Category Archives: Schenectady Casino

our June 7 Opposition Meeting

Posted on by
Reply

 DSCF3041  . . .  DSCF3036

An article in the Sunday Times Union article captured the tone of our June 7th Meeting for Casino Opponents at Arthur’s Market:

“Some 30 residents were willing to bypass Saturday’s glorious sunshine to gather on couches and around tables at the corner meeting place to join him. They shared concerns about the proposed casino and urged each other to speak against it at a City Council meeting Monday, when a resolution to support the project is on the agenda.” “Stockade residents rally against Schenectady casino plan (by Claire Hughes, June 8, 2014)

   DSCF3061    About three dozen Casino Opponents  created an atmosphere of urgency and caring, in the comfortable surroundings of the redesigned Arthur’s Market.  The subtitle of the TU article is “Stockade-area residents stress ‘people’ as council vote on gaming site nears” .  And, although “people” were/are our first priority, the Meeting stressed the many ways a casino would harm our people, community, businesses and future — using studies, literature, experience elsewhere and common sense. Many also stressed how the sneaky and cliquey process used by the applicant and by City Hall (Mayor and Council leadership) to push this proposal through tars the project and the Administration, insults the public and democratic principles, and creates suspicion and anger.

 DSCF3050-001 . . . OppoMtg07Jun2014MHafez

– Donna Lagone [L] and Mohamed Hafez –

Organizers Richard Genest, Mohamed Hafez, Tom Hodgkins and myself (David Giacalone), each told why we felt the need to show that a serious opposition existed.  We then asked those present (our opposition partners) to come up and tell us their most important reasons for opposing the casino.  Many did, including Lydia Eis, Jean Zegger, Vince Riggi, Joe Kelleher, Mary McClain, Donna Lagone, and Gloria Kishton.  I apologize for not recalling, or knowing the names of, others who contributed with their thoughts and emotions.  Mr. Riggi was the only elected official at the event.

   DSCF3058 Grade-schoolers Tianning and Hainuo Hodgkins, plus little Concetta, added energy inside Arthur’s, and made their beliefs known with chalk on the sidewalk, proclaiming “no casino.”

The front page of the Regional section of today’s Sunday Gazette, C1, has a lengthy article with a summary of the casino approval situation in Schenectady, as well as good coverage of yesterday’s Meeting of Opponents, and a description of the Statement of Schenectady Clergy calling for a public hearing (discussed here). “Neighbors rally against Schenectady casino plan” (by Ned Campbell, June 8, 2014; available online only by subscription)  On the lack of a public hearing, the Gazette writes:

 While the Schenectady County Legislature hosted a public hearing on the issue Monday, [Councilman Vince] Riggi criticized the City Council for not setting its own public hearing before the vote on what he considers “the most important issue” since he started attending council meetings 28 years ago.

“If I want to make it illegal to spit on the sidewalk, that requires a public hearing. By law, according to our corporation counsel, this doesn’t require a public hearing. Maybe legally, but morally?” he said to applause.

Vince Riggi (in yellow shirt) listens to opponents of the Schenectady Casino - 07Jun2014

 Two tv news reporters also covered the Meeting. Channel 13, WNYT, has a short, informative piece on the Meeting, with Dan Basile reporting after spending quite a bit of time with us at Arthur’s Market.  Take a look: Protestors in Schenectady speak out against casino proposal.  (WNYT News, June 8, 2014). YNN/TWC’s Madeleine Rivera was also at the Meeting with camera. The Time-Warner News website states “They held a rally Saturday, which several opposers attended.”  There may have been three opposers, but there also were another 30 or more opponents.  See Residents Voice Opposition Toward Schenectady Casino.

StopCasPet

WANT TO HELP STOP THE CASINO? You can demonstrate to City Council and (if needed) the Gaming Facility Siting Board the strength and sense of the casino’s opponents, by attending Monday night’s City Hall Rally (June 9, 6 PM on the entry steps), and the Council Meeting thereafter.  And, by signing our Petition. See “petition update” to learn its status and how to find it.

DSCF3037

checkedboxs Many thanks to all who came to show their support of the No Casino campaign, and to those helped organizing and putting on the Meeting: Richard Genest, our host at Arthur’s Market; Donna Lagone and Jessie Malecki, who did most of the work of circulating the petition in the Stockade; Mohamed Hafez, who physically got the petition to churches and businesses on his side of town, and spurred on the No Casino campaign with his energy and writing skills; and Tom Hodgkins, who made signs and decorations, but also crunched numbers to show us the strength of the opposition in Schenectady County, and brought along his best reasons for wanting to preserve and improve Schenectady, his three great kids.

DSCF3043

Thanks also to Vince Riggi, for his advice, and for having the spunk to resist the pressures at City Hall, and the courage to stand his ground and state his reasons for opposing a casino.

p.s.  Preparing for this meeting kept me from my hobby of photographing Stockade events and its beauty.  So, I missed Friday’s Garden Tour, and I was bouncing around too much during the Meeting yesterday to “focus” on photos.  Nonetheless, here’s a brief Slideshow with images from the event.  Sun and shadows created beauty and photographic challenges.  Please forgive the caffeine-busy-shaky fuzziness of the images.

.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 

what will the casino mean for Union College students?

Posted on by
Reply

– SmallShark click this link for our Statement to the Location Board on the problem with having a casino so close to Union College

.

– original posting with updates [more updates have been placed at the end of the posting] –

Letter to the Editor in Schenectadt Daily Gazette on June 7, 2014 by Carol Hyde of Niskayuna regarding the effect of a casino on nearby college students  A Niskayuna mother (and managing partner of an Albany-Poughkeepsie law firm), Carol A. Hyde, asks some very important questions in a Letter to the Editor printed in today’s Schenectady Daily Gazette (“Union, SCCC will be affected by casino,” June 7, 2014, C7; available by subscription).  Her main question is how the casino will affect already-poker-crazy students living practically right across the street?  Will they study less and spend their money becoming gambling addicts? Click on the image at the front of this paragraph to read the Letter.  Thank you Ms. Hyde for your letter, and thank you, Gazette, for printing it.

