With the Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor a reality for Schenectady, this site is no longer called Stop the Schenectady Casino. However, we are still “working to protect our community from casino-made problems,” and all of our prior materials remain, with links redirected to our new domain. See the statement of Our Name & Mission for further explanation.
Click these links to find our webposts for various Casino-related Categories, issues, and history; and also scroll down to an alphabetical list of issues:
- Casino Crime
- Competing Casinos – can the Schenectady Casino compete?
- Problem Gambling – what are we doing to prevent it?
- Casino & Mohawk Harbor Pylon(s) – efforts to allow a giant pylon sign for the casino and later for Mohawk Harbor
- The Snowmen Effect – lax leadership means more problems, fewer benefits
- Revenue Reports for the Schenectady Casino
update: (January 26, 2016) On December 21, 2015, the New York State Racing Commission issued a gaming license for Rivers Casino at Mohawk Harbor, Schenectady NY. See our Jan 22 posting “our concerns continue as license granted for schenectady casino“. Despite our change in name, this website will continue to comment on important casino issues in the hope to avoid casino-made problems, and retain all prior posting. Will City and County government work to prevent or ameliorate casino-made problems, or will those with the responsibility to protect our community merely do the modern equivalent of building snowmen at the gates, leaving the gate open to danger, or having a drink at the tavern?
(December 17, 2014) The Schenectady casino application has been chosen by the Location Board, making it important that the community come together to help prevent casino-made problems. See our posting “a casino is coming to Schenectady“ .
Scroll Down for Our Issue Links
. . . we have relocated some information formerly linked in our masthead:
Statement in Opposition: Click this link for our STATEMENT in OPPOSITION to the Schenectady Casino (20 pages, plus twelve Attachments). The Statement was submitted, with a signed Cover Letter, to the NYS Gaming Facility Location Board, at the Location Board’s Capital Region public hearing, September 22, 2014. A brief summary of the five major points, along with thumbnails and links to the twelve attachments, can be found at this posting.
Our PETITION: Click this link to see the Petition we circulated in 2014 asking the City Council and then the NYS Gaming Facility Location Board to reject the Schenectady application. We submitted the Petition to the Location Board along with our Statement in Opposition. It contained 364 signatures, 126 of which were by Stockade owners or residents.
The information that had been found at the Lago HCA tab on our prior masthead, is now located at “the Lago casino HCA and the Mayor”.
- On the issue of Host Community Agreements in General and Rush Street Gaming’s generosity in other casino towns, see, e.g., “Mayor McCarthy left millions on the casino table“, with follow-up postings on May 18th, 2015, “Money on the Table, Part 2“, and May 27th, “Rush Street’s Giveaways“.
CASINO ISSUE LINKS
- Antitrust: see Fair Game below
- Declining Revenues: see below: Saturation/Shaky Promises
- Casino Pylon: Pylon Directory: In March 2016, Rivers Casino announced that it was leaving its Pylon sign structure out of its final proposed site plan, reserving for a future date the possibility of submitting a pylon proposal. This is a list of our posts and Comments discussing the proposed 80′ x 38′ Schenectady casino signage pylon and its 32′ x 19′ digital display:
– “phony pylon excuse“: uses photos, maps, and other images to explain why the excuse that the STS Steel Building blocks the view of the casino is simply untrue
– “shrink that Casino pylon“: explains why the proposed pylon is the wrong size at the wrong location; looks at the Des Plaines Rivers Casino, which is too large and too bright at night although “only” 68 ft. tall; worries the Schenectady pylon would become an inappropriate symbol of Schenectady
– “how big is 80 feet by 38 feet?” (July 12, 2015), which points out that the proposed pylon sign is both taller and wider than Schenectady’s former Masonic Temple, at 302 State Street.
- Comments submitted to the Planning Commission by David Giacalone, June 17, 2015, which stresses the inappropriate height and width and the serious traffic hazard from the huge digital display.
- A discussion of variables for evaluating the safety of roadside CEVMS (digital variable message displays).
- The Casino’s 2014 Visual Resources Assessment submitted by the Mohawk Harbor applicants as part of its environmental impact assessment, concluding that the project would have no negative visual impact on the City or any historically sensitive areas. It analyzed the proposed riverbank hotel, but not the casino pylon sign.
- NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Visual Impact Assessment Policy(2000). Both Metroplex and the Mohawk Harbor applicant purport to follow this important policy statement in reviewing the project’s likely visual impact off-site.
