year projection into context, and by implication downplayed the shortfall, we will add context. The projection of 2.5 million to 3.0 million visits in its first “stabilized” year was for 2019. Rush Street consistently projected its first-stabilized-year numbers in its Application by adding 10% to its projections for 2017 (or vis versa) [For example, click on the image to the right, showing Rivers projections for gross gaming revenues, food and beverage sales, and hotel revenues. That 2014 submission to the Location Board can be found in full here.]

The Casino’s middle or base case projection for 2019 was 2.75 million patron visits. Therefore, if 2017 had been a full year, the projection would be 2.5 million visits in 2017. Because 2017 ended up being only 47 weeks of operation (90% of 52 weeks), we should subtract another ten percent for a fair comparison to actual 2017 operations: That makes a 2017 base case (middle) projection of 2.25 million visits.

two-thirds of a casino?

One and a half million patron visits to the Rivers Casino is therefore, only 67% of the number projected by Rush Street Gaming. It is easy to understand why a Casino Applicant wants to project as large a number of gaming and tourist visits as possible. As explained, below, the number of visitors attracted to Rivers Casino has important implications for gambling revenues generated, and also for the sales, food and beverage taxes, and hotel occupancy fees, paid at the Casino compound. But, also greatly impacts the promised “ripple” effect, if any, on the rest of the City and County’s businesses and attractions, as well as the feared “substitution/cannibalization effect”, whereby local leisure spending goes to Mohawk Harbor and the Casino, and not to other businesses.

BTW: Rivers Casino operated about 330 days in 2017. The 1.5 million patrons figures means that the average daily patron visitation at River Casino was about 4600. Of course, not all came to gamble, and some entered more than once a day, increasing the total.

treasurehunter Naturally, there are many questions about the 1.5 million number (beyond how it was compiled), including how many were day-trippers, who are more likely to spend their entire Schenectady visit within the Casino or perhaps Mohawk Harbor, rather than spending time and money elsewhere. And, how many are residents of Schenectady bringing no new spending to the City (and denying their disposable income and spending on necessities from other Schenectady businesses). The Gazette notes that neither the state nor county will quantify sales tax and hotel occupancy tax revenue generated by the Casino, “out of consideration for the business strategies of those collecting.” That suggests that the media needs to do some digging — beyond the self-congratulatory fog to be expected from the Chamber and Metroplex — to see how businesses outside of Mohawk Harbor are faring.

original posting

“Rivers Casino is estimated to attract more than 2.5 million visits to Schenectady and the downtown area, as discussed in the Gaming Market Assessment (Exhibit VIII.A.3.). This substantial visitor volume is expected to benefit local businesses, as has been experienced in numerous gaming jurisdictions across the country.” [at 29]

“As discussed in the Gaming Market Assessment (Exhibit VIII.A.3.), gaming visitation at the Rivers Casino is estimated to range from 2.5 million (Low Case) to 3.0 million (High Case).” [at 36]

. . . Rush Street Gaming, Economic Impact Analysis, June 2014

When it applied to the NYS Gaming Commission Location Board in 2014, hoping to eventually operate Rives Casino in Schenectady, Rush Street Gaming estimated that the Casino would attract about 2.8 million “gaming visitations” in 2019, its first stabilized year of operation. See Economic and Community Impact Analysis, Rivers Casino and Resort at Mohawk Harbor: Schenectady, New York (prepared for Rush Street Gaming, LLC, by The Innovation Group (June 12, 2014), at 7; see quotations above. [Note: the figures given by Rush Street for its 1st stabilized year were only 10% higher than it used for its first year of operations projections, not the amazing increases wistfully suggested by City Hall when asked about the disappointing 2017 numbers.]

As Rush Street’s Impact Analysis suggests, the number of visitors attracted has important implications for much more than gambling revenues generated. Of course, the sales, food and beverage taxes, and hotel occupancy fees, paid at the Casino compound, are directly connected to the number of day-trip and overnight visitors. But, so is the “ripple” effect, if any, on the rest of the City and County’s businesses, and the feared “substitution effect”, if local leisure spending goes to Mohawk Harbor and the Casino, and not to other businesses. This website and its proprietor have been asking local media outlets to look into the Casino and Tourist Visits Issue for several months. To date, we have seen no media analysis of the issue. And, we have had no response from the Racing Commission to our request for gaming visitation statistics.

Today, Sunday Gazette reporter John Cropley has two articles looking at the first year of operation of Rivers Casino. “Rivers Casino raking in cash, but where’s tax cut?” and “Casinos’ impact on state still up for debate” (Schenectady Daily Gazette, February 4, 2018). The “Casinos’ Impact” article has only a momentary, and somewhat misleading, mention of tourist projections by Rivers Casino. In a list of projections given by Rush Street in its 2014 application, the article includes:

Projected 80,000 tourist visitors per year.