Note: Union College has a policy requiring all undergraduate students to reside in College housing.  From the perspective of the casino operators, the policy conveniently places the vast majority of the student body just an easy stroll away from the proposed casino.

We should, of course, also ask how safe students, perhaps especially female students, would be or feel at night walking in the adjacent “College Park” neighborhood or on Campus, given the expected increase in street crime when the casino opens. [see the section on Crime below.] What other problems might we expect when a casino open 24 hours a day is located near a campus already known as a major party school (e.g., with the highest ranking among all small colleges; also see here), with an abundance of “keggers” and poker parties?

  • Studies. There is a significant amount of literature and scholarship on college students and gambling, including the increased susceptibility of younger gamblers, alcohol’s connection to problem gambling, and the connection between proximity and increased gambling. For example: 1) College Student Booklet (Illinois DHS)  “Festering Beneath the Surface: Gambling and College Students“; 2) Problem and Pathological Gambling Among College Students, Randy Stinchfield, William E. Hanson, Douglas H. Olson; 3) California Council of Problem Gambling, College Student Web pages;  and, see our Issues Page re Young Gamblers for a fuller list.
    • “Colleges and universities located near gambling facilities had higher rates of student problem gambling behavior for their students”, See “College Problem Gambling Literature Review“, Jim Emshoff, Ph.D., Georgia State University (Jan. 2008), and citations to other resources.
    • The Handout on Problem Gambling from Union College’s Wicker Wellness Center, notes:”Gambling is in some ways a ‘norm’ among college students.  The most popular games are casino activities such as cards and gambling machines.”
  • casino-PropsHopsRules Targeting the Young Gambler: (Aug. 1, 2014): Rush Street Gaming is experienced in marketing to the Young Gambler.  For example, Rush Street Gaming’s SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia has introduced a “simplified craps game” called Props & Hops (purportedly alluding to craps terminology), which was developed because “A lot of people, especially the younger kids, are intimidated about craps.” (See SugarHouse Press Release, April 30, 2014; and “Sugarhouse Develops a New, Simplified Craps Game For Younger Players“, CBS6 Philadelphia, May 1, 2014; SugarHouse Props & Hops Brochure.) They also greatly increased the number of poker tables at SugarHouse, a game particularly popular with college students. Their Schenectady Application shows that the Schenectady casino will have a dozen poker tables in a 3000 sq. ft. hall.
    • We can also expect a Schenectady casino to organize or facilitate groups of students coming from neighboring states where you must be 21 to gamble.
    • Gambling at a Casino appears to be more addictive than gambling online, according to work done at the Harvard Medical School Division on Addiction. See “Gambling Online, Gambling in Casinos: What’s More Addictive?” (The Atlantic, July 2014).
  • Gambling Age? We apologize for our earlier error in stating that the permitted gambling age will be 18 at the “destination gaming facilities” that will be licensed under the Upstate New Gaming and Economic Development Act of 2013 (click for the text of the Act).  You must be 21 to gamble at any new facility licensed under the Act. Although the general age to gamble in New York State is 18, the Act added an exception for the casinos, stating:

§1332.  Age for gaming participation   1. No person under the age at which a person is authorized to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages shall enter, or wager in, a licensed casino; provided, however, that such a person may enter a casino facility by way of passage to another room . . . “

Any winnings by a person prohibited under the above section must be forfeited and put into the State’s gaming revenues fund. Those under 21 are still allowed in other parts of the casino facility (restaurants, entertainment events, etc.), but not the actual “casino” rooms where the gambling is allowed.

“Racino” locations and Indian reservations may continue to allow 18 year-olds to gamble.  Such facilities either send them into special under-21 areas or give them wristbands indicating they are under 21, so they won’t be served alcohol.  Attempts by lawmakers and others to raise the gambling age at the racinos have gone nowhere in the State Legislature. See, e.g., “Bill to raise gambling age to 21 reintroduced: Addabbo, Goldfeder sponsor proposal” (Queens Chronicle, by Dominic Rafter, Feb. 7, 2013); and the ChangeTo20 campaign.

  •  “Quicksand Credit“: As Casino-Free Philadelphia explains: “SugarHouse casino [owned by Rush Street Gaming], as well as most other casinos in the country, offer their customers unlimited lines of credit, which can only be used to gamble at the casino. There is no interest on the line of credit, and it must be paid back in 30 days.The casinos call this a “convenience” so you don’t have to carry large amounts of cash to the casino — but they’ll happily give you more cash than you have. Having access to a line of credit makes a person more likely to keep playing — making SugarHouse’s billionaire investors richer.
    • Gambling and Budgets: At the Union College website, I found a Student Guide for studying abroad in Australia.  In the section How Much Money Will You Need?, there is a subsection titled Spending Money, which contains this guidance:
A word about gambling
During the last three or four years we have occasionally received calls from parents concerned about the amount of charges appearing on bank cards or credit cards. They felt that our recommendations and estimates here about money were too low and not realistic. Thus far, in each case where our estimates have been far off, it has turned out that students were attracted to a very rich and active life at a local casino in Brisbane. BE FOREWARNED! Gambling can be addictive and is very, very expensive. In the long run, one seldom ‘wins’. If you think you will give the casino a try, set a maximum budget IN ADVANCE and do not deviate from that sum.

.

– how close would the casino be to Union College’s 2200 undergraduate students?

Google Map of Union College Residences

– Google map with Union College Residence Halls –

  • 257 students at College Park Hall (former Ramada Inn) – about a block away. Indeed, the casino appears to be closer than any other restaurant or bar.
  • 130 upperclass students in the renovated homes, and fraternity houses, comprising the College Park Neighborhood Apartments on Seward Pl. and Huron St. – 3 blocks away.  update: A large new housing complex for upperclassman was announced at the end of July that would also be in the tiny College Park neighborhood.
  • residence halls on main campus – 4 blocks away.
  • update (July 12, 2014): the new rendering of the casino project shows the casino itself located right at Nott Street and Erie Boulevard, so that all the young prospective gamblers (or the elderly from East Front Street) won’t need to trek a long distance into the 60-acre site.

