How Orange County Got Involved: "The Governor Did the Region Designations."

One of the mysteries about this whole casino bidding process is exactly how Orange County got into the mix in the first place.  As you may recall - and as I originally detailed in this post - when the final version of the 2013 legislation was agreed upon that June, the governor's own press release included these quotes from the chairmen of the Assembly and Senate racing and wagering commissions which specified the Catskills as a region where a casino or two would be located:

Senator John Bonacic said, “For fifty years, the Catskills have sought gaming as a way to grow our tourism based economy. The gaming bill can create thousands of upstate jobs.."

Chair of the Racing and Wagering Committee and Assemblyman Gary Pretlow said, “Our agreement to bring casinos to the Catskills, the Southern Tier and the Capital Region is good for the local economy, the state economy and the people of New York."

So, we've been wondering what happened?  Recently attempting to explain, the Gaming Commission's Robert Williams told us that Orange is usually associated more with the region north of NYC rather than the city itself, and was therefore placed with the former.  It was a purely technical explanation, and didn't explain why the county had to be in one or the other.  I don't believe that the law actually requires that every county is to be considered for casinos.

Now, thanks to some sharp reporting by Nathan Mayberg in the Photo News, we have a far more logical explanation.

Pretlow said Cuomo and the Gaming Commission set the regions for where the casinos would go.

"The governor did the region designations," Pretlow said.

Pretlow said "Orange County was never in the mix" when he drafted the legislation.
........
State Sen. William J. Larkin Jr. (R-C-Cornwall-on-Hudson represents a district where five of the Orange County casinos have been proposed.  Larkin said that Cuomo "added on Orange County" into the 2013 casino legislation.

"None of us requested it," Larkin said. "It was his decision." [Photo News]

Well, that would clear that up; at least if you take these decidedly definitive declarations as the truth.  Not that this should come as any surprise. Attempts by the reporter to get a response from Cuomo's press office went unanswered.

Recall also that there was another mysterious change to the legislation at the very same time. The clause that would have prohibited the casino bidders from making campaign contributions to elected officials suddenly disappeared. "Some things we couldn't come to terms with,"the governor explained.  Apparently, the Senate Republicans had an issue with the clause.

“When you start trying to limit political contributions you run into constitutional problems,” Bonacic said on the Senate floor Friday night as the bill was being debated. [NY State of Politics]

You know....the same kind of "constitutional problems" that led to the Citizens United decision that has opened the floodgates on donations by corporations dedicated to electing or defeating specific candidates.  So, virtually concurrently, Orange County was opened up for casinos, and those backing the proposals became free to continue donating to the candidates of their choice.  How perfect! That allowed, for example, developer David Flaum, involved in Caesars' bid in Woodbury (and with the Hard Rock proposal in Rennselaer), and his wife Ilene to each personally donate $10,000 to Cuomo in December.  And for Genting, bidding for two casinos in Orange, to donate $10,000 to Senator Jeff Klein in June. Klein, by virtue of his IDC's coalition with the minority Senate Republicans, allowed them to be in the position to have the contributions clause removed in the first place, and he will quite possibly be the man who decides who controls the chamber in January.

 - The town of Tuxedo, where median household income hovers around $90,000 a year, is pleading "financial stress" to the Gaming Commission.

In a letter sent to the state Gaming Facility Location Board Tuesday, Supervisor Mike Rost said a sharp drop in the town's property tax base had led revenue to decline by 28 percent over the past three years. Last year, the town had to borrow to cover a deficit of $750,000, Rost said, and this year the shortfall is expected to be $800,000.

In addition, he wrote, the Tuxedo School District has had an operating deficit of $1 million for the past three years, making it possible that the local high school may shutter for lack of money. [Times Herald Record, limited free access]

We'd similarly seen how, in East Greenbush, the developers tried to play the same card before casino opponents made a convincing case to the board that the town's financial issues were due to fiscal mis-management on the part of the local government.  I can't say for sure why a town like Tuxedo would be having fiscal issues.  But the casino law was supposed to address regions that need economic relief for its residents, mainly in the form of jobs; not to bail out affluent towns with local governments that, for whatever reason, have budget issues.  (Though, ultimately, the state government is surely doing just that - using gambling revenues to help get its house in order.)

 - Speaking of East Greenbush, the developers of the proposed Capital View Casino & Resort are saying "me too!" following Governor Cuomo's pledge to increase the share of state contracts issued to MWBE vendors (Minority/Women-Owned Business Enterprises) to 30%.  It's a pathetically obvious and shallow act of butt-kissing both the governor and the location board (no doubt recalling that member William Thompson specifically lauded one of the bidders for mentioning their MWBE initiative during the oral presentations) by a development team which no doubt senses that its bid is in serious jeopardy due to the entrenched opposition to its project from the community.  (Or at least it should be in serious jeopardy if this is really a legitimate process rather than one whose outcome is politically predetermined.)

 - Speaking of desperation, the Greenetrack team, hoping to build at Stewart Airport (and seemingly one of the real underdogs), is now throwing in the promise of a new $13 million sports and aquatic center.  Wonder if we'll see similar little nuggets thrown in by other developers at this stage of the process.

 - The two Sullivan County proposals are on adjacent plots at the old Concord resort site; and I've been assuming that it would be one or another (if either).  One county legislator however thinks that more would be more, in this case.

“I think that’s a plus, not a minus,” [County Legislator Ira] Steingart said.  “I think that will generate more revenue for both of them, and in combination, will generate as much revenue for the state.” [Mid-Hudson News]

And I guess that's a little interesting if you think about it.  It would create a mini-casino center there, which was the original intent way back when, when Gov. Pataki was pushing for five casinos in the Catskills.  And the projects do complement each other in some ways: Adelaar is the more elaborate of the two proposals and includes the Monster golf course; while the Mohegan Sun proposal includes development elsewhere in the county (a revival of Grossinger's, and commercial development in Monticello).  Still, seems rather unlikely to me.

 - In closing, let's go back to the first article referenced in this post.  In addition to shedding light on how Orange County got involved, State Senator Larkin provides something to keep in mind when considering this process; the overriding factor that could make much of this - the logic, the speculation, the extra inducements, the pleading, the exaggerating - entirely moot.

Larkin said that Cuomo would have influence on the placement of the casinos. "Anybody who thinks he's not is a fool. It's his commission."

Let's Boot The Soccer Stadium

These soccer guys are freaking bugging me.  First they had the nerve to think that they were going to come here to Queens and drop a soccer stadium in the middle of Flushing Meadow Park.  Thankfull,y the community, along with green space and public park advocates, would have none of that.  Now, as first reported a few weeks ago, they want to build a stadium at the Big A.  And while those initial reports referred to locating it in a parking lot, it's not hard to guess what the possible ramifications are.

Several sources have confirmed that demolition of Aqueduct Race Track for a new soccer stadium is not off the table.

“The discussions leave open the possibility of the racetrack being torn down and the stadium being built on that site,” one high-level source said. “[The New York Racing Association] would make Belmont Racetrack a year-round venue and hold winter racing there.” [Queens Chronicle]

The article goes on to note that replacing the Big A is not the "most likely or preferred option," and then goes on to explain why it very well might be.  To build it in a parking lot would require navigating some bureaucratic red tape involving something called the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, and anything that goes by the acronym ULURP just has to be trouble.  It also would require the approval of Queens Borough President Melinda Katz, elected to that post last year despite her involvement in some highly unsavory affairs (it's Queens, after all...but one Democrat who I surely didn't vote for); as well as by the NY City Council.  So there would be a lot of politics involved as well.  Besides, I'm just skeptical of the whole parking lot concept - if you're going to put the stadium there, where exactly are people going to park?

On the other hand, the state owns the land upon which Aqueduct sits, and the track's operator surely seems amenable to the idea.  With NYRA desperately (and quietly, as in the case of the extra $5 it now costs to get into Longshots....some more "transparency" for you) gouging its customers for every extra dollar it can in its drive towards the theoretical "profitable without slots" (a notion which, as I explained in this post, is really only a theoretical one indeed), we know that a consolidation of operations at Belmont is being quite seriously considered.  So, why not a soccer stadium?  Seems appropriate.  You'd be replacing one sport that nobody cares about with another one that nobody cares about.

