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).

the Large Vessel Dock at Mohawk Harbor

Posted on July 24, 2018 by David Giacalone

.. . NOTE (Jan. 16, 2020): This issue is on our front-burner again, because Metroplex, Schenectady City Hall, and the Schenectady Downtown Revitalization Program are discussing the installation at public expense of a large vessel dock for Mohawk Harbor, and selling it as a “public access dock.” See the Follow-up discussion at the bottom of this posting, and the Update immediately below this paragraph..

UPDATE (January 26, 2022): According to the Daily Gazette, Metroplex has reported that “Mohawk Harbor dock moving forward in Schenectady following delay” (Chad Arnold, January 26, 2022, C1). Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen told the Gazette that “the goal is to design the dock this year and begin construction sometime in 2023 following a series of public hearings to gain additional input.” See the Gazette article for more details and Gillen statements.

Follow-up (March 5, 2022): The Large Vessel Dock is on the City Council Committees Agenda for March 7, 2022, at 27-43) in a resolution allowing the Mayor to enter a contract with Metroplex for $75,000 toward design and engineering expenses. The above rendering appears on p. 41 of the Agenda. It gives a taste of how closed-in one might feel on the dock with several large vessels docked close to eachother.

original posting:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. If the dock is successful — that is, busy — how welcome will non-boating members of the public be? How visible will the River be behind large vessels?
  1. Also, will those with boats that are smaller than 40-ft. be allowed to use the large vessl dock?
  2. Will there be fees for using the dock? If so, how will they be structured?
2. How will the dock be supervised? The proposed dock at Riverside Park several years back was to have no supervision.
  1. Will folks with bikes, skateboards or rollerblades take them from the Trail to the dock, and use them on the dock? Would visitors in normal leisure or business footwear be able to navigate a wet dock? What effect would “horseplaying” adolescents or rowdy drunks have on others on the dock?
  2. Would you feel comfortable bringing small children or elderly relatives (especially if handicapped), a dog you are walking, or a school class, to a 12′-wide dock, with water on both sides, and no railings? How long would a couple or group stay on the dock if there are no chairs or benches? How easy will it be to get these folks safely back up that long sloping ramp?
  3. How stable will the dock feel underfoot? How will strong winds affect safety?
  4. Don’t safety issues at marinas — viz., dock users unintentionally falling into the water and drowning — suggest that a Large Vessel Dock could safely accommodate no more than a small number of non-boating, casual “users” at a time? Required safety ladders and life rings seem unlikely to provide adequate assurance of appropriate use.
3. Will there be pedestrian access after dark? What lessons can we take from the drunken beer parties that took place for years at the Gateway Landing dock late at night? Would a large vessel dock be a magnet for inebriated customers at the various Mohawk Harbor establishments, or those attending Amphitheater events in the thousands?
4. Not Available in Winter Months: The large dock will be removed during “winter months”, the portion of the year when ice build-up is possible, which is at a minimum January through March.
5. What happened to the Site Plan approved by the Planning Commission, in which a pedestrian bridge from the Trail went to a quiet Overlook that would allow safe viewing of the River, close-up, but with a railing for safety? Wouldn’t the 680-foot dock preclude such an amenity for public use.

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

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

. . . .

follow-up (January 16, 2020): Should taxpayers or the developer of Mohawk Harbor and the Rivers Casino pay for a large-vessel dock at Mohawk Harbor? Please consider:

The image below was submitted to the Gaming Commission Location Board with Rush Street and Galesi Group’s application for a gaming license at Mohawk Harbor. As was required in the then-existing Schenectady Waterfront zoning provisions, it shows a riverbank that would allow the public convenient and safe access to the waterfront, with space for safe strolling, sitting, picnicking, etc.

The Casino Applicants demanded that the permanent public right to access and enjoyment of the waterfront be removed from our zoning Code, and our subservient leaders readily acquiesced. [The then-director of Planning noted “they’ll have access to the retail.”] As a result, a steep, inaccessible, riprap riverbank was constructed by Mohawk Harbor along the last remaining portion of Schenectady riverbank available for potential increase in public access to the river:

See our posting “Restore riverfront public access at the casino” (August 10, 2015) for the story of how the people of Schenectady lost their right to use and enjoy the Mohawk Harbor waterfront, and the importance of true public access when a city’s scarce riverbank properties are re-developed.
- Also, due to the great deference given to the desires of the Casino and Galesi Group by Schenectady’s Planning office and Metroplex, the public has also been deprived of recommended safety elements along the ALCO bike-ped path, with taxpayer moneys (apparently 85%-90%) used for construction that would more appropriately have been provided by the Developer. See, e.g., “Poorly planned safety-fence going up along Mohawk Harbor trail.”
Having taken away our public access to the waterfront, Mohawk Harbor, Metroplex and City Hall apparently want us to believe that building a giant large-vessel dock with public moneys will somehow provide the public with the waterfront access they were denied. See the renderings at the top of this posting and decide whether such a structure could provide meaningful, safe, convenient access to the waterfront for the many sorts of people who comprise our public (local and visitors), and the many activities usually enjoyed along a lovely riverbank.
- At the January 16, 2020 Schenectady DRI public workshop, Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen asked me to contact him to talk about my concerns over the Dock, and I will do so. I was surprised to hear Ray say they have not yet designed the dock and that the renderings submitted to City Council in 2018 were simply conceptual examples. When considering who should pay for it, the question is whether any huge Dock, open on both sides, could accommodate meaningful public access, and whether installing such a structure will prevent other attempts at meaningful public access.