– share this post with this short URL: http://tinyurl.com/schdycasino-colleges

UnionCollegeGamingLaw Note: What a difference two hundred years makes.  As a religious school, Union College naturally prohibited all sorts of vices (from drinking spirits and engaging in “carnival entertainment,” to using gaming devices) in the early 19th Century.  However, if you click on the image at the head of this paragraph you will see legislation passed in 1813 by the New York State Legislature concerning Union College students and gaming.  In two hundred years, the State went from criminalizing to enabling gaming by the students of Union College:

“[I]t shall not be lawful for any person to entice the students of Union College . . . into the vice of gaming, by keeping within the first and second wards of the city of Schenectady, any billiard-table or other instrument or device for the purpose of gaming” [with a fine of $25.00 “for every such offense”]. See The Laws of Union College (1915), at 46.

[Note: Look at the size of that fine: $25 per incident was real money back then, the equivalent today of over $300.]

 CRIME: The entire Union College complex, including the Main Campus, the College Park off-campus housing area and College Park Residence Hall, are clearly within the radius of surrounding neighborhoods likely to experience increased crime after the opening of a casino. See our posting will a casino bring more crime?, and materials referenced there.  As explained in our post “did crime go up around the SugarHouse casino?”  a study that Rush Street Gaming uses to claim that crime went down in the area surroundings its SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia has many caveats (e.g., it did not cover DUI or prostitution), and states, for example (emphases added):

  • graphup “Violent street felonies increased in the target area compared with the control area.” And,
  • “Vehicle crime decreased in the target area relative to the control area; however, there was substantial displacement indicating that the introduction of the casino made the vehicle crime problem in the combined treatment/buffer area worse than before the casino was opened.”
  • Philadelphia PD created a 14-man dedicated police unit whose sole task was to patrol a one-half-mile square around the casino.

What About the Parents?  It would seem sensible for Union College parents to protest having a casino a short stroll from where their young adult children will be living and pursuing an education.  My question to the UC office for parent relations have, like all other correspondence to the school staff, gone unanswered.  This is what Mike Hendricks, Editor-in-chief of Albany Business Review, had to say on the topic, in a Viewpoint column called “Computer chips or poker chips” (June 16, 2014):

The casino would be less than a five-minute walk from the relatively new dorm off the Union College campus. One of the premier institutions in Schenectady, Union College is one of those high-tuition private colleges. Whatever I might think about the economic viability of a casino, if I was the parent of a high school senior picking a college and I had to pay that kind of tuition, I might find a casino across the street from the dorm to be concerning.

Hendricks is concerned. I’m concerned. So, why isn’t Pres. Ainlay concerned enough to say something?  At the very least, shouldn’t the School press the Schenectady applicant to prevent gambling by those under 21, as was done at two of the four Indian casinos in the State?  Union College might also ask the Location Board to impose such a restriction as a term in any gaming license that it grants in Upstate New York. Update (March 6, 2016): A major Q&A article with President Ainlay in the Gazette about the relationship of Union College and the City fails to mention the casino.  “Q & A with Stepen AInlay: City, School ‘Tied at Hip’,” by Zachary Matson (online March 5, 2016)

threemonkeys Donation Deafness? Buddy Blindness? We don’t pretend to know why Union College has been so silent and evasive on the topic of the casino. It is difficult to avoid speculation on the institutional silence.  Historians consider Union College to be the Mother of the American fraternity movement and system, and believe that the establishment of the first fraternities at Union College, in off-campus residences, in the 19th Century, was the beginning of the end of the in loco parentis concept (schools acting “in the place of parents”) at American colleges. But, UC’s apparent casino indifference can’t merely be because the Administration doesn’t want to sound like a worry-wort nanny or a substitute for Helicopter Parents.  The School’s comprehensive Wellness Center and its Honor Code show that Union College does feel obligated to help its students to develop into healthy and socially-responsible adults.

images-3 Is the President’s role as Fundraiser-in-Chief at the core of the School’s failure to voice concern over the proximity of the proposed casino? The pool of actual and potential big donors is not that large in a City as small as Schenectady, and its academic, business-development, and political “elites” can’t help rubbing elbows on boards of directors, at awards, cultural, and fundraising events, and private parties among friends.

Is the Administration reluctant to ruffle the feathers or create bad will with business leaders as prominent as the heads of the Galesi Group, or with County, City and Metroplex officials whose cooperation might be important in the future? Is it afraid that it will tarnish its image as a main element in the “revitalization” of Schenectady and development of the region?

Stephen Ainlay also wears the hat of the Chancellor of Union University, which includes Union College and Union Graduate College, along with several other units.  The units of the University have been structured to be self-governing, with fiscal independence, but they surely pay attention to the opinions and needs of the heads of each part of the Union Family. Is Chancellor Ainlay reluctant to rain on the parade of David Buicko, the COO of the Galesi Group, which owns the ALCO site and is the developer of the Mohawk Harbor complex?  I suspect that it might be difficult — consciously or not — to openly oppose a casino that is being sought by David Buicko, when he is considered a Community Partner and major fund-raiser by Union Graduate College. Its President recently nominated Buicko for a Community Hero award, saying:

yinyang “I can think of no other single individual who has had the broad and positive effect on Schenectady that Dave Buicko has had. . . .

“Nothing that has been done to date in Schenectady will be quite as transformational as the innovative and break-through project planned for the Alco site on the Mohawk River that Dave initiated in the last year. “ [see “Union Graduate College Community Partner Dave Buicko Receives ‘Hero Award’” (Union Graduate College News, May 27, 2014)

Mr. Buicko also had some very kind words about the incoming Dean of the Graduate College, in 2011.  Here’s an excerpt from Union Graduate College News, September 4, 2011, “Bela Musits Named Dean”:

“Bela Musits is an innovator, well-respected and admired throughout the business community,” said David Buicko, President, Galesi Management and Chair, Center for Economic Growth Board of Directors.  “Naming him Dean of the School of Management is a coup not just for Union Graduate College but for all of us invested in economic development. I look forward to helping him succeed in his new role.”