[And please, don't give me the lecture about how many people watched the World Cup this past summer.  Every four years, we hear about how excitement over the occasional successes by the US team will carry over, but it just has not been the case.  Average attendance for MLS games are around 18,500, and that's actually down from 2012.  The TV rights were just acquired by ESPN and FOX for less than half of what is paid to the National Hockey League, hardly a national pastime itself. 

I get soccer.  I was all in on the Cosmos phenomenon back in the late 70's.  I went to a lot of games, and will never ever forget the experience; it was pure magic.  But that was a fleeting time that came, and went, and just as quickly.  It's odd to think back and wonder why/how it happened.  Maybe it was the outsize personalities of the likes of Pele and Chinaglia and Beckenbauer that helped to capture peoples' attention, at least in the case of the Cosmos.  Maybe now that it's easier to watch international stars on TV or online, it's less compelling when they play here.  Or maybe it was just some perfect and inexplicable confluence of events particular to that point in time.  Perhaps there is a brighter future for soccer as a spectator sport here (it's surely popular as a recreational one in parks such as Flushing Meadow, where many fields no doubt would have been eradicated by a stadium there), as evidenced by what I've read is a young fan base for the MLS, and for World Cup viewership (though I think I've been hearing that for years/decades as well).  But, for whatever reason, it's still a minor sport in this country; not going to speculate here as to the cultural reasons why that is.  But it is.  The NASL once filled the Meadowlands on a regular basis.  Now we're talking about a mere 20,000 seat stadium that nobody seems to want in their neighborhood.]

State Senator Joe Addabbo, who represents the district, has other ideas. “Should Aqueduct cease to exist at some point, my feeling and, I believe my constituents, would rather see the casino expand.”  Really?  Given how many people presently come to Resorts World on a daily basis - I've seen estimates in the 20 - 25,000 range - how many more people are really going to come if it converts from ra- to ca-sino?  And what exactly has this racino done for the surrounding community other than to spawn a slew of pawn shops?  A soccer stadium would at least draw a whole new set of people.  Which could be a problem in itself. 

Addabbo noted there are other issues to be tackled with the site in question, specifically if the city and Port Authority could negotiate a break in the lease and traffic management. Regarding the latter issue, he noted Woodhaven and Cross Bay boulevards—the main north-to-south artery through the area—is struggling with congestion and could not handle the additional vehicles that a soccer arena at Aqueduct might bring. [Times Newsweekly]

(Personally, I don't notice that on my trips to Aqueduct, but I'm not going there at peak times.)

And then we have those that say that a soccer stadium would do things that we were all told Resorts World would do. 

“A soccer stadium would create jobs, stimulate economic development and make Queens the city’s premier sports destination,” added City Council Member Eric Ulrich in a statement.

(Don't really think that the latter would be the case.)

The Queens Chronicle piece also brings up an issue that I've never heard mentioned in all of the talk about closing the Big A: the fact that the VLT law requires the racinos to be at a horse racing track.  Senator Addabbo says that he doesn't think "it’s contingent on the racetrack for the casino to operate.” I'm not sure what interpretation of the law he is leaning on.  But, in any event, they could always take a page out of the Gulfstream playbook and run a couple of 150-yard races down Rockaway Boulevard to technically qualify.

As far as Aqueduct goes, I've said many times here that the idea of year-round (minus Saratoga) racing at Belmont is a dismal prospect.  How monotonous would it be to see those oversized one-turn races month after month after month?  Horseplayers would lose the juice that results from the change in track configurations (just as they will lose the dirt-to-synth-to-dirt angles in Kentucky now that Keeneland has switched to dirt).  With the track's current configuration, the grandstand would be shrouded in frigid shade throughout the winter months.  There would obviously be some kind of renovation done in order to prepare the track for winter racing, the extent of which is unknown.  It would be far more palatable to me if a smaller winter oval was built separately, perhaps where the training track is now.  And personally, I wouldn't mind at all if they just razed the current courses in favor of a more traditional mile and an eighth main track so that there could be two-turn racing.  And that could give them enough room to put the damn soccer stadium there.

Before or After the Election?

Governor Andrew Cuomo, making his first public appearance in Albany in 103 days, sparred with the press on Wedensday after a speech at the MWBE Forum (at which he proposed to raise the participation of businesses owned by Minority- and Women-Owned Business Enterprises in state contracting to 30%).  It went on for around 21 minutes, despite the efforts of an aide to cut it down to 'one more question' at around the four minute mark.  Yeah, fat chance that was happening.  The video is contained in this link.

At the 8:52 mark, the governor, looking quite relaxed after visiting Afghanistan in his continuing effort to keep us all safe, was asked if he expected the recommendations from the casino location board before Election Day. 

"I believe, Jimmy - I have to check - I believe we said in the State of the State when we first announced it, it would be towards the end of the year.  I don't remember exactly what I said in terms of timing, but I have no reason to change what we had set out originally."

  When again asked specifically if it would be before or after the election, Cuomo said:

"I just don't remember what we said the timing was.  Do you remember what we said the timing was?  [Before election day.]  Well, then that's what it should be."

For the record, this is what the governor said in the State of the State:

Our challenge now is to make casinos a reality, make it happen, make it happen fast and make it happen correctly...our current plan is March 2014 for the RFP to go out, bids come back in June and we hope to make the selections in early Fall.

Well, that really clears things up!  Fall started on Sept 22 and runs through 6:03 PM EST on Dec 21.  Since Election Day falls on November 4, I suppose it's up for interpretation as to whether that qualifies as early fall.  Robert Williams of the Gaming Commission said:

“They remain confident they can reach a decision in late October but have already indicated that if the volume of materials requires, they will take the time necessary to appropriately deliberate.” [Daily Freeman]

Hmm, that doesn't really help much either.  Given the sheer volume of that voluminous material, it's hard to imagine that these guys could make a reasoned decision within the next five weeks.  Unless their decision is going to be based on things other than reason; then the decisions could be announced tomorrow.  (And depending on the result, we may conclude that they might as well have been.)

I've said all along that I do not believe it is happening before the election.  As long as the result is up in the air, one would think that any anger directed at the governor could be muted due to the uncertainty.  Once it's announced, all emotions are at play...and I think they will be more likely to be negative than positive.  That's of course unless he.....I mean, the location board.....decides that a license (or licenses) should go to the Catskills rather than to Orange County.  Then I think we could see the decision prior to Nov 4, as Cuomo could benefit greatly in the polls in that region.

 - Like the Empire City Casino at Yonkers, Mitchell Etess, the CEO of Mohegan Sun, smarting from his defeat in Boston and hoping to build a casino at The Concord in the Catskills, wants us to know that he's not buying Genting's claim that a casino at Sterling Forest would not be detrimental to them.  "It’s not possible for anyone else to survive if there’s one in Orange County," he told the Crain's editorial board.  Etess says they won't build if there is any casino in Orange.  However, he wouldn't mind one 20 miles away at the Nevele.   "Gamblers like to have two places to go......They like to have an option."  As long as they are both located similarly distant to NYC, I suppose.  Currently doesn't seem too likely that the Catskills will get two licenses anyway.

Here's an excellent article from City and State, which considers all of the economic and political factors and comes up with some possible scenarios.  Including this one, which I have ranked as one of the more likely: 

That dynamic [Cuomo's original indication that at least one casino would be sited in the Catskills] could benefit the “northern” Orange County sites, including the Grand Hudson Resort & Casino proposed by Alabama-based Greenetrack at Stewart International Airport [unlikely -ed.]; the Hudson Valley Casino & Resort in Newburgh by Rush Street Gaming and Saratoga Casino and Raceway; and Resorts World Hudson Valley, Malaysian gambling giant Genting’s second proposal in the county. What sets apart these proposals—which range from $670 million to $1 billion—from the three southern Orange County bids, in terms of their relation to Sullivan and Ulster Counties, is their location some 20 miles north of Route 17—the main artery to the Catskills. Some analysts say this means that a northern Orange County casino could realistically co-exist with a Catskills casino, while one in the southern part of the county could effectively block New York City-area gamblers from visiting Ulster or Sullivan counties.