In deciding whether taxpayers should provide a $2 million large vessel dock for Mohawk Harbor, while requiring a “donation” of only $300,000 from Mohawk Harbor’s owners to pay for an amenity that so directly benefits them, we hope decision-makers will be very skeptical of the claim that the Dock will provide “total public access to the Riverfront”, and ask cogent questions about its safety and convenience for the General public. In addition, please keep in mind:

sections removed at the Developer’s request

PUBLIC ACCESS ABORTED INTENTIONALLY. The aborted guarantee of meaningful public access rights at Mohawk Harbor (ALCO site) was the direct result of pressure from the Galesi Group and the Casino to deny those rights to the public. Read the Code sections stricken at Rush Street’s behest in the image to the left, which were created to ensure permanent public access and enjoyment of the riverfront, with an esplanade and pathway anticipated along the riverfront with many amenities to help make the visit worthwhile. Were the developers reluctant to have riverfront access that attracts members of the public who want to stay awhile along the river, rather than just passing through on the bike-ped path? Did they want only Customers to come to the riverside of the casino complex?
STANDARDS IGNORED. Overseen (orchestrated) by Metroplex, the Planning staff and Commission made woefully inadequate efforts to ensure that the Developer satisfy the §264-14(E)(4)(a) standard that the trail “shall endeavor to be located reasonably adjacent to the undeveloped shoreline wherever practicable.” They also failed the goal of §264-14(A)(2)(h), “To preserve, to the maximum extent practicable, the vegetation and natural features along the Mohawk River“.
1. And, see “Poorly planned safety railing erected along Mohawk Harbor trail” (Oct. 15, 2018). It is too short and too close to the bike-ped path. It fails to follow the C-3 zoning requirement that there be the customary two-foot shoulder PLUS ten additional feet buffer on the riverside of the Mohawk Harbor shared-used path.
2. In addition, the sturdy ALCO trail “interpretative” signs installed by the County are closer than the 3′ ft. minimum lateral distance from the bike path stipulated in Schenectady’s Master Bike Plans, when best practices call for 3′-5′ distance, even for signs on flimsy poles, much less these heavy-duty signs. See “Who botched placement of the ALCO trail signs?“, which notes many more safety problems. For example, “There is no hard surface off the path “tread” for sign-readers in a wheelchair, or with a cane, walker or motorized scooter, to stop; nor for a curious bicyclist; nor for pedestrians who want to avoid unpaved ground around the sign when it is wet, slippery, or muddy.
GREAT POTENTIAL LOST FOREVER. As a consequence of the developer’s demands and willfulness, and the indifference of Metroplex and our Planning Office, the aesthetic, recreational, and safety benefits to the public envisioned in the City’s waterfront zoning regulations for Schenectady’s last developable waterfront property, have been lost forever.
GENEROSITY TO OTHER CITIES. The many millions of dollars that Rush Street Gaming gives or offers to other casino cities, above any taxes due, while passing out relatively small “donations” to Schenectady organizations and government. For examples, see our post “Rush Street’s Giveaways“.
SECOND-CLASS SCHENECTADY. Rush Street’s gracious granting of public access at its Philadelphia and Pittsburgh casinos, while treating the people of Schenectady like second-class citizens. As we asked years ago:

In addition, the Alco Plant shoreline (image below, by Ohlhous, 2011) had great potential for the kind of waterfront strolling, lolling and playing that people everywhere expect when their City undertakes to redevelop its shoreline.

IF ONLY

If the goal is genuine public access to the Mohark River, couldn’t the $2 million be better spent? The current proposal from Mr. Gillen appears primarliy to be helping to bring more (big) spenders to Mr. Galesi’s Mohawk Harbor and Rush Street’s Rivers Casino?

Could the ten-foot wide path at the bottom of the steep riprap bank (see detail at left) be converted into a safe, pedestrian pathway, with convenient access points constructed from the upper level?
Could we have learned from the South Shore Riverfront Park in Pittsburgh, where a “former steel mill barge dock has been converted to a public park in an innovative project that straddles a railroad tunnel and overcomes a 40’ drop in elevation to provide access to the Monongahela River. Switchback terraces connect upper and lower plazas to create an exciting outdoor public space for recreation, relaxation and special events.”

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.

too many underage gamblers at Rush Street facilities?

Posted on July 13, 2018 by David Giacalone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the riverbank Trail at Mohawk Harbor is not safe enough

Posted on June 20, 2018 by David Giacalone

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

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

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

Original Posting

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

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

. .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

$$? FINANCING THE TRAIL: The City of Schenectady C-3 Waterfront District zoning code, as quoted above, states that the pedestrian and bicycle trail “shall be constructed by the applicant.” (emphasis added) Nonetheless, the County and Maxon Alco (the Galesi Group company that owns Mohawk Harbor) entered a Harbor Trail Easement Agreement in March 2016 stating, “The parties agree that the maximum cost to Maxon Alco for the construction of the Trail shall not exceed $100,000.00. County shall be responsible for all costs and expenses for Trail construction which exceed the Maxon Alco Contribution.”
- Any additional expense to build the trail, perhaps over a million dollars, is coming from New York and County taxpayers.
- In a March 2016 news article in the Albany Times Union, the Galesi Group bragged about “donating $100,000” to the cost of the Trail.
- Maintenance. The Harbor Trail Easement Agreement also states that:
  “4. Maintenance of the Trail. Following construction of the Trail and the commencement of the Uses, Maxon Alco agrees to perform the non-structural maintenance including snowplowing and removal of debris/litter from the Trail. County shall be responsible for all other Trail maintenance, including any required repair or replacement of the Trail pavement/surface and all the Trail fencing, signage, striping and other trail related materials located upon the Easement Areas.”
- The original C-3 Waterfront Mix-ed Use District provisions included the following sentence, which was removed in the 2015 amendments requested by the Developer: “All maintenance of the waterfront esplanade and amenities shall be the responsibility of the developer.” The original permanent, perpetual easement “assuring public access to and public enjoyment of the waterfront” was, of course, also removed at the “request” of the developer.
Taxpayer-funded Amenity: Having a shared-use path running through Mohawk Harbor is clearly an asset in selling and renting homes in the complex, and attracting tourists to its hotels. Thus, the short list of Extras on the Amenities page of the project’s River House apartments includes “Direct access to the NYS Hike Bike Trail.” In Philadelphia, Rush Street Gaming has spent millions of dollars to expand an already grand promenade and bike trail. Do our local leaders need more training in negotiating on behalf of our residents and taxpayers?
. . . update (Oct. 4, 2018): A set of informational markers were recently installed along the ALCO Heritage Trail. See “Trail markers highlight locomotive plant’s heritage” (Albany Times Union, Sept. 21, 2018, by Tim Blydenburgh). The TU article states, “The county Department of Economic Development and Planning built the signs using $30,000 provided by the county Legislature. Paul Singer Design, based in Brooklyn, designed the 11 trail markers.”
- The signs are also worrisome from a safety perspective, as they seem to be placed much closer than necessary to the shared-use path, creating a hazard for pedestrians stopping to read the signs and for cyclists. When this safety point was made to Metroplex Chair Ray Gillen, he wrote back “We think the markers look great.”

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

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

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

why not? . . cautiontaperoll . . orangesafetycone

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

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

a slow week at Mohawk Harbor?

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 . .