Rivers Casino did not bother to respond to the Gazette as to its various projections, so we do not know whether it believes it hit that 80K figure. In 2014, the 80,000 tourist visitors projection was, it appears, used in explaining the viability of a casino hotel. The 2.5 to 3.0 million “casino visitation” figure is the far more significant number when attempting to gauge the overall direct and indirect effects of the casino on the community.

A Casino Visitation is a trip to the casino by an individual, whether or not for gambling. As you can see in the two quotes at the top of this posting, Rush Street blurred the notion of casino visits and visits to Schenectady and its downtown. Overnight visitors/tourists to Mohawk Harbor seem more likely than day-trippers to make it out of the compound and head downtown, but even that is not a certainty. Eighty thousand is only about 3% of 2.5 million.
- To understand factors influencing Casino Visitation, see “Consumer Behavior in the Gaming Industry” (Dec. 2014), by The Innovation Group, which had produced Rush Street’s Economic Impact Analysis for its a Schenectady Casino application 6 months earlier, projecting the 2.8 million range. In this study, the generations were broken down into four groups: Millennials, GenX, Baby Boomers, and Matures. Among the findings:
- “Ultimately, the trends we are seeing show a waning visitation and spend for older generations, which currently generate the majority of gaming revenue. Younger generations tend to be increasing casino visitation, but are not necessarily attending for gaming purposes.” [at 11]
- “Proportionately, Millennials and GenX spent less than 60% of their day trip budget on gambling, while older generations spent over 75% of their day trip budget on gaming. Throughout the survey it was abundantly clear that the younger generations not only spend far more on non-gaming amenities than the older generations, but it was the non-gaming amenities that attracted them most to the casino.” [at 6] Thus, “More than half of Millennials mentioned they had visited the casino and did not gamble, comparing to only 15% of Matures who made that same indication.” [at 7] And, “the amenities that motivated the younger generations were much different and focused more on the following: • Nightlife; • Live entertainment; • Variety of table games; • Spa facilities; • Shopping; • Family attractions; • Number of bars & lounges; and • Free or comped alcohol.”

Don’t these findings suggest that actions a casino makes to attract younger consumers may help its bottom-line without a proportionate increase in the gambling revenue taxes communities were counting on?

The Gazette article does not speak of the “SubstitutionEffect” directly, but the notion was implicit in a statement that State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli emailed to The Daily Gazette on Friday:

“The new casinos may have some near-term positive impacts, including creating some new jobs. However, those gains can be expected to be offset by losses elsewhere, as people spend money in new casinos rather than in existing gambling venues or on other consumer purchases. The impact of the new casinos on New York’s economy remains to be determined.”

With the Schenectady County Tourism Bureau, the regional Chamber of Commerce, and our Metroplex leadership focusing so much on helping Mohawk Harbor and the Casino, we need the press and broadcast media to ask just how the rest of our businesses are doing. City Hall did not do its Homework on the Substitution Effect Issue. The “Downtown leaders” most vocally in support of the Casino Application ended up being partnered up with Galesi and Rush Street, and surely can count on financial benefits from the operation of Rivers Casino. What about the rest of our businesses and business centers? For example, we need to see how sales taxes, food and beverage, and room occupancy receipts, did net of activity at he casino compound. And, ask what sales taxes would have looked like without the spike in one-time construction materials for Mohawk Harbor. As the Times Union has consistently done, the new leadership at the Schenectady Daily Gazette must do some digging and true investigative reporting, if our community is ever to know the true costs and benefits of the Rivers Casino. The Gazette needs to be focused on the Community’s needs, not the Casino’s needs.

This posting will be augmented as we learn more about the actual size of “gaming visitation” in 2017 at Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor in Schenectady, and the number of “tourist visits” the Casino has attracted. Rivers Casino touted its vistor numbers its first day or two in operation, but has not mentioned gaming visitation or tourist visit numbers since then.

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

p.s.

The people of Hamilton Ontario [CA] successfully fought a downtown casino. Here are two samples of their graphics and posters: relating to the Cannibalization or Substitution Effects:

	Misha on Slots and Problem Gambling…
	Respecting Lady Libe… on Letters for the Lady (with…
	Gerald F. Plante on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…
	David Giacalone on Schenectady DRI should fine-tu…

snowmen at the gates

. . . . . . . . . watching Schenectady's sleepy watchdogs

Category Archives: Revenue Promises

beware litter bins with ads

let’s not give Rivers Casino a tax break

betting on sports betting?

not again, Mr. Steck!

a bargeful of yellow bollards on the Mohawk

Rush Street must think we are all pretty stupid

Year Three Begins: slots still reign at Rivers Casino

2018 gambling revenue at Rivers Casino

after 44 weeks all added revenues still from slots

Rivers Casino table games revenue still down from 2017

more doldrums after River Casino’s best week & month

August continues Casino tilt to Slots

Slotsification on the Mohawk

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

how is Rivers improving its numbers?

a slow week at Mohawk Harbor?

SPORTS BETTING along the Mohawk (with updates)

bum’s Rush needed

Rivers anniversary hoopla yields so-so results

Rivers Casino Visitation is another shortfall on the Mohawk