Empire Resorts is the only one of the three Catskills bidders who have said that they would build (the Montreign or Adelaar or the whatever-they're-calling-it casino at The Concord) even if there was a casino in northern Orange; albeit a smaller one that their grand proposal.  (A smaller facility there might be more appropriate than what they are proposing as their best-case scenario in any case, as the article suggests.) 

So, how about this: a license goes to the Hudson Valley project in Newburgh, and to Adelaar.  That would check a lot of boxes.  The Catskills would finally get their casino.  Jimmy Feathers would get his.  Genting would not (Cuomo is probably not too enamored of them anyway), but its chairman does have an interest in the majority shareholder in Empire.  Gural could get his at Tioga, Hard Rock or Howe Caverns would get the Capital District license (Rush Street, bidding in Schenectady, is Feathers' partner at Hudson Valley), and a lot of people would be happy.  Except for the losing bidders and the gamblers who end up losing their money.

 - As we mentioned, and as you probably know, Cuomo was in Afghanistan pretending to be "learning" about terrorism in a place where he didn't have to deal with those annoying reporters for 21 minutes despite his aide's futile attempts to get him away.  Bill Hammond wrote a piercingly astute column in the Daily News about the governor's sudden interest in security.  (During the gaggle, Cuomo made what was apparently a clumsy attempt to disparage the piece, saying that 'the Daily News says that we don't need security.' Which is not what Hammond said.  He said that we don't need politicians who take a sudden interest in the topic, not mentioned in any of Cuomo's State of the State addresses, five weeks before Election Day.)  The column featured this photo.

KAP KIM/REUTERS

Liz O'Connell had tweeted me earlier that Cuomo's trip reminded her of Michael Dukakis.  I wasn't sure exactly what she was referring to until I noticed that picture.  Remember this?

Not surprisingly, the Astorino campaign tweeted out the photos side by side.  If I recall correctly, that picture didn't work out so well for the former governor of Massachussets.

Seems odd that, as astute as Cuomo and his aides are said to be, they violated the golden rule that governors with no foreign policy chops should not be photographed in a chopper, or a tank.  Though at least Cuomo dispensed with the helmet, if not with the goofy smile.

When pressed by reporters as to whether he would work for a Democratic State Senate, as he pledged to do in his deal to get the Working Families Party ballot line, Cuomo was once again evasive.  "Yes.  But running on my record doesn't hurt them.  Because my record is their record.  If you're a Senate Democrat running for re-election, what do you say? Unemployment down, credit rating up, more jobs than ever before, four budgets on time, marriage equality.  That's my record too.  Right?"  Right. But that doesn't answer the question of what he will, or will not, do to uphold his promise to the WFP.  There are Democrats running for seats that are open or currently occupied by Republicans.  And indeed, when asked if he would endorse the incumbent Republican Senator Mark Grisanti (running on the Independence Party line after losing his primary), who voted for same-sex marriage but staunchly opposes key aspects of his agenda such as the Women's Equality Act and the Dream Act, he demurred.  "I haven't made a decision yet."  That's one decision he'll have to make before Election Day.

Bonus? What Bonus?

I was looking at the Meeting Book for Monday's hastily-called NYRA Board of Directors meeting (it wasn't announced until Friday afternoon), and I noticed a pretty hilarious omission from the minutes for the last meeting, held on August 6 in Saratoga.  As you may recall, the big news coming out of that meeting - other than the attempt to bar reporters who didn't RSVP - was the $250,000 bonus granted to CEO Chris Kay....an announcement which brought a mixed reaction at best.

However, you would never know that from reading the minutes of that meeting.

    2. Report of the Chair.

Mr. Wait welcomed new Board member, Mr. Holliday, who serves as Chief Executive Officer of SL Green Realty Corp to replace Ms. Rosenthal, who resigned earlier this year. Next, Mr. Wait highlighted the recent accomplishments of NYRA including the addition of new members to the NYRA senior management team, improvements in the backstretch area, payment of outstanding debts and advances in equine safety. Then, Mr. Wait recognized the senior management team and employees led by Mr. Kay for all their hard work.

.........

b. Compensation Committee

Mr. Tese gave the report of the Compensation Committee, particularly its input on the CEO’s performance and compensation. Mr. Tese and the rest of the Committee congratulated Mr. Kay on all his achievements in creating a strong management team, transparency and enhancing the guest experience.

Yes, they recognized and congratulated Mr. Kay.  But there's no indication whatsoever that he was granted a bonus....just a small detail gone unmentioned!  I looked at the Open Meetings law, and the minutes are only legally required to mention items that are voted on by the board.  So it would seem that they are not in violation of the letter of the law, but I'd say that it surely is contrary to its spirit.  One might think that this was written by Communications Director John Durso, Jr.  I didn't know that board meeting minutes were subject to PR BS, at which Mr. Durso is quite proficient - but I guess I was wrong.

It's particularly funny that Tese glossed over the bonus while also congratulating Mr. Kay on promoting transparency!  Seems to me that NYRA has instead become increasingly insular and paranoid over the last year.  The most recent example of that is the sudden embargo on announcing Belmont attendance figures.  Maybe they didn't want to be forced to announce a disappointing crowd on Super Saturday.  (And, given their secrecy and deception when it comes to attendance nowadays, I have every right to make my own assumption that it was indeed disappointing......no doubt they'd be crowing if there were 25,000 people there.  I was not there myself, so I cannot venture a guess.)  Towards the end of the meeting, Chris Kay started to talk about how Churchill Downs doesn't announce attendance figures, and then seemed to catch himself and abruptly broke off.

Otherwise, I'd have to agree with Tom Noonan's assessment of the meeting; it was largely a bore.  Once again, Chris Kay got to drone on about all of the new TVs at Saratoga.  He laughingly reported that attendance there was up by 12% over last year, of course without mentioning that they counted season pass holders who weren't actually on track.  He talked about the year-over-year comparisons, and how the numbers were hurt by 16 more races coming off the grass than last year (which the Form's David Grening says is simply untrue).  And he talked extensively about how the "quality" of racing had improved at the Spa over recent years.  We heard that word tossed around without context, and I'm not sure exactly what that assessment is based on.  I, for one, would not agree.

It was a bit interesting listening to some of the breakdowns of the revenue numbers.  Of the $7.8 million increase in operating revenue through the first eight months of the year, just $1.2 million came from net wagering.  $1.7 million was from increased admission fees, $1.2 million for seat sales; pricing of both of those have been raised.  Money from sponsorships was up by $864,000, food sales by $834,000; there was $1 million in new revenue from the source fee on out-of-state ADW's.

NYRA says they still are on track to show a profit separate from VLT money for 2014.  But again, keep in mind that slots money is used to inflate purses: some $40 million in VLT purse money was distributed through Aug 31.  Without that money, NYRA would not be able to offer the purses that, in theory, help to generate increased betting revenue due to the larger fields that they attract.  And Resorts World has provided $21.5 million in VLT-fueled capital improvements this year.  Without that, NYRA would be unable to make crucial infrastructure repairs and basic improvements (such as the Saratoga TV's); nor the other 'guest enhancements' that allows it to justify all of those price increases that are so integral to their improved performance.  So, it's one thing to show a profit on a piece of paper....and it would be an excellent start in the quest to be independent of the insidious slot machines.  However, the notion that this would mean that NYRA would still be profitable if Resorts World burned down to the ground tomorrow is simply not something we can assume would be the case.