State funds will aid problem gambling awareness

Posted on May 18, 2018 by David Giacalone

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018, the New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) announced “the availability of up to $1.4 million in annual funding to increase New Yorkers’ awareness and education of problem gambling and the prevention, treatment and recovery services available to them. To expand the network of care in New York State, the funding will also provide training for addiction field professionals as well as state-licensed practitioners working outside of the addiction treatment field on how to assess and treat gambling-related problems.” [Click to see the full Announcement] And, see “Problem gambling programs get funding boost” (Daily Gazette, by Andrew Beam, A1, May 16, 2018)

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

Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul is quoted noting:

“With this annual commitment in state funding, we are working to ensure a balance between new gaming options and an increase in education about addiction. We don’t only want to treat individuals struggling with addiction, but prevent people from becoming addicted and educate New Yorkers about the issue across the State.” (emphasis added)

The OASAS Problem Gambling Awareness and Education Announcement explains further:

“The provider selected to administer the funds will collaborate with Problem Gambling Resource Centers and State gambling facilities to ensure that problem gambling is addressed at each site and referral information is available. In addition, the funding will be used for initiatives such as public forums, exhibits and awareness materials to deliver statewide and community-wide education and awareness about problem gambling.”

As a chronic advocate of Problem Gambling prevention through education and public awareness, I am very pleased to see this new funding. Lt. Gov. Hochful’s statement makes it clear the State is aware that it has responsibilities to the community due to the State relying so heavily on the creation of “new gaming options” as an engine of economic growth and increased tax revenues.

NoEvil-see There is no doubt that the closer proximity or easier availability of gambling options raises the incidence — and injury — of problem gambling. Nonetheless, in its application for the Rivers Casino gaming license, Rush Street Gaming asserted there would be no increased incidence of problem gambling in the Schenectady area with a new casino, because people here could already drive to Saratoga, Connecticut, etc. The Mayor and his cronies on City Council never questioned Rush Street’s position. While del Lago Casino is paying the salary for two problem gambling social workers on the Seneca County Health Department staff, Mayor McCarthy saw no problem and asked for nothing. So far, neither the City nor County has a problem gambling education program.

“Problem gambling” means gambling behaviors that result in serious negative consequences to the gambler, and his or her family and friends,employer, or community. It can affect people in any age, racial, or economic group, but youth (kids; adolescents and college students) and senior citizens are thought to be particularly at-risk.

Three points worth making:

$1.4 million annually across the State is a nice start but is surely inadequate if the goal is to educate the public, especially vulnerable groups, to make good choices about the amount of gambling they can tolerate without becoming problem gamblers. According to the State’s Enacted Financial Plan, the Executive is expecting gaming revenues to be $3,335.8 million in SFY 2019. $1.4 million is a mere 0.04% of the total gaming revenue expected.
Given their financial incentives, “Gambling facilities” cannot be expected to vigilantly or enthusiastically help with Problem Gambling awareness and education. I hope that the emphasis when using these funds will be “initiatives such as public forums, exhibits and awareness materials to deliver statewide and community-wide education and awareness about problem gambling.”
Our hope is that the $1.4 million will motivate more public and private entities to help finance and provide Problem Gambling Prevention education, rather than being an excuse not to do so.

New Choices, Counseling Center, 846 State St.

Currently, there is only one accredited provider of Problem Gambling Prevention services in Schenectady County, New Choices Recovery Center. Their services are available in Schenectady City schools (along with other programs to help children make good choices), and they are ready to come to your organization or group to make a presentation and share materials about Problem Gambling. Their Main Office is at 302 State Street, the old Masonic Lodge; phone: 518.346.4436.]

. . Click for the Have the Conversation Toolkit

For discussion of the need for Problem Gambling Prevention services in Schenectady, with links to helpful materials, see our prior post at http://tinyurl.com/ProbGambSchdy
And, for a national perspective, see “Legal Sports Betting Is About To Sweep The Nation. Services For Gambling Addicts Probably Won’t” (Huffington Post, May 17, 2018)

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

Rivers Casino Brawl (2018 version)

Posted on May 2, 2018 by David Giacalone

. . let’s hope grandma left early . .

. . It’s Springtime at Mohawk Harbor and Rivers Casino, and once again, a young gang’s fancy turns to fisticuffs:

Yesterday afternoon online (May 1, 2018), but NOT in print today or the past three days, the Gazette reported “Five arrested after Schenectady casino brawl” (by Andrew Beam).

Five people were arrested after a fight involving approximately 30 people at Rivers Casino & Resort on Sunday.

The fight began at around 3 a.m. and stemmed from an argument between two people, according to Sgt. Jeffrey McCutcheon. However, McCutcheon said it was unclear why the fight began because most of the the people charged did not cooperate with police.

. . Mutual aid was requested by police officers assigned to the casino, with members of the Rotterdam Police Department, Schenectady County Sheriff’s Office, Scotia Police Department and the Glenville Police Department responding for backup. McCutcheon said officers from those agencies were not needed to make the arrests.

Today, the online edition has more details.

Malcolm Mathias faces a felony second-degree assault charge, accused of placing city officer Charles Stevens in a head lock. Stevens suffered a cut to the left side of his head, according to court documents. . .

“The defendant’s actions resulted in officers getting surrounded by 20 or more persons, getting attacked by other individuals and creating public alarm,” state the charges against both men.

As we learn more about the incident and about media coverage, this posting will be updated.

update (Wed. night, May 2, 2018): The brief article “5 charged at Rivers casino fight” (by Steve Hughes, Albany Times Union) was posted online this afternoon. TU article states that:

Video reportedly shot at the casino and posted on social media during the incident shows a large group of people pushing and shoving as casino security attempts to separate several people. A second video show police officers surrounded by people arguing and appearing to arrest at least two people.

There is no link to the video, but maybe Paul Nelson will locate it when he gets back to work on his Schenectady crime beat.

update (July 25, 2018): See “Police: Table game dispute at Rivers Casino leads to assault: The victim required treatment for swelling, bleeding and needed sutures to his eye, allegations read” (Schenectady Gazette, by Steven Cook, July 24, 2018).

. . Michael Kearsing, 27, of Fisler Avenue, Colonie, intentionally punched a 65-year-old man “several times in the face following a dispute at a table game,” the allegations signed by the victim read.

a quick look at del Lago’s exterior

Posted on April 7, 2018 by David Giacalone

. .