Buicko is chairing Union Graduate College 2011 Scholarship Scramble golf tournament at Eagle Crest Golf Club in Clifton Park on September 16, 2011.

How connections with community and business leaders mesh with Union College’s promise to “work with city leaders to ensure that any and all revitalization efforts dovetail with our responsibility to our students,” is an important question I hope will soon be clarified.

NoloSharkS  Young people are “the  future of casino gambling”: This is what the report Why Casinos Matter, from the Institute for American Values (2013) has to say about young people and casino gambling:

 Young people are viewed as the future of casino gambling. SharkGF

A recent American Gaming Association survey of casino visitors ages 21- 35 found that young people had the highest rate of casino visitation and the greatest level of acceptance of casino gambling among all casino visitors. Nearly 4 out of 10 (39 percent) had gone to a casino in the past year, and 9 out of 10 agreed that casino gambling was acceptable for themselves and others. Machine gambling was ranked as the most popular game among young adults. Frank Fahrenkopf of the American Gaming Association highlighted this news in a 2013 industry report, stating that young people are “the very people with whom the future of our business lies.”

  That future is not far off. More than any earlier generation, today’s young people are technologically primed for gambling. From an early age, kids learn to play games by tapping buttons and tracking images on screens. They spend money with a swipe of a debit card. They play video games. They live on social media. For these reasons, young people are a soft target for Internet gambling—the next frontier for legalized gambling.

The first national U.S. survey of gambling among adolescents and young adults found that gambling among youth is widespread. It estimates that three-quarters of a million young people ages 14-21 are already problem gamblers.

See the article, Mining Millenials (Global Gambling Magazine, by Marjorie Preston, July 29, 2014,
Vol. 13, No. 8), for an example of how the gaming industry perceives young gamblers and the challenge of appealing to them.

 The Teenage Protection Alliance has started the ChangeTo20 campaign, to make 20 the age of majority at which individuals may gamble.  They are focusing first on New York, because of the rapid expansion of Casinos that is expected in the next year or two. We hope their work will help raise consciousness of the many problems caused by allowing teenagers to gamble.

.

IMG_4692 Schenectady County Community College. Yes, we are also worried about the effects of a close-by casino on the students at Schenectady County Community College.  SCCC has about 2700 full-time and 1700 part-time students and now has a large residence hall.  Anticipating the expansion of gaming in the State, SCCC started a Casino & Gaming Management A.A.S. Program, which will have close ties to the proposed casino. The main campus is less than one mile (by foot or car) from the proposed casino site (and I imagine many SCCC students will be cutting through the Stockade for a shortcut to the casino).

According to the Albany Business Review (by Megan Rogers, June 16, 2014):

“Schenectady County Community College board of trustees will vote tonight to support the $450 million Rivers Casino and Resort at Mohawk Harbor, about a mile from its campus.

“The Schenectady, New York casino project would provide an “invaluable and close-at-hand” resource to students in the two-year school’s casino gaming management, culinary, tourism and hospitality programs, according to the resolution.”

Is the SCCC Board of Trustees aware that casino employees make up a very large percentage of the troubled people calling Problem Gambling Help Lines?  Young employees and interns might, of course, be even more at risk than their older colleagues.

Followup: See “Students all in on casino future: Many see SCCC program as ‘head start’ to local jobs’,” (Sunday Gazette, at C 1, by Zachary Matson, March 13, 2016).

CONCLUSION (for now): As was stated in the Sunday Gazette OpEd piece linked above:

There are many good reasons for a socially-responsible university to oppose its City or State basing economic development and revenue raising on the operation of casinos.  Moreover, there seems to be no justification for Union College to remain silent when the location of a proposed casino so directly threatens its community, including the psychological, physical, social, academic and vocational welfare of its students.

MISCELLANEOUS UPDATES and FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS:

Looming Pylon: Note: in addition to the many issues discussed above, the Casino will have a giant pylon sign structure at the corner of Front and Nott Streets, just a little over a block from the College Park Residence Hall. it will be 80′ tall, with a very large, inner-illuminated white sign declaring the name of the casino on top, and 32′-tall LCD screens on each of its v-wings, with nothing taller than a railroad underpass between the sign and the dormitory. See, e.g., “bait and switch along the Mohawk“.

ha collage showing proximity of college dorm to proposed Schenectady casino. .

– click on the collage above to see The Casino & the Dorm –

 

[prior] follow-up (Sept. 19, 2014): An article in today’s Schenectady Gazette finally has a response from Union College President Stephen Ainlay on the issue of the nearby casino. (“Area colleges betting on Schenectady Casino,” by Haley Viccaro, Sept. 19, 2014).  The article states:

Union College President Stephen Ainlay said he has some concerns about a casino being built around the corner from the 120-acre campus off Nott Street.

“Are there anxieties? Yes, there are,” he said last week after Union’s annual business campaign breakfast. “There are things we are worried about, so we’re watchful, I guess you would say.” . . .

Ainlay declined to comment on his specific concerns or a potential rise in problem gambling among Union’s undergraduates, but students at the college say they would visit a casino that’s only about a 10-minute walk from campus. Casino patrons must be 21 or older to gamble under terms of the Upstate NY Gaming and Economic Development Act. In June, Union had 500 graduating seniors, most of whom were 21 or older.

just say no

[prior] update (Aug. 8, 2014): This is the only statement we have been able to obtain from the Union College Administration in response to questions about the casino:

podiumflip “President Ainlay stands by his statement that we are supportive of Schenectady’s ongoing revitalization efforts and understand the interest in bringing revenues and jobs to the city. We stand ready to work with city leaders to ensure that any and all revitalization efforts dovetail with our responsibility to our students. I hope this helps in your conversations with the community.”

The statement was sent to Schenectady Councilman Vince Riggi on July 1, 2014, by the Chief of Staff in the Office of the President on behalf of Pres. Stephen C. Ainlay.  Riggi was promised a reply from Pres. Ainlay upon his return from vacation in mid-August, but he has not received one. The same response, verbatim, was sent to a Schenectady Gazette reporter. Our requests for amplification or clarification have gone unanswered.