Chris Kay also hinted at further ticket and seat price increases for the Belmont Stakes, saying that they would look at the Derby, Preakness, and Breeders' Cup as points of comparison.  The problem with that is this: the Derby and the Breeders' Cup stand on its own; the Preakness is always of keen interest unless the Derby winner doesn't run.  The Belmont is very much dependent on the outcomes of the prior two Triple Crown races.  This year, it was a boom.  Next year, it could be a bust.  And while Kay pointed out that seating sold out prior to the Preakness last year, a whole bunch of other people who showed up in 2014 could be priced out of a non-Triple Crown event in 2015....and I don't care how many other Grade 1 stakes the day is stacked with.

More on the board meeting can be found here and here.

Board Member Doubly Confused

Been meaning to mention something that I heard during the public comment hearings last week. Honestly didn't have a chance to watch most of the three days, but happened to catch this: A speaker who expressed revulsion towards casino gambling in general drew a rebuke from a member of the location board. I think I know who the speaker was, but they were all off-camera, so I won't venture a guess as to who he (which certainly gives away nothing) was. Anyway, the location board member pointed out that the question of whether or not there should be casinos is not the question here. That has already been decided, he pointed out, with the measure being approved twice by the voters, and once by the legislature.

Of course, he had that backwards. The legislature has to pass a constitutional amendment twice, after which it goes before the voters, once. I don't think that's a small point. For one thing, c'mon man, these guys should know that! This board seems to be earnest, but from time to time they have displayed befuddlement or ignorance of basic points. I don't really feel as if they have dived into all of the background and facts as much as they should have. Another example of that is the fact that they had to be told by an East Greenbush opponent to go and visit the site. Really, they should have already made inspections of all of the proposed sites, if they were really doing this right. Instead of cramming the three public comment sessions into three days, they could have taken a day (or two in the case of the Hudson Valley region) to go check them out....and maybe chat with residential and business neighbors-to-be who maybe couldn't travel to Albany or Ithaca or Poughkeepsie to state their case, for or against.

Anyone who truly believes that the voters approved this thing twice is giving more weight to the idea that the people are for this than is warranted by the one vote based on biased ballot language, and carried in part by support in areas not immediately affected, like NYC. And it's also interesting to consider what would have happened if indeed the voters needed to approve this twice and the second vote was set for November. Assuming that the ballot language would be stripped of advocacy, now that good government groups are hip to that scam, and considering all of the much-publicized bankruptcies in Atlantic City (as well as the declines in the racino business in the state), I would think that a decently-funded opposition campaign would have had a decent chance of success, don't you?

 

Posted with Blogsy

Yonkers Ain't Buyin' It

Empire City Casino at Yonkers Raceway is having none of the talk from Genting that a casino in Tuxedo won't hurt them.

"The revenue from this single property is nearly $300 million a year just for education and we employ nearly 1,400 residents, most of whom are from Westchester, so it puts at risk not only the revenues that are generated by one of the most successful casinos in the state but also would ultimately mean layoffs as well," Duffy told the Journal News. [Politics on the Hudson]

Yonkers, of course, is quick to play the jobs card here. As we mentioned in the prior post, Genting CFO Christian Goode is saying that a Sterling Forest casino would not hurt Yonkers because gamblers there (and at Resorts World) are largely those with just $60-$80 to spend, and they won't cut into that budget by traveling. Before we go on, that brings up a couple of points: That makes perfect sense given my visual observations of customers at Aqueduct; that as opposed to those photos of affluent-looking young folks that you see on racino websites. And, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, it seems unfortunate that those with a limited amount of disposable income choose to dispose of it by sitting in front of a zombie-inducing machine that is eventually going to take most or all of it. (And even more distressing that this is now an accepted way of balancing state budgets and subsidizing horse racing.)

Yonkers will tell you that they've lost 15% of their business since Resorts World opened at the Big A. Net win figures I've seen are more like 11%.....but let's go with their figure. That is business lost to a racino located 24 miles away....and one which has aggressively provided free busing from areas in and around the city. (Their big ugly red buses have become quite ubiquitous around town.) So, how much more business would they lose to a full-blown casino located some 40 miles away? And one which has made it clear that they are more interested in big-money baccarat players from around the globe than small-time slots players? And where blackjack tables will have $25-$50 minimums? (In a recent interview, Yonkers GM Bob Galterio broke down their customer base as such: 15% NJ, 7% CT, 30% Westchester, 20% Bronx, the rest from the other boroughs and Long Island.)

So how much business would they really lose to Sterling Forest? Or, to a casino in Woodbury or thereabouts? I'm not going to guess. What I think we can surmise however is that, eventually, as these things proliferate here in NY and in NJ and in Massachusetts (perhaps), each will, for the most part, serve a local customer base. Beyond that, whether any of them can really draw customers from around the region, based on amenities such as golf or water parks or spectacular views, remains to be seen. (For this purpose, let's exclude Genting's grander scheme of flying in customers from Beijing.) With all the talk about the proposals being considered, this whole idea of a "casino resort" in rural areas of NYS attracting families is a totally unproven business model. We do know that the business model of resorts without the casinos in the Catskills was a failure. Whether Mom and Dad will really bring the kids so they can slip off and play casino games surely remains to be seen. I found it quite surprising that only once did any of the board members question the concept during the oral presentations....and that question was posed to Howe Caverns, which actually does have a track record of attracting tourists from beyond their immediate area.

- Noting that his location board heard from 415 citizens during the three days of hearings, and received around 3,000 written comments, chairperson Kevin Laws says that this is "true democracy in action, hearing directly from hundreds of individuals who feel very strongly about the future of their communities." Of course, true democracy requires the participation of both sides. It's one thing for the people to speak. Those making the decisons have to also truly listen. We'll reserve judgment for now.

Posted with Blogsy

Friday Casino News and Notes

Traveling for a few days, so I'm a bit behind....but here's a good recap of the third and final day of the public comment hearings; this one for the three Southern Tier applicants, which took place in Ithaca on Wednesday. Opposition seemed scarce for the Traditions project near Binghampton (a reference to a "small grassroots group") and Tioga Downs - just one opponent out of around 20 speakers.

That Tioga speaker noted that "Everything there seems to be less," and that could be a concern for Gural. Remember, the board got him to admit under questioning that only 900 of the 1200 job number would be new positions. So Tioga surely lags in that area as compared to the other two....though Gural's political connections may very well render that moot. I don't think that Gural would have built a new parking garage if he didn't think he has this in the bag.

The Casino Free Tyre group was out in force to make their case against the Lago Resort and Casino proposed for their little town. However, Wilmorite was able to rouse 33 people to speak in support of that project....a stark difference to Capital View in East Greenbush, who didn't even try, for whatever reason to bring supporters, perhaps, as this reader suggested, because they don't have to. Still, when the location board members look back fondly on their three day marathon, I would think that the three groups who spoke out forcefully - those in East Greenbush, Tuxedo, and Tyre will stand out from the others and leave a significant impression. Unless of course the political outweighs the practical; and in the case of Tuxedo, the sheer scale of the Sterling Forest proposal dwarfs all of the other factors....both those pertaining specifically to this project, or with respect to the whole question of Orange County vs the Catskills, and what the real priorities of the casino law is as interpreted by this board.

 

Genting CFO Christian Goode poo-pooed the notion that Sterling Resort would significantly hurt Yonkers. He called racino customers "convenience gamblers" with a modest budget.

"When you start thinking about that, if somebody's got $60 or $80 to spend, you can easily assume today with gas prices and tolls, that you're going to take 25 percent of their spending power. We don't think that person's going to go up here," he said. [Journal News]

(That's why I think that the cannibalization of Saratoga harness may not be as bad as people are saying.) And speaking of poo-poo, that's been the attitude by Genting all along to the ruling by the Palisades Insterstate Park Commission that they can't build a new Thruway exit there.

Goode said the commission "acted prematurely," and the state Thruway Authority would control whether an exit were built. Having the exit is central to the casino project, and Genting is confident it would be built, he said.

Maybe they know something that we don't.