. . above: main entrance to [L] del Lago Casino; [R] Rivers Casino Schenectady

Driving back to Schenectady the day after Easter, I noticed that del Lago Resort & Casino is located right at Exit 41 of the New York Thruway, at Waterloo, NY, in Seneca County. Having only seen renderings of del Lago, when concluding it looked considerably more attractive than Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, I thought I’d take the opportunity to stretch my legs and take a few photos of the exterior of del Lago in the brick-and-mortar world.

. . above: rear of del Lago Hotel and side entrance of Casino

You can judge for yourself from the two collages below (click on each for larger versions), one of which concentrates on the Casinos and one on the Hotels and Parking Ramps, how the $440 million spent on del Lago turned out, on the outside, compared to the $320 million to build Rivers Casino in Schenectady. A few additional images are also included after the collages. (You might note that del Lago appears to have no large, bright LCD screen or freestanding pylon.)

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

Here are two more views of the del Lago Hotel:

. .

. . . And, two views of the rear entrance to the del Lago Casino:

. .

Plus, the del Lago entry/exit driveway, at 1133 State Route 414, seen from near the self-park lot:

. . . .

Today’s Daily Gazette tells about the banner March revenues for Rivers Casino and other casinos, “March was most lucrative month yet for Rivers Casino
Data show gambling surges annually in late winter; other casinos also enjoyed strong March revenue” (by John Cropley, April 7, 2018).
Rivers Casino was never asked by our Mayor to enter into a Host Community Agreement, while del Lago Casino (then known as Lago) entered into a comprehensive HCA with the Town of Tyre, Waterloo, and Seneca County.

Distances. Del Lago is 43 miles from Syracuse, 50 miles from Rochester, 90 miles from Utica, 95 miles from Binghamton, 105 miles from Watertown, 112 mlies from Buffalo, and 156 miles from Schenectady. In an Appendix at the bottom of my Casino Choices posting from January 2017, I have compiled the distances of the various casinos from Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, Kingston, Rochester, Syracuse, Watertown, and Utica.

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

just another February 8

Posted on February 10, 2018 by David Giacalone

. . this time last year I declared February 8 to be “a date that shall live in infamy in Schenectady“, given the 1690 Schenectady Massacre and the 2017 opening of Rivers Casino on that date, with a graphic depiction of the infamy notion:

This year, on February 8, 2018, I thought I’d get a photo of Rivers Casino and its LCD screen’s 1st Anniversary image, to use in an anniversary posting. The result was an interesting adventure, but not a great photo-shoot. [See, e.g., the photo at the left, necessarily taken from a block away.] You see, as described in the Collage below (click on it for a larger version), I got the bum’s-Rush off the premises. Casino personnel were, however, polite, although insistent that no photos were permitted from Casino property and, furthermore, that the corner of Rush Street and Front Street was casino property, calling it their “walkway”.

. . above collage: the story of My Casino Anniversary Visit . .

Back at home, I emailed SPD Chief Eric Clifford asking that he let the Casino know that the Front Street sidewalk was part of the City right of way. But, the Chief wrote back that night that he believed the Casino was correct, and even the Front St. sidewalk was casino property. Naturally, I was puzzled and disappointed, and was glad I had not forced Casino Security that afternoon to call SPD, if they wanted to remove me from a City street. Happily, as he promised me he would, the Chief inquired of the City Engineer the next morning and was told: “the city now assumes control of the sidewalks.” (Earlier that morning, Councilman Vince Riggi had sent me a copy of the September 12, 2016 Resolution authorizing the Mayor to accept the roadways in Mohawk Harbor back from the developer.) The Chief called Kyle Bond, head of Rivers Casino Security, with that message, and Mr. Bond then phoned me to apologize. I assured him that his men had behaved politely.

Of course, I wonder how they would have treated me, if they had listened to me on Dave Lucas’ WAMC segment about the Casino anniversary earlier that afternoon.

The Casino’s 1st Anniversary Wheels Or Fortune contest, began on February 1, with patrons able to earn points toward contest entries. I’m not sure if the Contest brought in additional gaming revenue, but the Rivers GGR for the week ending February 4 continued to be mediocre, a mere $2,738,900.

This morning (Feb. 10, 2018), the Times Union reported online on the first full 12 months of revenue at Rivers Casino and at del Lago and Tioga Downs the two other commercial casinos granted licenses . “Casino bets are off the mark” (by Lauren Stanforth):

The year-end revenue totals for the state’s first resort-style casinos, del Lago, Rivers and Tioga Downs, show they were $192 million off the projections they made when applying for their state casino licenses in 2014. . . .

Rivers in Schenectady did better [than del Lago, which also opened in Feb. 2017], but was still about 30 percent off its projection made four years ago — with total revenues of $141 million as of Feb. 4, compared to a base first-year estimate of $201.9 million.

More February 8 Bad Luck for Schenectady? Again this year, February 8 might yet mean more misfortune for Schenectady, or at least its Tax Coffers. Like our weblog, the mainstream media has mentioned over the past few weeks that the February 8 opening of the billion-dollar Resorts World Catskills Casino [moved up to attract East Asian high-rollers for Chinese New Year, on Feb. 16] might mean that even more prospective Schenectady Casino patrons will choose to stay away — especially those who live closer to the new Monticello Catskills Casino, or those wanting a true tourist or gambling destination.

In approaching Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor on Feb. 8 for my aborted photoshoot, I was again struck by how unattractive and uninspiring Schenectady’s Casino building is when entering the compound. On arrival at its main entrance from Rush Street, a visitor sees a two-story branding wall with large LCD screens and bright “yellow brick” trim, flanking a nondescript entryway. If you come in from the southwest, you see that the branding wall is a fake wall, adding to the lack of awe. I’ve said it before: Schenectady could have and should have demanded more, especially from an Applicant that boasted of creating destination locations and casinos.

. . . .

. . above: approaching Rivers Casino . .

Taste is, of course, very subjective. But, I’m willing to bet that a far broader and deeper demographic would be more likely to choose Resorts World Catskills Casino as a special destination for gaming or as a tourist than Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor. And, would be more likely to return to it. Here are two recent photos of of the approach to the Catskills Casino [see many more images here]:

. . . .

. . above: approaching Resorts World Catskill Casino . .

Two-thirds of a Casino. Earlier this week, we reported that Rivers Casino had a Patron Visits shortfall as severe as its revenues shortfall, achieving (according to its numbers) only 67% of its projection. This does not bode well for the Casino having a significant ripple effect across Schenectady businesses and attractions; but, does increase the worry that Mohawk Harbor and its Casino might be cannibalizing the leisure and entertainment dollars of our local existing businesses.