TooTempting-headline31Aug2014 (September 1, 2014): Perhaps yesterday’s Viewpoints column in the Sunday Gazette, “Too tempting?: Casino could create young gamblers, but college remains silent” (D1, August 31, 2014, by David Giacalone) will finally merit a response from the President’s Office, a professor, or some other responsible member of the staff. Click here for the text of the “Too tempting?” OpEd piece in a pdf file.

update (March 29, 2015): see our posting “Taj casino doesn’t want a college next-door” (March 29, 2015).

 

 

the 4 PM June 30 deadline at the Siting Board

Posted on by
Reply

The folks at City Hall, along with the media, and even Schenectady’s Ministers, seem to believe that the Council can give timely approval to the Schenectady casino by voting as late as June 30.  However, as virtually every interested person knows, the Gaming Facility Siting Board’s Request for Applications says (at 7), “As a condition of filing an Application, each Applicant must submit to the Board a resolution passed by the local legislative body of its Host Municipality supporting the Application.” (emphasis added)

smallquestionmark What does not, however, seem to be public knowledge is that the Request for Applications for Gaming Facilities [RFA] states (at 19) :

“To apply for a License, a completed Application must be received by the Board by June 30, 2014 at 4 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.  The Board shall have no obligation to accept or review an Application submitted after the established deadline.”  (emphasis added)

If the completed Application must include the Council’s Resolution Supporting the Application, and the gigantic Application packet (with 20 hard copies, including attachments, electronic copies, USB flash drives, etc.) must be received by 4 PM on June 30th, there’s no way the City Council can wait until June 30th to vote.

You might ask how our leaders and their staffs have missed this simple point. Well, these are the same folk who would have us believe they only very recently realized the application deadline was June 30, and are using the crunch of time as an excuse to skip having a public hearing.  Perhaps the slow readers at City Hall will finally reach page 19 of the RFA this weekend, and they will use the 4 PM deadline on June 30th as yet another reason to act without a public hearing.

SlicingThePie

We’ll hear, possibly at the June 9th Meeting, that June 23rd, rather than June 30th, is the last regular Council Meeting for their vote on the Support Resolution, given the 4 PM reception requirement of the Siting Board.  They will argue, then, that a public hearing can’t possibly be squeezed in before June 23rd, confessing that they are as surprised as anybody about this terribly imminent deadline, over which they have no control and had no prior knowledge.

I can’t wait to see how this plays out.  Parents are advised not to let their children watch.

ministers request a public hearing

Posted on by
Reply

 Saying they are “appalled as religious and community leaders by what is clearly a ‘rush to judgment’ with minimal community input,” a group of clergy and other community leaders called on the Schenectady City Council yesterday to table the Gaming resolution scheduled for this Monday’s City Council Meeting (June 9), and take no formal action until  Council members “have taken the time for a public forum to receive public input at the city level.” (click for the Statement and list of signatories)

The “Statement on Casino Gambling in Schenectady: Why no Public Hearing?”, which was released on Friday, June 5, 2014, concludes:

“We ask that the Council give careful consideration of the economic, social and human impacts to the community as a whole and provide such a report to the community prior to action on any resolution.”

Many thanks to those who worked on the Ministers’ Statement!

It is, indeed, appalling to have an important issue like bringing a casino to Schenectady decided without a public hearing. It is an insult to democratic principles. Nonetheless, no observer of the Schenectady City Council can realistically expect that a public hearing would in any way change the minds of Council members (much less write a report after considering the public’s input).  In a way, it is refreshingly honest of the Mayor and Council to show how little regard they give to public hearings and opinion.

In addition, a June 5 editorial in the Gazette makes the valid point that the show of local support is diminished by the lack of a public hearing.  The strong-arm tactics of the Mayor and Council President King might just backfire and help convince the Siting Board that support in other locales is more robust than in Schenectady.  Having no public hearing is, as the preachers said, appalling.  However, given the futility of public hearings under the current City Hall Administration, and the possibility that failing to hold a public hearing might hurt the chances of the Schenectady application in the license competition, I’m not going to make too much of a fuss about the process.  It’s the substance of City Hall’s decision on casinos that deserves most of our ire.

reprise: wise words from Mr. Hafez

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve heard, over and over, that the Letter to the Editor published in the Gazette by Mohamed Hafez on June 1st is the best short summary yet of the problems we fear are likely to come with a casino in Schenectady.  So, I was pleased this morning to find an email from Mr. Hafez submitting his letter, with a few new thoughts, to “stop the schenectady casino.”  It’s a reprise definitely worth republshing and rereading.

Letter to the Editor and the Schenectady Community:

June 6, 2014

Our anti-casino fight is too important to give up simply because some think a Yes vote by the Schenectady City Council is inevitable. I have not given up hope that good sense and good leadership will bring Mr. Erikson, Mr. Mootooveren and Ms. Porterfield to join with Councilmen Vince Riggi and create a majority against the proposed casino.

A year ago, the Toronto City Council voted 40 to 4 against the downtown riverfront mega casino proposal. It wasn’t a difficult vote for the councilors because they debated the issue for a year, engaged local economists at the University of Toronto that provided several studies on the impacts of a local casino on their city and the health and wellbeing of individuals.

Closedsm They all concluded that a local Casino makes a poor economic sense, is a poor use of precious downtown land, with no evidence that it will attract tourist dollars. In addition, a casino would have a devastating impact on local restaurants, bars, hotels and theater. A casino would have serious negative social impacts including problem gambling, bankruptcies, crime, traffic gridlock and parking problems. Furthermore, gambling is morally wrong and preys on the poor, the unsophisticated and the addict.

Residents signed 22,000 petitions opposing the casino proposal, enlisted business owners and faith leaders, discussed the issue on social media, collected donations and placed 3000 lawn signs throughout the city.

A local economist stated that gambling is one of the least productive economic activities imaginable — removing money from one set of pockets and putting it in another, without producing anything concrete as part of the exchange.  He also said that statistics concerning casinos throughout the United States show that after three to five years, almost two jobs are lost for every one that’s created. Most places that introduce gambling see a quick upward spike, followed by a steep decline.