- A minority owner of Vernon Downs, which is also majority-owned by Gural, says that a casino in Tyre would hurt his racetrack-racino, "putting its entire existence into question."

Tyre is closer to Syracuse than either Tioga Downs or the town of Glen. Greenberg says Gural wouldn’t have supported the state approving commercial casinos last year had he known then there would be a competitor as close as Tyre. [Daily Sentinel]

Well, I think he probably would have anyway.. And it may not be as bad as he is saying, at least according to the Genting theory explained above.

- Republican Attorney General candidate John Cahill says that he will use that office's organized crime task force to vet the casino applicants should he be elected.

"These are sophisticated deals, potentially involving offshore investments, foreign players and incredible sums of money," Cahill said. "The organized crime task force has the expertise and the personnel to make sure New Yorkers are safeguarded from fraud, crime or even terrorist activities." [Albany Times Union]

As we've mentioned, we haven't seen that level of scrutiny, as there was in Massachussetts....enough to dq Caesars there because of an alleged tie to an alleged mobster. The location board is required to use the State Police to investigate, which I imagine will only take them so far. However, Cahill would take office on Jan 1 should he upset incumbent Eric Schneiderman. That might be too late. After the location board announces its recommendations, it's up to the Gaming Commission to actually award the licenses. You can bet that, should Cahill win, the governor will see to it that the job is done before New Year's Day.

 

Posted with Blogsy

East Greenbush Opposition Should Seal the Fate of Capital View

The public comment hearings go on, Tuesday in Poughkeepsie for Catskills/Hudson Valley, and Wednesday in Ithaca for the Southern Tier.

During Monday's session in Albany, two groups took center stage: supporters of a casino at Howe Caverns, and opponents to one in East Greenbush.  The two groups seemed to become fine friends as the day went along!  There were 28 people who spoke about Howe Caverns, and not a single one was opposed, according to WNYT.

If you recall, during the oral presentations a couple of weeks ago, Saratoga Racing and Gaming's Rita Cox, when asked about the opposition in East Greenbush, indicated that she didn't know where it was coming from.  One of the many speakers against the casino - 50 out of the 61 who spoke on the topic - asked the board whether they now know exactly where it's coming from.  Board chairperson's Kevin Law's answer was quite affirmative. 

[Law] told the crowd during a day of 145 speakers and 11 hours of testimony that "we have no doubt that Schoharie County wants a casino," drawing hurrahs from the crowd of Howes Cave backers. He also said he got the message from opponents of the East Greenbush plan for Thompson Hill, thanking one of the foes of the project for educating the board.

The speakers opposing the Capital View casino, proposed by Saratoga harness and Churchill Downs, covered all of the bases: conflict of interest, the inappropriate location in a residential area next to a girl scouts camp, the complete story behind a Wall St Journal article that the developers deceptively used (a portion of) to try and make it seem as if town residents are needy (the article in fact blamed the town's poor finances on "questionable employment contracts and illegal payments to town officials"), the bait-and-switch which resulted in a far smaller project (and the resulting defection of one of the board members who voted for the plan), and behind-closed-doors maneuvering by a town board being guided by the developers' lobbyists.....who, for example, told them to have only one presentation to the town because "any more continues to promote 'negative' side more than anything."  (The lobbyist who gave that advice, Morgan Hook, tweeted pathetically and sophomorically early on in an attempt to discredit the opponents.  He asked the group to disclose its donors, which is absolutely precious considering that, in East Greenbush, he is operating in a legal-loophole netherworld in which his clients are not required to report their lobbying expenditures.  Not surprisingly, he shut up as it became quite apparent that the opponents are genuine residents acting quite genuinely.)  One resident told the board that she has a letter confirming that the NYS Attorney General's pubic integrity board will investigate the complaints about the conduct of the town board in supporting the plan.

Almost as pitiful as Hook was the appeal by Albany mayor Kathy Sheehan, on hand to support the East Greenbush casino after reaching an agreement with the developers for an $11 million bribe.  As if this is really any of her business.  I think she has a lot of damn gall.

It surely appears as if the location board got the message.

"I've learned a lot today," Law said. He noted that 70 percent of the ranking of a project involves its economic development impact, 20 percent on how the locale will be affected and 10 percent on workforce issues. "For that 20 percent, hearings like this are tremendously helpful," Law said.

At this point, it seems almost inconceivable that this board would go against what appears to be the overwhelming sentiment of the town's population.  Whether the Capital View developers either couldn't round up more people to talk in favor of the casino, or they didn't do so out of overconfidence, arrogance, laziness, or incompetence, it seems to me that they should be DQ'd at this point.  If there's any remaining doubt amongst the board members, they should do as was suggested and go visit the site.  (Actually, it also seems almost inconceivable that they haven't already visited all of the proposed sites.)  

Robert Williams, the acting executive director of the Gaming Commission, wants us to believe that the board is truly independent and that the process is not rigged.  This would be a good test.  Given the involvement of the prominent Albany lobbyist James Featherstonhaugh (and his personal ties to Governor Cuomo), this is one of the proposals on my list of those that are politically favored.  If it is selected over the insistent cries of opposition (and the threat of the project being held up by lawsuits), then that would, in my opinion, put the lie to any claims that the outcome of this process is not, at least to some extent, preordained.

More on the hearings in Odato's piece, and this one from WNYT, and this one from the Troy Record.  There was broad support for the Rivers Casino in Schenectady - 43 out of 50 speakers in favor (though some angry stories from Rush Street Gaming employees in Illinois) -  and not much comment on Rensselaer - only 13 speakers, 11 in favor, including that city's mayor Dan Dwyer spoke in favor. 

In other news, it was revealed that a consultant for Genting was offering $75 to recruiters for each resident they could get to go to Poughkeepsie on Tuesday and declare their support for the Resorts World Hudson Valley proposal in Montgomery, NY (while wearing a pro-casino T-shirt).  Here is the memo.  "Similar to a presidential election, the choice we make, or don’t make, will have far reaching consequences."  Well, it seems that we end up involved in Middle East wars no matter who we elect as president, so this is probably even more consequential to those people living in the immediate vicinity of a casino.  The recruitment website was taken down after Capital New York questioned Genting about it.

Senator John Bonacic weighed in - once again - to urge the board to shun Orange County in favor of the Catskills. 

The four-page letter repeatedly notes the intent of the amendment to expand casino gambling as outlined by Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Bonacic himself in New York beyond Indian-run gaming halls was to boost the economic outlook of financially strapped regions.

“Voters throughout New York state relied on these statements, and others like them, when they passed with over 57% support, the constitutional amendment necessary to bring about this process,” Bonacic wrote. [NY State of Politics]

- The New Jersey State Senate......that's right, New Jersey!....has asked New York to drop any plans for the Genting casino at Sterling Forest in Tuxedo.

The resolution, sponsored by state Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Wood-Ridge, says the proposed Tuxedo, N.Y., casino “would impart an incalculable environmental footprint on this preserved area, threatening New Jersey’s drinking water, and bringing substantial traffic and pollution into the area.” [Bergen Record]

Genting responded....and in this particular case, it's hard to argue much with what they said!

"We aren't shocked that politicians in a state struggling to save its very existence in the gaming space would object to a destination resort that would heavily compete with Atlantic City and future North Jersey casinos,"

Tuxedo is less than 20 minutes from the Jersey border, and around 45 minutes from the Meadowlands.

Public Comment Session Provides Chance for Casino Supporters Too

The focus on this blog has been mostly on the groups that are trying to stop a casino from being built in their town....such as Save East Greenbush, whose attorney was scheduled to speak at Monday's public hearing, now underway, at 8:05 AM.  (Three 12-hour marathon sessions, one in each region.)  He'll be followed by a host of other opponents to the project, including the CEO of the Girl Scouts of Northeastern NY, who will be speaking out against the inappropriate placement of a gambling venue bordering their wooded camp for girls. [Times Union]

But there will also be speakers from communities that are apparently largely in favor of a casino.  Based on this video below cooked up by the Howe Caverns bidders (who obviously have no qualms about playing the Hurricane Irene card), some of those appeals could be quite emotional.