From a less serious perspective, compare the Rush Street/Galesi depiction of their prospective patrons shown, in a Site Plan rendition, at the entrance to Rivers Casino [below L], with the actual folks leaving on its 1st Anniversary, February 8, 2018 [R]:

. .

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:

the graph is prettier than the casino revenue numbers

Posted on January 29, 2018 by David Giacalone

A helpful friend used the weekly Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor gambling revenue figures from the NYS Gaming Commission, plus Exel software, to create the above graph. The only patterns I can see are long periods of mediocre revenues. There certainly was no noticeable improvement when The Landing Hotel opened on July 23, 2017.

See the postings in our Revenue Promises Category for more discussion of the numbers and prospects.

do low gambling revenues mean fewer problem gamblers?

Posted on January 18, 2018 by David Giacalone

Schenectady Gazette columnist Sara Foss has been the Capital Region journalist most consistently concerned about the potential for the Schenectady Casino creating more problem gamblers in our community. Her January 13 column continues that theme. See “Foss: More problem gamblers seeking treatment“; and her prior opinion piece, “More resources needed for problem gambling” (Feb. 5, 2017).

For her recent column, Foss again spoke with Philip Rainer, the chief clinical officer at Capital Counseling, the non-profit agency that runs The Center for Problem Gambling in Albany. And, tells us:

In the 11 months since Rivers Casino in Schenectady opened, Rainer has seen a steady uptick in the number of people seeking treatment for a gambling addiction from his organization. . . .

When I caught up with Rainer last week, he spoke about the casino’s impact in the same matter-of-fact tone he did last year, only this time he was armed with hard numbers that suggest the new casinos have led to an increase in problem gambling.

In February 2017, there were 34 people enrolled in the Center’s gambling-treatment program. By December, that number had risen to 54 — a 60 percent increase.

Sara correctly notes that, although those numbers might not sound huge, “they represent a significant increase for a program that has been pretty stable, in terms of the number of individuals served, over the years.” But, apparently believing that lower GGR will mean fewer problem gamblers, Rainer told Foss that “the shortfall in gaming revenue and gamblers doesn’t trouble him one bit.” After noting that New Choices Recovery Center in Schenectady has not yet seen an increase with its new gambling-only program, Sara concludes on a hopeful note:

I’m with Rainer: There is an upside to lower-than-projected gaming revenues, and it’s that there are likely to be fewer people battling gambling addictions.

Which is a good thing, even if it hurts the casinos’ bottom lines.

CasinoFeverLogo Sorry to say, I am not at all convinced that the experience at Capital Counseling gives us a complete picture of the extent of Casino-created problem gambling issues in our community. And, I cannot be as optimistic as Sara Foss that the significant shortfall in Gross Gambling Revenues generated by Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor is likely to mean fewer problem gamblers, or that the existence of trained counselors will be sufficient to solve the problem. For one thing, gambling becomes a problem for gamblers and their families, friends, colleagues, and the community, long before it rises to the level of a gambling addiction and referral to or seeking counseling available from professionals like the Capital Counseling staff.

“Problem gambling” means gambling behaviors that result in serious negative consequences to the gambler, and his or her family and friends, employer, or community. It can affect people in any age, racial, or economic group, but youth (kids; adolescents and college students) and senior citizens are thought to be particularly at-risk.

Thus, frequent visitors to Rivers Casino may be nurturing a problem gambling crisis long before they seek help, if they ever do. Moreover, eleven months is not a very long time for a person gambling at Rivers Casino, or thinking about it, to discover he or she might have a Problem Gambling or Gambling Addiction problem, and then make the commitment to seek out counseling (including, finding out whether it is covered by their health insurance).

Sufficient self-discovery or commitment is very often prompted by family or friends seeing a pattern that looks like a problem and gaining the courage to bring up the subject, or intervene, in an effective way.
It also can be prompted by a drastic financial crisis caused by gambling, but such money issues, especially for those with credit cards, often take quite awhile to become too great to ignore.

Indeed, how widespread can the Aha “I need gambling counseling” Moment be, when the media in general, and local government in particular, have not helped to educate the public about the dangers of problem gambling? And, have instead been working to make going to Rivers Casino seem glamorous or normal. [e.g., Mayor McCarthy in a Billy Fuccillo ad shot at the Casino; see image below] Surprisingly, private groups who we’d expect to promote Prevention Education — i.e., public interest and non-profits dealing with families and youth and the faith community — have not yet stepped up. In fact, even Schenectady County’s two largest health care institutions were caught up in Rivers Fever. See the sponsors in the Gazette ad to the right, explained in our Sept. 12, 2017 posting, “why are Ellis Medicine and MVP promoting Casino Gambling“.

My Comment at the Gazette webpage for Sara’ column, reproduced at the bottom of this posting, outlines my main reasons for being more worried than Sara is, despite GGR below projections. In particular, I fear:

It is almost certain that many Rivers Casino gamblers belong to demographic groups that are most unlikely to seek professional counseling for gambling issues, and do not show up in stats like those from Capital Counseling.
Because 63.6% of total GGR in 2017 at Rivers Casino Schenectady was from slots and electronic table games, it seems very likely that a large proportion of the players at Rivers are older gamblers, susceptible to the Casino marketing, and adverse to seeking mental health counseling. [See AARP Bulletin, Oct. 2016, “The Casino Trap: As the gambling industry booms, aggressive marketing targets older patrons”; and “Seniors and Problem Gambling“.
The low GGR numbers, and the almost certain low overall “visitation” numbers, mean that Rivers Casino is drawing almost all of its gamblers from a very small geographic area, and from repeat customers, many of whom are coming too often for the experience to merely be leisure entertainment.
- While a manager at Rush Street Gaming’s Philadelphia casino, SugarHouse, the first general manager at Schenectady’s Rivers Casino, Mary Cheeks, explained to the Pennsylvania gaming commission that they often had customers who came three or four times a week to SugarHouse. Casinos hope for such local repeat gamblers. They are the bread and butter of a regional casino not attracting the caviar set.

It seems most unlikely that significant numbers of people with problem gambling tendencies are seeking counseling. We cannot make believe that gambling addiction counseling will solve the problem gambling problem in our Community. We need both, but to deter the problems effectively, Prevention Trumps Counseling. As I argued in a posting for the 2016 Problem Gambling Awareness Month:

[O]nly organized programs specifically focused on problem gambling prevention, education, and treatment, with ongoing outreach activities, can hope to address the effects that a casino in Schenectady is likely to have on our community.