Unlike Las Vegas, most casino-goers are locals, and their gambling money would otherwise be spent on other options in the city. No serious tourist dollars will be generated, it would be the locals who spend their hard eared money and social security checks.

abacus There is no evidence that our “leaders” have done their homework or looked behind the promises and puffery of the casino developers. Nor is there evidence that a riverfront casino would make good economic sense, promote tourism in Schenectady, or result in an assured stream of new tax revenue. Without such evidence, the Schenectady City Council should not be taking the risk that a casino will bring with it the predictable downsides, destroying local businesses and the social fabric of our city.

Tell the Schenectady City Council to Vote No on the proposed Casino.  Then, if we need to go further, let’s prepare to show the Gaming Facility Siting Board that there is significant opposition in Schenectady and surrounding communities and, if there must be a Capital Region casino, that other locations are better choices or, at the least, likely to cause less damage.

Mohamed Hafez,

Schenectady

City Hall Rally Monday – June 9 at 6pm

Posted on by
4

There will be a “Say No to the Casino” Rally this Monday, June 9, at 6 PM on the steps of the main entrance to City Hall (Jay Street side).  Please come to show the City Council and Mayor, the media, and proponents of the casino your opposition to a casino in Schenectady.

CITY HALL RALLY TO

STOP THE CASINO!

Monday, June 9th, 6 PM

On the steps of City Hall, before the Council Meeting

TELL OUR CITY COUNCIL TO SAY NO TO THE CASINO

Use this link to download the flier.

.

 she'

– click on the image for a larger version –

– you can share this posting with this shorter URL:

http://tinyurl.com/CityHallCasinoRally

a flier for publicizing the June 7th meeting

Posted on by
Reply

A flier is now available to download and print that publicizes the Meeting at Arthur’s Market this Saturday.  Click for the Rally Flier. The following is the content of the flier, which includes a listing of our major concerns about approving and living with a casino.

cropped-nocasinoschdy.jpg

flierheadlines

Our Schenectady is not a casino town. We are not willing to:

  • trade Schenectady’s proud history of productive enterprise and innovation for the non-productive transfer of dollars from individuals to the favored “house”
  • desperately believe the easy-money promises of developers and casino operators out of undue pessimism about our development potential
  • base Schenectady’s fiscal policy on taking money from hard-workers, problem-gamblers & the vulnerable, for the sake of uncertain amounts of added tax revenue
  • risk the health of small businesses, which have stayed here and created jobs, by draining revenue away to the casino and a few lucky partners, who will be drawing most of their business from gamblers living less than 25 miles away, not from distant high-rollers
  • create a crime magnet that will bring more drugs, prostitution, DUI, and car break-ins, as well as all-day traffic problems, to nearby neighborhoods, threatening the residential nature of the Historic Stockade District

– go to tinyurl.com/NoSchdyCasino for more information & materials –

– get the No Casino Petition online or at Arthur’s Market –

PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY BY SAYING “NO!” TO A CASINO

..

 

ArthursMarketo5June2014a . . ArthursMarket05June2014b

– Arthur’s Market in the Schenectady Stockade –

 

 

Petition to Stop the Schenectady Casino

Posted on by
Reply

StopCasinoPet

Please help us show the strength of the Opposition by signing the Petition.

Click this Petition link (or the image above) to download a printable pdf. file of the Petition to Stop the Schenectady-ALCO Casino. You can then sign the Petition, and (hopefully) also circulate it for more signatures on your block, at the office or at stores or churches, etc..

Those unable to circulate a Petition widely, or wanting one for personal, household use, may print this SHORTER PETITION, which has four rows for signatures (the original Petition has 9 rows).

[Follow up, 1 PM June 2]  Click for a simple sign announcing the Rally on Saturday, and for one asking for Petition signatures.

Scroll down in this webpost to find the text of the Petition, which includes a list of the major problems we believe would be caused by having a casino at the old ALCO site in Schenectady.

Returning Petitions: This is by necessity a short petition campaign. We would like to have all Petitions returned by Saturday, June 7th, before or during the Rally to Stop the Schenectady Casino at Arthur’s Market. (read about the rally here). You can return them to the editor of this weblog (me, David Giacalone), or to Arthur’s Market., at 35 N. Ferry Street, across from Lawrence the Indian, in the Stockade.  Contact me directly or by leaving a Comment at this website to arrange return of the Petitions to me.

There will be Petitions available at Arthur’s Market and the Moon and River Cafe in the Stockade, all week, starting Monday evening and during the Rally.  If you are not in the vicinity of Schenectady County and must use the U.S. Postal Service, please mail signed Petitions as soon as possible to Richard Genest, Arthur’s Market, 35 N. Ferry St., Schenectady, NY 12305.

If you are unable to return a Petition by June 7th, please get it to us by Monday morning, June 9th, as we hope to present them to the Schenectady City Council at that evening’s Council Meeting.

StopCasinoPet

Below is the text of the Petition, setting forth major reasons for opposing the casino: 

PETITION: to the City Council of Schenectady & the NYS Gaming Facility Siting Board

       Re: The Application by the Galesi Group & Rush Street Gaming to operate a casino in Schenectady

The undersigned ask that the Application for a Gaming License to operate a casino on the site of the former ALCO plant in Schenectady be disapproved by the City Council or be rejected by the Facility Siting Board. We believe many of the promised benefits are exaggerated or uncertain and are outweighed by negative factors that harm individuals, families and communities. For example:

  • The transfer of wealth from the poor and vulnerable to casino operators and tax coffers
  • Loss of revenue by local businesses, leading to closings, and reduced staff and hours
  • An increase in street crimes, especially near the casino (e.g., drug sales, prostitution, purse-snatching, DUI, car break-ins & theft,) and financial crime (embezzlement and fraud)
  • Stress and injury to families as problem gambling increases in our communities
  • A serious threat to the quality of life, safety, and property values in “Schenectady’s gem,” the nearby Stockade Historic District, which will experience more crime and traffic

ALCO-SAMmastSk  Stockadians: There will be a space on the Petition for each signer to indicate whether she or he is currently a Stockadian (by either residing in or being an owner of property or a business in the Stockade). That will allow us to keep a separate tally of the number of Stockadians signing the Petition opposing the casino.