On Sunday, there was a pep rally for the Howe Caverns casino which drew 1,500 people. 

With planes flying overhead, and live bands in the background, organizers said they are ready to make the final push in the fight to get a New York casino license.

The pitches made in favor of the Nevele facility could be even more heartfelt considering how long the Catskills region has been trying to attract a casino, or two.  Nevele CEO Angel Brummer says that this is the first time she’s been involved in a project that has 100 percent community support. [Daily Freeman]  (This is also the casino that will completely eliminate unemployment in Ellenville, or so we've been told; so this group likes to speak in absolutes!) And indeed, these Catskills communities are desperate for casinos; they've been trying to get them for some three decades.

Widespread support for the project is evident, not only by viewing the list of endorsements the project has received — which range from local officials to chambers of college, tourism officials, area colleges and not-for-profit organizations — but also by the proliferation of signs placed in the yards of residents throughout southern Ulster County welcoming the Nevele back to the community.

We'll hear similar appeals from the supporters of the two projects bidding for licenses to build at The Concord, in Sullivan County.....including from Scott Samuelson, the chairman of the county legislature.  (And also from Orange County officials.  A casino sited there would preclude the Nevele being selected, as they affirmed to the location board during their presentation that they will not build under that circumstance.  Should make for a lively session on Tuesday.)  I suppose we'll also hear from people in Newburgh talking about the dire economic condition of that city.

Those will all be passionate stories to be sure.  People in those communities desperately need jobs.  It's hard for an outsider to tell them they shouldn't be given this opportunity to see them created.  It's a sad situation that it has come to this.  Because while a casino may, for now, fulfill their promises in that respect and provide some relief to the long-term unemployed, there's no question that some, if not a good deal, of the money that supports them will come from those who can't afford it, and/or who have an issue with gambling.  If the Catskills got a casino resort 30 years ago, then it would no doubt have been something that would have attracted customers from around the region.  Now, it's far more likely that much of the revenue will be local and a regressive revenue source.

We shall see, but I would think that casino opponents have a better chance of influencing the outcome than do the supporters.  Whereas repeatedly singing the praises of casinos can have, I would imagine, diminishing returns as the days go on (and on, and on...), the more opposition in a community that can be established, would - again, in my estimation - have a better chance of sowing the seed of doubt amongst the board members.  Doubt that the particular project qualifies in relation to the others in satisfying the 20% of the evaluation process that is supposed to be devoted to community support.  And doubt that the project won't be delayed by a flurry of lawsuits by impassioned opponents.

A Declaration of Independence (FWIW)

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Tyre Casino Opponents Take it on the Chin

Casino opponents in Tyre, NY suffered a stinging and sweeping legal defeat when a judge thoroughly dismissed their suit against the Town Board.  The plaintiffs were challenging what they consider to be inadequate, hasty or incomplete environmental reviews in complying with the requirements of SEQRA.  We wrote about the lawsuit....and how the SEQRA process seems to favor the municipal boards trying to push these casino projects through.....in this post.  The decision, embedded below, demonstrates how and why the latter is the case, and surely comes as a cold slap in the face not only to the folks in Tyre, but to any other groups that are attempting to halt a casino on a challenge based on SEQRA.

Memo-Decision, Order and Judgment - Dawley, Et Al v. Whitetail 414, LLC Et Al (HBROC-2343077 v1)

One part of the decision in particular seems to simply fly in the face of common sense.  The 7th and final cause of action was based on the Town failing to make a draft of Part 2 of the SEQRA form (the Full Environmental Assessment Form).....and again, I'd ask you to please refer to this post for the background if you are interested....available to the public at or prior to the June 12 meeting at which the Town Board issued its "negative declaration" that the project would not cause any negatively material environmental effects.  Justice W. Patrick Falvey pointed out that the burden is on the public to request such documents, and noted that a request made by the main Petitioner Desiree Dawley at that meeting was made to one of the Town's engineers, and therefore and technically not to the town board. (ugh.) Particularly bizarre was that "the court finds that the Town did not utilize a high speed internet connection, nor did it maintain a regularly and routinely updated website.  Thus the Town was not required to post the resolutions.."  Oh man.....seriously?  Besides the fact that this would, by extension, relieve any government agency of any public notification requirement if they didn't endeavor to maintain a modern website (and/or if the town didn't have a local newspaper)....it seems to me that the Town of Tyre website functions just fine.  In fact, I obtained the SEQRA forms that appear in the aforementioned background post from that very site.

The main points of the decision in my view are this:

 - The oral discussions that the Board had at the June 12 meeting constituted, in the Court's eyes, completion of the critical Part 3 (in which the lead agency - the Town Board in this case - articulates its reasoning behind its dismissal of potential environmental concerns that are raised in Part 2), even though it wasn't actually put in writing and posted until July 11.  This could certainly be taken as a signal by other town boards who have not yet completed SEQRA that shortcuts to finishing the paperwork are wholly permissible.

This part of the decision comes despite the fact that, as pointed out to me by a concerned resident of Tyre, according to an October 2013 revision of the model EAF (as noted on the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) website) in order for the form to be "adequately completed," "Part 3 must contain a discussion of why the relevant impacts identified in Part 2 may, or will not have, a significant adverse environmental impact."  That clearly was not the case on June 12.

 - It affirms what we discussed previously - that the Town Board, as the "lead agency," has wide leeway to determine what is or, more applicable in these cases, what is not a potential environment hazard.  The decision takes us step-by-step through the record of the discussions at the June 12 meeting about each of the items identified in Part 2.  Some of the deliberations - and I think I'm probably being generous in that description - included consultations with one of the town's attorneys or engineers (for whatever that is worth, considering that they are in the employ of the Town Board).  But consider this segment: 

The Board completed their review of the environmental impacts at the June 12, 2014 meeting by covering impact on human health, consistency with community plans and community character, with the Board members each stating "no" regarding significant environmental impact for each of these potential impacts.

And viola!  Just like that, based on the judgment of Town Board members with a vested interest in the outcome (to what exact extent we'll never know due to the 'loophole' in the law which exempts lobbyists from reporting their activities in communities with populations of less than 50,000), those Town Board members went ahead and determined the outcome themselves.  As we've said, the question of community character, for one thing, is surely one that can be interpreted differently by those with differing viewpoints; though it's hard to see how a casino could possibly not have a significant effect on a community with a population of 900.

Back to the Department of Environmental Conservation site, we see just how daunting it is for the public to challenge the determinations of a "lead agency" that is determined to shape SEQRA to its own desires and purposes.  In fact, not even the DEC has a say in the matter! 

6. Since DEC issues the regulations, doesn't it have the authority to at least notify a lead agency that they are not correctly meeting the requirements of SEQR?

No, because the SEQR statute did not provide any such oversight authority, to DEC or to any other entity. If an agency contacts DEC with questions regarding the SEQR process, staff can give them informal advice regarding the SEQR process in general, or informal interpretations related to their review of a particular action. However, DEC cannot intervene in any lead agency's conduct of SEQR, nor stop any agency from conducting its SEQR review, even if the review is not following the correct procedures as set forth in ECL Article 8 or the SEQR regulations.

And as far as the public challenging a SEQRA decision with an Article 78 proceeding?  Good luck with that.

Individuals or groups who can demonstrate that they are sufficiently environmentally harmed by an agency's decision may seek judicial review under Article 78. If the party or parties that bring an Article 78 proceeding against an agency cannot sufficiently demonstrate to the court that they suffered "harm" by the actions of the agency, the lawsuit may be dismissed before the subject of the agency's conduct and decision is even discussed.

It is hard, I would imagine, for anyone to prove "harm" when the project has not yet even broken ground.  It is also explained that the courts "will look to the SEQR record to see if the parties bringing the challenge did participate in the lead agency's proceedings, and are less likely to be sympathetic to the challenge if those parties did not initially raise their concerns within the lead agency's SEQR process."  The Tyre opponents claim that they did not receive adequate notice of the discussion of these specific documents in order to be able to participate - the agendas refer only generally to "SEQRA Review."  But the judge obviously disagreed.