- Crime Is Likely to Increase: For our most recent summary, see “City Hall Is Wrong about Crime Going Down in Phila. and Pitts. Casinos” (Oct. 9, 2015), short URL: http://tinyurl.com/RiversCasinoCrime
- Ethics & Political Science: New York’s Promise: Why Supporting a Casino is a Regressive Policy Unworthy of a Great State (David Blankenhorn, Institute for American Values, 2013; 148 pp)
- The FACILITY-SITING PROCESS: in New York: See, in general, NYS Gaming Commission/Casinos; and the Request for Applications to Develop or Operate a Gaming Facility in New York State [Adobe pdf. version] [“RFA”]; and see our postings: “Location Board schedules presentations and public hearings” (Aug. 8, 2014); “the fight is not over” (June 14, 2014); “it’s time to write to the Location Board” (Aug. 20, 2014)
One-Page Guide to Writing a Letter Opposing the Schenectady Casino (Sept. 28, 2014)
- Fair Game: Upstate Theater Coalition for a Fair Game:
- Is joint negotiation with casinos by 13 of the biggest upstate venues an antitrust violation: see “arts venues want more than a fair game” ; and “10 of 17 casino applicants accept Fair Game’s-terms“, which includes a State Action Immunity analysis
- “a wicked concert cartel?” (March 8, 2017).
- Health & Social Sciences Concerns: 1) “Why Casinos Matter” (Institute for American Values, Council on Casinos) ; 2) Poster on Public Health aspects of casinos; 3) Research Plan for the Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Massachusetts (pdf., 68 pages, June 15, 2015)
- Problem Gambling [and see Young Gamblers below]:
update (March 2, 2016): “Will Problem Gambling Awareness Month inspire action?“
“a good start for Problem Gambling Awareness Month 2017” (March 3, 2017
1) The Impacts of Gambling on Local Citizens ; 2) “Why Casinos Matter: Thirty-One Evidence-Based Propositions from the Health and Social Sciences” (A Report from the Council on Casinos, Institute for American Values, 2013), especially at 18.
- Property Values will Decrease: see our post casinos bring property values down
- Repeal the Casino Deal (Mass.): a wealth of info and resources from the folks trying to dismantle Massachusetts’ casino laws.
- Rush Street Gaming’s Record: 1) described by a Worcester, MA, citizens group in 2013; 2) see our posting “a few things the Gazette forgot to mention“; 3) see Google Customer Reviews of SugarHouse Casino in Philadelphia (column on the top, right side of the page); 5) in general, see Casino-Free Philadelphia; 6) “Rush Street takes aim at adolescents” (Sept. 9, 2014) and No Slots for Tots .
- Revenue Projections: See “what do those Casino revenue figures mean?” (March 5, 2017)
- Saturation/Shaky Promises: Don’t Count on those Revenues for Long: 1) “DiNapoli: Gaming Revenue Plays Increasing Role In State Budget” (NYS Comptroller Report, May 2014); 2) Dicey Propositions was the cover story in Metroland (May 29, 2014), focusing on presentation by ex-congressman Bob Steele; 3) “psst: the casino cash cow has too many calves” (June 21, 2014), discussing “Casino boom pinches northeastern states” (Wall Street Journal, June 19, 2014); 4) and our compilation posting, “the unpromising future of casino gambling” (July 14, 2014)
- Substitution/Cannibalization Effect (harm to local business from business lost to the casino): see Position Statement of the Hamilton, Canada citizens’ group “No Downtown Casino;“; “wise words from Mr. Hafez“;
- Urban/Downtown Casinos: see 1) the Position Statement of the Hamilton, Canada citizens’ group “No Downtown Casino;” 2) our posting “the problem with urban casinos“; 3) in general, see Casino-Free Philadelphia; 4) “wise words from Mr. Hafez“
- Young Gamblers/College Students: see
- 1) our posts “what will the casino mean for Union College students?“, “Union College and the Schenectady Casino“, and referenced materials;
- 2) College Student Booklet (Illinois DHS) “Festering Beneath the Surface: Gambling and College Students“;
- 3) Problem and Pathological Gambling Among College Students, Randy Stinchfield, William E. Hanson, Douglas H. Olson;
- 4) California Council of Problem Gambling, College Student Webpages;
- 5) Ontario Youth Gambling Report 2005 ;
- 6) An analysis of the relationship of alcohol to casino gambling among college students“, D Giacopassi, BG Stitt, M Vandiver (Journal of Gambling Studies, 1998);
- 7) The Lure of Casino Gambling and Its Potential Impact on College Students in Mississippi, Bailey, Burroughs et al, College Student Affairs Journal, v17 n1 p81-92 Fall 1997;
- 8) “The relationship of ecological and geographic factors to gambling behavior and pathology,” Welte, J.W. et al., Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 20,Winter 2004, 405-423 (results interpreted by the authors to mean that availability of gambling opportunities promotes gambling participation and pathology).
- 9) Raising the Legal Age for Gambling in NYS to 21: a) See Press Release of State Sen. Joseph P. Addabbo Jr (Jan. 23, 2012); “Bill to raise gambling age to 21 reintroduced: Addabbo, Goldfeder sponsor proposal” (Queens Chronicle, by Dominic Rafter, Feb. 7, 2013); b) see ChangeTo20 campaign,which is working to make 20 the age of majority at which individuals may gamble.
- 10) The report Why Casinos Matter, from the Institute for American Values (2013), which has a section titled “Young people are viewed as the future of casino gambling.”
- 11) “A Call to Action: Addressing College Gambling: Recommendations for Science-Based Policies and Programs“, A Report of the Task Force on College Gambling Policies (2009)