Long-time Stockadian Jean Zegger has written a brief description of the uniqueness and importance of the Stockade Historic District, along with a short text with a brief history of the Stockade that is inscribed on the monumental columns at the entryway to the District at Erie Boulevard and Union Street.

– sign our Petition, tell City Hall not to gamble with our City –

Schenectady County ignores its voters and Plain English

Posted on by
Reply

smallquestionmark  What is going on at the County Building? Why are the leaders and legislators so willing to become cheerleaders for the casino, and to ignore the will of their voters, which was expressed only 7 months ago, rejecting casinos in Upstate New York? And, why are they unable to see the plain English wording in the Gaming Facility Siting Board’s Request for Applications, which makes it clear that the County is not a “Host Municipality” and cannot provide the required local legislative resolution of support for the proposed casino?

First, the Election Results: In his posting “Schenectady casino vote 2013,” blogger and Stockadian Tom Hodgkins crunches the results from the November 2013 vote on the constitutional proposition permitting gaming casinos, and comes to a conclusion as to its meaning.

Here is a summary of the vote in each municipality: abacus

  • NISKAYUNA: Every single one of their 20 election districts voted against the casino. The no vote overwhelmed the pro-gamblers by 25.7%: with 61.0% No to 35.4% Yes, and an undervote on Proposal One of 3.6% (those not answering the question)
  • GLENVILLE: The people opposed to new casinos garnered 55.3% of the votes on Proposal One, while the Yes votes received 39.6% (a 15.7% margin). Even more decisively, 25 of the 27 or 92.6% election districts voted against the casino
  • DUANESBURG:  4/5ths of the election districts in Duanesburg were conclusive, and on the whole 54.4% of the people voted against the casinos, and 42.1% voted No. This was a margin of decisiveness of 13.3%, while the under vote was only 4.5% of the electorate.
  • PRINCETOWN: Both of their election districts voted against a new casino in the Capital District, and the margin of decisiveness was 14.1%, with 53.7% voting No and 39.5% voting Yes; the undervote was 6.8%.
  • ROTTERDAM: In aggregate, people who supported increased gambling won by 6.7%, but the undecided or the under vote was 7.6%. . . On the whole, the only conclusion we can draw is that the vote in Rotterdam is suggestive of moderate support for a new casino.
  • CITY of SCHENECTADY:  The City has the most muddled results of all the municipalities in the County. Only 7,723 voters or 25.8% of the electorate turned out to vote; . . .  Election district under votes ranged from 3.7% to 48.3%, and accordingly the certainty of a decisive vote in an election district could only be determined in 22/42 districts. As a City, people who supported a new casinos upstate won by 2.3%, but the under vote was 10.3%. People living around Schenectady High School and in the Stockade were conclusively against more casinos upstate, while people in Mount Pleasant and Belleview supported new casinos.

Here is Tom’s rather reasonable conclusion:

What we can say with certainty is that the majority of the people that would be most impacted by a new casino in downtown Schenectady expressed clear opposition to more gambling for their families and communities. People opposed to more gambling were 50.6% of the vote in the county, while the people supporting more gambling opportunities for their children lost by a margin of 7.9%. The under vote was 6.6%, so the countywide decision against additional casinos was conclusive. Additionally, 72 of the 120 election districts or 60% voted against more gambling for their families and communities.  The people have spoken, and the answer is no casino.

Of the 30,083 people in Schenectady County who voted on Proposal One last November, 16,316 said No: 54.2%.  There was a 6.6% undervote on that question (ballots on which no choice was made). When the undervote is added into the total, 50.2% of those who went to the polls said No and 42.7% said Yes.  About 7.5% more of the County’s voters said No to casinos than said Yes. 

 That’s a significant spread, but apparently not significant enough for any of the County legislators to even bring up the subject during casino discussions.

Second, how can the folks in the County Building and at Metroplex make the silly argument that they can give the Schenectady Casino the necessary local legislative support, because they are also a Host Municipality?   I know Gary Hughes and Ray Gillen can read.  Did they bother to peruse the relevant portion of the Request for Applications for Gaming Facilities [RFA], or just ignore it and engage in wishful thinking?   Had they peeked into the RFA or asked a staffer to do so, they would have discovered that the definition of Host Municipality (p. 9) is:

“each town, village or city in the territorial boundaries of which the Project Site described in an Application is located.” (emphasis added)   

And, if that wasn’t enough to quash the itch to approve a casino, the section on Initial Requirement of Local Support is even more explicit (at 7):

“For purposes of this requirement, the Host Municipality of a Project Site located in a city is the city. The Host Municipality of a Project Site located in a town, outside a village is the town.  The Host Municipality of a Project Site in a village is the village and the town in which the Project Site is located.” (emphasis added)

Here, there is only one Host Municipality, the City of Schenectady.  The County Legislature cannot void a negative vote by the real Host Municipality by substituting its own vote. The municipal legislature closest to the affected people and businesses is given the task.

Maybe the County Legislature is going out of its way like this to register a meaningless vote to show their electorate just who is boss.  I hope that the specter of the County overriding a negative vote by the City Council did not weaken the resolve this weekend of undecided Council Members to stick to their principals.  With the rumor that the County Legislators are virtually unanimous on approving the casino, a No vote by the City Council could seem merely symbolic and quixotic, and certainly not worth the punishment that would surely come from the Democratic Party and the Mayor.

checkedboxs Like any other nearby government or interested organization, the County Legislature is free to voice its support of the ALCO casino.  But, it cannot override a negative vote by Schenectady’s City Council.  So, it will be interesting to see if any Legislator raises either the November 23 vote or the plain meaning of Host Municipality at their Meeting.

the problem with urban casinos

Posted on by
Reply

checkedboxsINTRODUCTION to This Website:  This website will soon have information, materials, and links to documents and articles, that are relevant to efforts to keep a casino from being sited at the location of the old ALCO plant, on Erie Boulevard near Freeman’s Bridge, along the Mohawk River, in Schenectady, New York.  We believe that urban casinos bring more problems than benefits.  See Reference Materials below.