For more information, including links to prevention materials, see http://tinyurl.com/ProbGambSchdy
To share this posting, use this short URL: https://tinyurl.com/MorePrevention

Comment of David Giacalone at the Gazette:

Thank you for this piece, Sara. I hope you are right that the increase in people seeking counseling corresponds with the actual increase in problem gamblers. A lot depends on the demographics of who is doing the gambling. Attitudes toward seeking counseling vary greatly among those most likely to be frequent casino visitors.

Also, the relative lack of revenue and of success drawing people from a wide area, not to mention high rollers, means that the “victims” are coming from a small, very local geographic area. Rivers has not shared with us how many visitors it has attracted, after predicting an unreasonable 2.8 million visitors a year. The smaller the number of visitations, the more likely locals are heading to the Casino more than tourists (and, incidentally, the smaller the impact of the boasted “ripple effect” on local businesses).

My calculations show that total Slot & ETG Gross Gambling Revenue for 2017 at Rivers, $82.3 million, comprised 63.6% of total GGR. That is a lot of slot playing, and since slots and electronic table games are available at Saratoga Casino, that is predominantly local dollars and players.

Thanks, Gramps! Also, because Slot revenues are taxed at 45%, but table and poker revenues at 10%, slot players are transfering their money to the State, County and City to reduce our taxes. Indeed, about 89% of the gambling tax paid by Rivers Casino comes 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.

Prevention Education to help people avoid problem gambling may be far more effective than counseling of those who admit they have the problem and have the means and commitment to utilize counseling. Schenectady County and the City sponsor no programs on Prevention Education, but instead leave this important social tool to the private sector, while glamorizing and normalizing casino gambling. See http://tinyurl.com/ProbGambSchdy

Casino Projections vs. Casino Reality

Posted on January 7, 2018 by David Giacalone

Year-end numbers are in for 2017, and the City of Schenectady has received approximately $2.1 million in gaming tax revenue as the Host City of Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, based on the Casino’s Gross Gaming Revenue total of $129.2 million for the year. The County received the same amount. In its budget, the City had projected it would receive $2.75 million from distribution of gaming taxes in 2017, leaving a shortfall over $600,000. See “Schenectady loses bet on casino revenue” (Times Union, by Paul Nelson, Jan. 4, 2018). As the Gazette pointed out last November, “Rivers reportedly projected its first-year [Gross Gaming] revenue to be in the $181 million to $222 million range.” If we take the middle of that range, $201 million in GGR in its first year, Rivers Casino only achieved 64% of its first year projection.

Click here to see Rush Street’s 5-year tax revenue estimates, submitted in its Application to the Gaming Commission Location Board as Ex. VIII.B.4. It shows a base GGR for 2017 of $201.8 million. Its high and low figures were obtained by respectively adding and subtracting 10% to that figure, yielding the range given in the Gazette of $181-222 million. Because Rush Street anticipated opening on Jan. 1, 2017 when making this estimate, it used a 52-week period rather than the actual 47 weeks, which meant 10% fewer operating weeks/days.
Note: In Ex. VIII.B., filed at the end of July 2014, Rush Street Gaming estimated that the County and City would together receive a total of $3.2 million in gaming tax revenues in Year One, increasing to only $3.6 million collectively in Year Five, and would share those amounts. Those numbers are very different from the $5.7 million in annual tax receipts City Council said it expected in its resolution the month before. I would have thought the communication between City Hall and the Casino Gang was better than that.

In what is surely a causally related effect, Mayor Gary McCarthy stated for the first time, in his New Year address before City Council last week, that he expected the City would have a “small deficit” when all 2017 numbers were tallied for the City, giving no further details of the cause or the likely amount. Asked afterwards, new City Council President Ed Kosiur said the Mayor’s remarks were the first he heard of a deficit. See “Schenectady Casino Revenue Coming Up Short of Expectations” (Samantha Beckett, Casino.org, Jan. 5, 2018). Regarding the Upstate casino shortfall in general, see “He nailed it: An analyst’s 2014 report predicted Upstate New York casino woes” NYUp.com, by Don Cazentre, Jan. 18, 2018).

Click on the image to the left to see a week-by-week display of Gaming Revenues generated at Rivers Casino in 2017, plus totals.

The Stabilization Hope. Our City and County leaders keeping saying we can expect much better results once the casino’s operations and revenues have stabilized — as if Rush Street and its expert analysts are not competent to make first-year projections. But, in its Application to the Location Board, Rush Street Gaming estimated stabilized revenues in Year 5 to be only 10% more than its Year 1 figures. For more information on Rush Street’s revenue and tax projections, see the Applicants’ Economic Impact Analysis.

Remembering the 18% property tax reduction City Council claimed it expected in a Resolution passed just before its vote to approve the Casino Application in July 2014, many residents are unhappy with the 1% reduction in the current City budget, and many are “roiled” over the water and sewer fee increases announced this week, which will offset the 1% reduction. See “State, local promises before casino vote a bust” (Times Union, by Lauren Stanforth, December 17, 2017); “Water, sewer rate increases roil some Schenectady residents” (Times Union, by Paul Nelson, Jan. 5, 2018).

Are things likely to get better? Despite their Happy Faces, the City Council budgeted only $2.3 million in casino tax payments in 2018. Furthermore, Rush Street, City Hall and Metroplex have all pointed out for months that revenues are likely to rise due to the opening of Rivers Casino’s Landing Hotel, which had its first guests on July 19, 2017. (e.g., Times Union coverage; Gazette coverage) The week ending July 30 was the first full week with the Landing open. Despite the predictions of our Casino Cheerleaders, my calculations show that:

$2.7 million/wk. average for the 24 full weeks before before July 23
$2.6 million/wk. average for the 23 full weeks since the Landing opened

And, did you say “Resorts World Catskills Casino”?

Continue reading →

TU compares revenue reality to casino projections

Posted on December 18, 2017 by David Giacalone

Lauren Stanforth has written a piece of investigatory journalism for the Albany Times Union, published yesterday at the top of the Sunday front page, on the dramatic shortfall of casino revenues from projections. See “State, local promises before casino vote a bust” (December 17, 2017). It points out that only the Schenectady City Council put actual projection numbers in a resolution, with a stated expectation of $5.7 million in annual tax gaming tax revenues for the City, and an 18% property tax reduction.