An attorney with experience in Article 78 proceedings writes to say that they are so hard to win because "if there is a rational basis that is not arbitrary and capricious and supported by substantial evidence (all terms of art defined in numerous appellate case law rulings), then the administrative or municipal ruling stands. That's true, even if another decision would have been equally correct."  And while the Article includes amongst the questions that may be raised during these proceedings the matter of "whether a determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion," the burden of proof is squarely on the plaintiffs.  I suppose there has to be a point at which a negative declaration simply doesn't pass the laugh test; if a town board says that there's no potential hazard to a lake because the lake doesn't exist, and the lake clearly does exist, then I presume that any sane judge has to throw out their decision.  However, there are no such clear cut determinations at play here, and I would guess that's the case in the East Greenbush and Tuxedo suits as well.  I'm sure that none of those plaintiffs are laughing today.

 - I thought this was rather interesting, in an article about the latest attempt by those trying to build a soccer stadium for a Major League Soccer team (the New York City Football Club).  They have turned their sights toward Aqueduct....though whether as a replacement for a razed racetrack or on adjacent Port Authority land is not quite clear.  Of the area, it says here:

Not only has it already been zoned off for entertainment but, as previously stated, the area around the Resort World Casino is in desperate need of rejuvenation. [Empire of Soccer]

Yeah but.....what about.....I thought that the racino was supposed to.......

Oh, nevermind.

No Exit for Genting?

The "public comment events" for the casino bidding is scheduled for this Monday - Wednesday; 12-hour marathons each day, one in each of the regions being considered for a casino or maybe two.  (Or maybe none. The location board is not actually required to site any casinos anywhere.)  The schedule can be found here.  James Odato notes in the Times Union that the hearings are likely to be "contentious."  Hmm, y'think?  Casino Free Tyre has 21 of the five-minute speaking slots booked, and plans to speak about, amongst other things, an old racketeering case involving developer Wilmorite Management Group (the indicted party was eventually acquitted on most of the charges). Save East Greenbush has 32 slots, and will, again amongst other things, reiterate complaints about the process taken by the East Greenbush town board that are the subject of its pending lawsuit.  The union which is in a dispute with Rush Street Gaming will bus some workers from Chicago.  The Sterling Forest Partnership has ten slots; and a group called CasiNo Orange is opposed to all proposed casinos there.  And there will be casino supporters too.

So, the Gaming Commission has established some ground rules to try and keep things from getting too out of hand.

Decorum

Speakers and participants may not disrupt or otherwise attempt to interfere with any individual’s opportunity to speak. Disorderly behavior will not be tolerated.  Speakers engaging in personal attacks, using inflammatory language or failing to confine remarks to the identified subject or business at hand will be cautioned by the Chairman and given the opportunity to conclude remarks within the designated time limit.

Disruptions. Any person making offensive, insulting, threatening, intimidating or obscene remarks, or who becomes unruly during the Public Comment Event, will be requested to leave at the direction of any Board member. If necessary, the Board will request the assistance of law enforcement for the purpose of maintaining safety, order and decorum.

Each of the bidders is required to have at least one representative there....however, the speakers may not "pose comments or questions" to them directly....and the applicants may not make any "public comments" at all.  That sounds odd and rather awkward.....some of the bidders' representatives may feel as if they are sitting in the dock without permission from the judge to respond as the accusations fly.

Meanwhile, Genting has itself a rather major problem in Tuxedo; all over less than 1,000 feet of County Route 106. That section of the road is owned by the Palisades Interstate Parkway Commission [PIPC]; and in a much-anticipated decision, that body voted unanimously to deny access to Genting.

 Access to County Route 106 would help Genting build a new exit — interchange 15B — on the New York State Thruway, by allowing it to connect to Route 17A. That would provide access to the Sterling Forest Resort casino, which would be built on private property. Genting has said that building the casino hinges on building the exit, which would make it easier for an estimated 6.9 million annual visitors to reach the casino without using a longer, more circuitous route. [Times Herald-Record, limited free access]

Here's the problem:

There currently is no exit there off of Route 87 (the NYS Thruway); Route 106 passes underneath and hooks up with 17A.  In addition to a section of the road, the commission also controls Sterling Forest State Park, which would be adjacent to the casino. 

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that in the Palisades Park Commission’s opinion, the proposed development of New York State Thurway Exit 15B, in conjunction with Sterling Forest Resort, is not in accordance with our stewardship mission and the public trust to preserve the scenic beauty, natural resources and public enjoyment of Sterling Forest and Harriman State Parks. — from Palisades Interstate Park Commission Sterling Forest Resort Resolution  [via Sloatsburg Village Local News & Community Life]

So, that's a big issue for Genting.  Other than the Asian baccarat players that they plan to shuttle into Stewart airport in private planes, getting there would be a major issue, enough to make it a no-go; at least that's what Genting has said. The ironic thing is that, according to the Herald-Record, it was just last December that Orange County turned Route 106 over to the PIPC.  DOH!  Now, they might want it back; but the decision stands, and only votes in both the NY and NJ legislatures can reverse it. And while Genting surely has enough money to pay those legislators off mount an effective lobbying campaign, that seems most highly unlikely.  Genting, in an email to the Herald-Record, said:

"By funding the design and construction of a new Thruway Interchange, 15B, and by creating a world-class, destination resort on a currently dilapidated site, Sterling Forest Resort will only expand that opportunity."

I guess we'll see about that.  Genting says they will explore alternate means of building the exit.

 - Interesting article brought to my attention about the Sands casino in Bethlehem, PA.  It is, by far, the most successful casino in Pennsylvania....and they are utilizing a strategy that is a key component of Genting's at Sterling Forest. 

Experts say it's found a niche that hasn't been greatly affected by the economy or competition from the next state. By marketing itself heavily in the Asian neighborhoods of New York, Sands has developed an Asian customer base like few others in the nation. For example, it has 50 tables featuring the Asian-popular game baccarat — more than any other casino in the nation, according to gaming experts.

As a result, more than 50 buses carrying more than 3,000 gamblers from New York neighborhoods of Flushing, Chinatown and Brooklyn flow into the Sands every day. [Morning Call]

Cheaper than flying them in from Beijing too.

 - I wrote a lot here last fall about the "Advocacy Language" that appeared on the ballot for the casino referendum last fall, and the effort by lawyer Eric Snyder to have it altered.  Although those attempts proved to be futile (and the language no doubt had a material effect on the final vote numbers), it appears as if they did not go entirely to waste.  Good government groups are now on the lookout for additional attempts to use ballot language as a campaign tool inside the voting booth; and a court ruling yesterday prevented a similar fiasco. 

In a victory for the segment of good-government groups opposed to the compromise constitutional amendment on redistricting, state Supreme Court Judge Patrick McGrath has ruled that the redistricting commission that would be created by the proposed change “cannot be described as ‘independent’ when eight out of the ten members are the handpicked appointees of the legislative leaders and the two additional members are essentially political appointees by proxy.”
........
The ruling calls on the state Board of Elections to remove the word “independent” from the ballot language. “No adjective preceding the word ‘commission’ is necessary to indicate the subject matter of proposed amendment in a clear and coherent manner,” McGrath wrote. [Capitol Confidential]

The constitutional amendment on the redistricting procedure itself has split good government groups.  It was established in a deal between Governor Cuomo and Senate Republicans by which the latter got their way on redrawing the maps in 2012, despite the governor's prior promises to veto any such partisan drawing of the district lines.  Some feel that the language that bans "partisan gerrymandering" is a sufficient improvement from the current system, in which the process is controlled by the majority party in each chamber.  Others feel that any process which is ultimately controlled by the politicians whose re-election potentially depends on its outcome - as this clearly is - is subject to the usual partisan maneuvering and corruption.  Guess which side I'm on.