As I wrote in “Don’t accept rosy predictions for downtown casino“, a Letter to the Editor in the Schenectady Daily Gazette of May 13, 2014:

CasinoRosyDAG

Urban casinos are risky endeavors, requiring serious analysis. The New York State Gaming Task Force Report to the governor (1996), which favored upstate casinos, said: 1) Stand-alone casinos draw far fewer people from outside the area than a resort-style casino, meaning relatively few overnight stays and a 150-mile market area impacted by nearby casinos; and 2) Most regular casino customers come from within a 25-mile radius, making the casino simply part of the local leisure marketplace (draining dollars from others offering entertainment, dining, sports, and other leisure activities of all kinds).

SharkGF The report also warned of potential crime problems at and near urban casinos, including “prostitution, panhandling, pick-pocketing and purse snatching”; economic crimes by pathological gamblers; and vehicle-related crimes like DUI and automobile break-ins. Such crime is especially worrisome for the nearby Stockade, which was granted historic district protection specifically to preserve its residential characteristics. Street crime and constant drive-through traffic will hurt quality of life in the Stockade, where 55.6 percent of voters said “no” last November to any upstate casinos.

update: What About SugarHouse in Philadelphia? A study that came out in July 2014 purported to show that there was no significant increase in crime in the neighborhood of the SugarHouse Casino since its opening in 2010.  We think that claim is misleading. See our response in  .

The Applicant for a license to operate the casino in Schenectady is a team consisting of a local  construction and development company, the Galesi Group, and an experienced casino developer and manager from Chicago, Rush Street Gaming, which is critiqued negatively here, by a Worcester Citizens Group.

StopCasinoPet  Petition: Go to our posting “Petition to Stop the Schenectady Casino” to see the text of our Petition, for a link to a printable version of the Petition, and for instructions on returning Petitions to us this week. Please excuse our haste, but we want to present the Petitions to the Schenectady City Council as soon as possible, as they must vote on a proposed resolution to approve the casino no later than June 30, 2014.

Casino-SAMmast

.

.

noalcocasino-mastB

– feel free to download and use our NO ALCO CASINO logos (photos by David Giacalone) –

REFERENCE MATERIALS  (more to come)

  •  No Downtown Casino: an informative website created by citizens fighting (successfully) to stop a casino from being built in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The group was not against all casinos, but felt there were locations far preferable than their Downtown . A Position Statement explains their opposition to a downtown casino.  Here are a few important paragraphs:

 

Our focus.

NO! Downtown Hamilton Casino is a group of Hamiltonians that, as a result of doing an extensive review of the available research, is opposed to building a casino in our downtown.The research shows clearly that the closer you are to a casino, and the easier it is to get to, the greater the social costs to all citizens and the greater the negative financial impact on nearby businesses and property values.

logoclip_0

Higher social costs for citizens – the bad numbers go up.

Studies show that proximity to a casino doubles the levels of problem gambling, which in turn results in increased spousal abuse, depression, child developmental issues, personal debt, addiction and cross-dependency, personal bankruptcies, attempted suicides, suicides, social service costs. We know that problem gambling has a profound impact on a gambler’s friends and families, which substantially increases the number of people affected by problem gambling. Individuals living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, some of whom would be within walking distance of a casino in downtown Hamilton, have a 90% increase in the odds of becoming problem gamblers.

Greater negative financial impact on nearby businesses – the good numbers go down.

Studies show that property values near a casino decrease by 10% or more once the casino opens. Part of the reason for that is because the casino never closes. It operates 24/7. Commercial buildings, apartment buildings, condominiums, etc. decrease in value which means over time they pay lower property taxes. Research also shows that 60% of businesses that existed before the casino opens, go out of business within 2 years of the casino opening. Lost jobs. Lost taxes. Failed entrepreneurs. Empty storefronts.

Plywood%20Business

– there are several dozen instructive and often entertaining posters at NoDowntownCasino.coz

.

  • The Durand Neighborhood Association also fought to stop the proposed downtown casino in Hamilton, Ontario.  Their campaign was strong, articulate, and well-researched.  The neighborhood has many heritage sites and beautiful architecture and would have been within walking distance of the proposed casino.  (In contrast, our Stockade Association has refused to even call a meeting about the casino proposed for the ALCO site, which is several blocks from the residential historic district the Stockade Association was created to protect and preserve, and to represent before government bodies.) The Hamilton casino question was on the ballot in last year’s City election and opponents won by almost a two-to-one margin.  As part of its comprehensive website, DurandNA has a busy weblog, where you can find quite a bit of information under the tag “casino.”  See http://www.durandna.com/tags/casino/

.

SharkGF “Based on his experiences as a representative and resident of southern Connecticut, home of two of the earliest and largest casinos in the country, Steele cautioned that those expectations are considerably less beneficial than the outlooks presented by the various developers and operators vying for a chance to open similar casinos in Albany, East Greenbush, Rensselaer, or Schenectady. Steele described casinos as a predatory industry that depends on problem gamblers for its huge revenues, and that its effects cause a range of social ills, from pathological gambling addiction to bankruptcies among local businesses and increases in crime.”

.

Layout 1 . . . logo used in the campaign to stop a proposed Foxwoods Casino in Milford, Mass.

At EducateHopkinton.com you will find information used in a successful campaign to defeat a proposed casino in Milford, MA.  On Nov. 19, 2013, the casino was voted down by almost a 2 to-1 margin, with 57% of the electorate participating.

  • You have to envy cities and towns with organized, active, well-educated and researched campaigns by residents to stop casinos. Perhaps this is because the electorate gets to vote on a specific proposal, in contrast to our New York siting system, where developer-applicants need to merely woo a handful of politicians, and a few “neighborhood leaders” and businessmen hoping to partner with the resulting casino.  Sketchy proposals are then announced to the public, with a very short period available in which to somehow convert the already-convinced local legislative body. For a look at the application and selection process, see the current RFA for Gaming Facilities for choosing among applicants for several upstate New York casino licenses.

…