The City Council used NYS Dept. of Budget numbers for Regions, Counties, and Host Communities that were produced in 2013, announced in a press release (Oct. 2, 2013), to garner support for the Governor’s Constitutional Amendment Proposition, to permit non-Indian casinos. The numbers were, therefore, ginned up when the State did not know how many casinos there might actually be, nor where they would be located.

The Resolution stated, in part [emphases added]:

WHEREAS, as Host Municipality, the City of Schenectady is entitled to receive 5% of the gaming taxes paid by the Gaming Facility which is projected by the NYS Division of the Budget to be $5.7 million dollars annually; and

.

WHEREAS, a $5.7 million Host Municipality payment to the City of Schenectady would result in a reduction in real estate taxes of approximately 18%; . . .

.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT

RESOLVED, that the Host Municipality payment received by the City of Schenectady will be used exclusively for the reduction of real property taxes in the City of Schenectady.

At the time, we said at this website [in “Council ploy: all casino revenues will be used to reduce property taxes“, June 9, 2014] that “Th[e] Resolution is clearly meant to back the possible No Votes [on support for the Schenectady casino application] into a corner, by daring them to vote ‘no’ on a ‘tax reduction’.” In that context, using specific and huge numbers that appeared to come with the imprimatur of the State Budget office clearly strengthened the Mayor’s demand for Yes votes and the support in the very tax-conscious community for the casino. The Mayor was not able to convince Marion Porterfield and Vince Riggi to vote for the Casino application, but they did agree that any tax revenues from the casino should be used to bring down real property taxes in Schenectady.
At no time did City Council or the Mayor explain the tenuous connection between the DOB projections and an actual casino located in Schenectady, as opposed to a municipality with a greater potential to attract the public.

The TU article notes that the State’s 2013 projections estimated that the Host County in the Capital Region would receive about $11.4 million dollars annually (with the Host City getting half of that amount), but that the actual numbers for this year appear to be about $3.7 million, a shortfall of $7.6 million. It also stresses, regarding the Schenectady Casino situation:

“A casino was expected to bring in so much revenue — and the local government share to go along with it — that Schenectady would reduce property taxes 18 percent in the first year. Now, 10 months after the opening of Rivers Casino and Resort, the city is reducing taxes 1 percent.

.

“Schenectady County predicted a similar scenario, its legislature passing a resolution three years ago saying county taxes might be reduced 8 percent if a casino opened. County officials are now reducing taxes 1 percent.”

.

Reporter Stanforth interviewed local politicians, and informed us:

Schenectady officials say their tax reduction promises were not disingenuous because they based their statements on the Budget Division’s numbers — and that property taxes are still being reduced.

.

But those who argued against a casino say the disparity between what was promised and the current reality reinforces their concerns that local officials had no intention of looking critically at information provided by the state or casino operators themselves.

.

“They did it in bad faith,” said Schenectady resident David Giacalone, who lives in the city’s historic Stockade neighborhood and was one of the most vocal critics opposing a casino. “They knew these numbers meant nothing.”

.

Catskills casino coming in 2018

County Legislature Chair Gary Hughes pointed out that the NYS Gaming Commission believes casino revenues will grow in coming years, but he added, “Is it someday going to be $5.7 million? I have my doubts.” I wonder if Mr. Hughes has considered, as the TU stated, that “revenue from the Resorts World Catskills [casino in Monticello] will likely top Rivers, as it will have almost twice as many slot machines and an 18-story hotel when it opens in March, as well as a golf course opening in 2019″. Indeed, about a billion dollars will be invested in the Catskills casino project, yielding a location that will actually look like a tourist destination.

Perhaps City Council President Leeza Perazzo is giving up her hopes of being Mayor. She was remarkably frank with the reporter:

Schenectady City Council President Democrat Leesa Perazzo, who voted to support a casino, said the city included the revenue number in its June 2014 vote because the state provided it.

.

The resolution also said that the host municipality payment, “will be used exclusively for the reduction of real property taxes.” However, city officials have already used casino revenue in settling fire and police contracts.

.

Perazzo said a resolution is not a law, so city officials are not bound by the tax reduction promises made in it. [emphasis added]

Sadly, our City Hall has given us a Social Studies and Political Science lesson for the ages here in Schenectady. I wonder if this TU article has given the Gazette any ideas about doing a little casino-related investigation of its own. Perhaps a spotlight on the Applicants’ projection of 2.8 million visitors coming annually to Schenectady because of Rivers Casino needs a bit of investigation. More significantly, perhaps looking into the ways the Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals have twisted (diminished? castrated?) our Zoning Code to please the Galesi Group and Rush Street Gaming might be more important in the long run.

a Long-shot at Rivers Casino?

Posted on December 15, 2017 by David Giacalone

Last week, on December 8, Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor announced its new General Manager, Rob Long. [Click for Times Union coverage, and the Gazette report.] Of course, Long cannot be expected to instantly bring in significantly greater revenue. But, his first week on the job must have brought some cold reality for Mr. Long, along with Schenectady’s first jolt of real winter weather. The week ending December 10, 2017 (see Revenues Chart at the Gaming Board) brought these milestones/millstones, although we had no crippling snowstorm:

Worst Table Game Drop figure ever [$3,362,547] – despite its Table Game seminars a couple months ago to lure players;
Worst Slot Machine GGR since June [$1,523,343];
2nd worst total GGR since June [$2,388,276].

Neither the Gazette nor the Times Union, despite my sending them the information on December 8, has mentioned Rob Long’s record when he guided the development and opening of Rush Street’s very first casino, Riverwalk in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The Gazette never mentioned that Long had been Manager of a Rush Street casino on a river in Vicksburg. But, as we wrote here in March of 2016, when opposing the naming of the main casino roadway in Mohawk Harbor “Rush Street”, Rush Street Gaming (with the same captains at the helm, owner Neil Bluhm, CEO Greg Carlin, and GM Rob Long):

sold their Riverwalk Casino in Vicksburg, Miss., just four years after it opened, and after failing in their immediate request for a 60% reduction in their property tax assessment.

Rush Street CEO Greg Carlin touted Rob Long’s “well-established track record.” All I know about Long at this time is that:

the riverside casino he ran for Rush Street Gaming in Mississippi opened in 2008;
shortly thereafter, it requested an enormous reduction in its real estate appraisal, which was not granted; and
it was sold in 2012 to Churchill Downs.

By the way, of the 19 Mississippi casinos located along the Mississippi River, Riverwalk was one of the only two facilities that were not forced to close in 2011 due to record flooding. Did Rush Street decide it would not press its luck?

One more thing I did learn, Long’s Riverwalk Casino’s big fundraiser each year was “Bras for Breast Cancer”, which offered to pay a dollar for donated bras and strung the bras across the Old Highway 80 Mississippi River Bridge, with a special section featuring creatively decorated bras. Hey, we have a nearby bridge!

QQ: Rush Street Gaming will not tell us, nor will Rob Long himself, but I sure would like to know what options the company discussed with its GM when planning for the near-future at Rivers Casino in Schenectady. When will they start considering jumping ship along the Mohawk? Not to mention, how happy is the landowner, Galesi Group, that they “designed” the Schenectady casino to be just boxes next to boxes, so the facility could easily be converted from a casino to just about anything?

Luck Ain’t No Lady: 38th week the worst yet at Rivers Casino

Posted on November 3, 2017 by David Giacalone

According to the NYS Racing Commission revenues page for Rivers Casino, its 38th week (ending October 29, 2017), was the WORST week yet for the Schenectady Mohawk Harbor Casino. That’s despite having the Ellis Foundation’s big Women’s Night Out “Luck Be a Lady” event there on October 26, preceded by a prep-day of Table Game education in September. Of course, we can only guess the effect of several weeks of Mayor Gary McCarthy appearing in ubiquitous (and, for many of us, tacky and dispiriting) Fuccillo Auto ads shot at the Casino. Nonetheless, last week’s, take, $2,039,456, was perilously close to dipping below the $2-million mark.

DOLLARS. This comes after Gazette columnist Sara Foss called this week for a review of the inflated revenue projections we got from the three new casinos in New York State. While this site was temporarily called “Stop the Schenectady Casino”, we pointed out the practice of over-promising revenues. That included, as even the Gazette reported prior to endorsing the Casino, that “In Philadelphia, for example, SugarHouse was projected to generate $320 million in gross revenue its first year but only generated $212 million.”

BODIES. We hope that Foss or another journalist will look into the promises Rush Street made about how many people the Casino would bring to Schenectady. It projected 2.8 million a year. The fact that we have never been given any attendance numbers past the first couple of days suggests that the projected body-count was another cynical exaggeration.

See our post, “despite Billy Fuccillo, no HUGE casino revenues yet” (Oct. 8, 2017), tells of a number of factors we were told would lead to higher Rivers Casino revenues after the summer, but have not.
Share this posting with this shorter URL: http://tinyurl.com/RiversSinking

red check For those readers who are wondering how, after the Gazette endorsement of Porterfield, Farley and Mootooveren for City Council, to choose between John Mootooveren and Mohamed Hafez when using their third vote, I’d like to point out the following, regarding each man and the Casino:

Incumbent Councilman John Mootooveren:

Has acted as if Schenectady were a Supplicant, and a Second-Rate City, during the casino license application process, and thereafter, rubber-stamping the Mayor’s Supine Schenectady position, giving the Casino applicants their every wish, while making no demands. In contrast, all other potential casino locations use their leverage, to assure additional income from the casino, including mitigating its added expenses for infrastructure, public safety, and social problems; seeking guarantees of minimum revenue payments; and demanding local preference for jobs, and a buffer period in which property assessments would not be challenged by the developer.
Never questioned any claim made by the Casino applicants prior to voting to approve their Application for a Casino License in Schenectady as to projected revenue and the absence of likely negative effects.
Never sought an independent study of potential negative effects and realistic benefits, despite his claims of financial expertise.
And, never questioned or challenged any of the drastic changes in our zoning ordinance, demanded by Rush Street Gaming and the Galesi Group. As a result, the Council and the Mayor took away the guarantee of public access in perpetuity to enjoyment of the riverbank when the harbor was developed, and the requirement that 10% of residential boat dock space be reserved during the day for the public.

In contrast, Candidate Mohamed Hafez:

Was a leader in the Stop the Schenectady Casino campaign, pointing out the many problems raised by locating a casino in an urban area and the need to fully consider likely problems and realistic benefits.
Demanded over and over, at City Council meetings, and in writing to the press, that the City use its leverage to demand/negotiate the best possible agreement with the Casino to maximize revenues and local employment, and minimize and offset added financial and social costs.
Wrote a letter to the editor we reprised here: “wise words from Mr. Hafez“; and
Asked the Mayor directly about host community agreements at a City Council meeting on May 11th, and at subsequent meetings, leading to the Mayor writing a guest column in the Gazette debunking the notion of having an HCA or needing to ask for any moneys in addition to required taxes, and our responding at length at this website. E.g., “the Lago Casino HCA and the Mayor.”

Empty Chair. One final note about the two candidates: Mohamed Hafez, a registered Democrat running on the Republican and IndependenceParty lines, attended every candidate forum during the current City Council election campaign. John Mootooveren, the incumbent Democrat who is 1/4th of the Mayor’s 4-person rubberstamp majority on the Council, failed to appear at the League of Women Voters forum, the Gazette Candidate forum at Proctors, the Woodlawn neighborhood association forum, and the Goose Hill Neighborhood Association meet the candidates event.

	mrrafe on Coffee Yes Drive-thru No
	David Giacalone on Coffee Yes Drive-thru No
	mrrafe on Coffee Yes Drive-thru No
	Coffee Yes Drive-thr… on McCarthy only wants snowmen on…

snowmen at the gates

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

Category Archives: Schenectady Casino

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

the Large Vessel Dock at Mohawk Harbor

how is Rivers improving its numbers?

too many underage gamblers at Rush Street facilities?

the riverbank Trail at Mohawk Harbor is not safe enough

a slow week at Mohawk Harbor?

State funds will aid problem gambling awareness

SPORTS BETTING along the Mohawk (with updates)

Rivers Casino Brawl (2018 version)

a quick look at del Lago’s exterior

bum’s Rush needed

Rivers anniversary hoopla yields so-so results

just another February 8

Rivers Casino Visitation is another shortfall on the Mohawk

the graph is prettier than the casino revenue numbers

do low gambling revenues mean fewer problem gamblers?

Casino Projections vs. Casino Reality

TU compares revenue reality to casino projections

a Long-shot at Rivers Casino?

Luck Ain’t No Lady: 38th week the worst yet at Rivers Casino