NYRA Oversight Board Wants Details on CEO Bonus

Franchise Oversight Board member Steven Newman wants to know the precise basis on which CEO Chris Kay was awarded a $250,000 bonus after a little over a year on the job.  In response, at Monday's meeting of the board, Mr. Kay seemed a bit defensive.  Pointedly mentioning that the board "was appointed by Governor Cuomo and other elected officials," he responded:

"The Board has certain criteria that the chairman of the board communicates to me....and then the chairman has made the determination that I have performed in a fashion being consistent with being eligible and entitled to that bonus."

Sensing the defensive nature of the response, Newman replied: "My purpose is not to dispute the bonus.  My purpose is transparency and disclosure."  And considering the way that Charlie Hayward was skewered for his hesitancy to reveal his own salary when NYRA was a private non-profit entity, this surely seems like a fair request now that NYRA is, as Newman noted, "in essence, a public body." From his statement, it would seem as if Kay is very well aware of exactly what those criteria are.  Yet the matter was left with the FOB having to submit to NYRA a formal written request for the information.  Questioned further on the matter, Kay noted that NYRA Board Chairman Dr. David Skorton "has been an advocate for transparency."

Well, I'm glad somebody around here is.  Because I think it's entirely fair to say that NYRA has not exactly been a beacon of transparency of late.  If it were, then I'd think that they would simply provide the details of the bonus instead of making the FOB go through circles to get it.  And that they would have let us known exactly how they were going to count attendance at Saratoga without a newspaper report forcing their hand (and that they would endeavor to count it accurately).  And that they would have made a choice for Director of Communications other than an industry outsider with a clear history of obfuscating the public with bullshit, and with a hostile attitude towards the working press (including illegally barring some members of the media from an open meeting of the NYRA board).  And that they would announce the attendance figures at Belmont (which they haven't since the fall meet began).  That all seems rather opaque to me.

Interesting to hear Kay explain some of the reasons behind the all-sources handle decline for the Saratoga meet (on-track handle was up). 

Kay attributed the off-track decline to a 19.4% drop in bets on NYRA races through the Del Mar system and a 10.6% decrease at Gulfstream Park, which now races live in July and August. [Bloodhorse]

We figured that Gulfstream had something to do with it.  The magnitude of the Del Mar decline is rather ponderous; the handle on its own races was down by 7.3%.  I wonder if running less races and ending the cards earlier in the day might have been a big factor in that drop considering the fact that it's three hours earlier in the day out there.  After all, it was with an eye towards capturing additional handle from western time zones that NYRA moved post time to 1:20 at Aqueduct and Belmont earlier this year (it's back to 1:05 for now).

 - The Massachusetts state gambling commission awarded the Boston-area casino license to Steve Wynn, who will construct a facility in Everett, over the Mohegan Sun bid at Suffolk Downs.  The track will close. 

“We are extraordinarily disappointed as this action is likely to cost the commonwealth thousands of jobs, small businesses, and family farms,” Suffolk chief operating officer Chip Tuttle said in a statement. “We will be meeting with employees and horsemen over the next several days to talk about how we wind down racing operations as a 79-year legacy of Thoroughbred racing in Massachusetts will be coming to an end, resulting in unemployment and uncertainty for many hardworking people.” [Boston.com]

That sucks.  Have to feel for all of the people that will be affected; the horsemen, workers at the track and farms and related businesses; as well as Chip Tuttle and the team at Suffolk who have worked so hard to try and make things work.  However, one can surely argue that a track that can't survive without being subsidized by a casino isn't truly working.  And remember, the people of East Boston voted against having a casino in their community.  By moving ahead with a plan to build entirely on the portion of the property located in Revere (which approved a referendum), Suffolk was attempting an end-around the voters' wishes.  In East Boston, those who constituted the majority of referendum voters are no doubt thinking that justice ultimately prevailed.

On the other hand, Everett is a town that overwhelmingly approved a casino - some 86% voted yes.  “This is going to be a snowball, getting bigger and bigger,” [Mayor Carlo] DeMaria said.  Perhaps the mayor has missed the memo, which actually has the snowball going in reverse. Or, perhaps Boston, by virtue of its location, will be better isolated from the growing competition than casinos in New York, or the MGM resort planned for Springfield, MA, closer to the NY border (though still over an hour and a half from the Capital District).  We are skeptical, as always.....but hope that things work out for the people there.  (Of course, the entire casino question in the state is once again up before the voters in November.)

Schenectady Casino Bidder Invests in Slots Games For Kiddies

I mentioned the group opposing a casino in Schenectady the other day; haven't really discussed them here before. Their website, Stop the Schenectady Casino, can be found here.

On their homepage now, there's a link to this report about a multi-million dollar investment by Rush Street Gaming, the company that is hoping to build the Rivers Casino and Resort at Mohawk Harbor in the city, in Ruby Seven, a company that is marketing "social gaming"- or casino simulation games - to kids as young as 13 years old.

Ruby Seven games currently being distributed include “Cats Vs. Dogs Slots” featuring big-eyed cartoon cats and dogs in “a FREE to PLAY slots game with the cutest puppies and kittens, hourly bonus coins, and realistic slot machines [capitalization in original],”and a poker game promising to be “simple to learn.”

The game is accessible via Facebook, where it says that the game "is intended for use by those 21 or older for amusement purposes only." However, if you click on the Terms of Service, it reads:

The Service is intended for use by those 21 or older for entertainment purposes only. By using this Service, you declare that you are 13 years old or older. If you are between the ages of 13 and 18, you declare that your legal guardian has reviewed and agrees to these Terms.

Which I'm sure really happens.  (Apple iTunes has changed the rating to 17+.)  Although the games are said to be "free," in fact, as the report explains, this was actually an $8 billion market in 2012. The games come with free chips (or equivalent), but players have to pay up to replenish when they run out, and they can purchase bonuses and upgrades.

The report notes that Ruby Seven seeks to "bridge the space between land-based casinos, onlinegaming and social casinos." And it suggests the obvious; that Rush Street and its partner are attempting to sow the seeds of casino gambling in kids so that they can convert them to paying customers at their casinos, either online or brick-and-mortar, and possibly acquire behavioral information for marketing purposes, for when they reach legal gambling age.  The meticulously-footnoted report cites a study that concludes: "Studies of adult problem gamblers have reported that earlier onset of gambling is a risk factor for problem gambling."  And that's interesting now that I think about it just based on my personal experience.  All of the people I grew up with who later had an issue with gambling were amongst those with whom I went to Roosevelt Raceway back in high school.  (The tracks surely did their part.  In those days, the gambling age here was 21; I would go when I was 16, I looked and sounded more like I was 14, and only once do I ever recall being turned away at the betting windows.)

This report also notes that these game developers can make it easier to win than it is in actual gaming, thereby creating false impressions as to the odds involved; and that the "social network" aspect of the games and the virtual prizes involved can be as equally alluring as the promise of winning money.  It's an interesting read; and again, the link is here.

The report is dated September 9, the day after Rush Street presented for the Schenectady project, and the same day that they presented for the Newburgh casino that they hope to build in partnership with Saratoga harness (as well as for the Greenetrack proposal near Stewart Airport).  During those presentations, Rush Street emphasized the Best Places to Work awards that they earned at their Pennsylvania facilities.  But the very next day, Jim Odato reported in the Times Union that a casino workers union wrote to the Gaming Commission to complain of "illegal harassment by casino managers including threats, surveillance and other intimidation." 

Asked about the union's complaints, Rush Street Chairman Neil Bluhm and CEO Greg Carlin said the company's record speaks for itself. During two days of presentations to the siting board earlier this week, the company emphasized it has won repeated best-employer awards at its three casinos for years.

"We certainly have disputes with companies all the time, but there is nothing like this anywhere else," said Martin Leary, gaming research director for Unite HERE. The union has 275,000 members in hospitality and food service jobs, including about 100,000 casino workers. [Times Union]

The Schenectady group has also posted articles about the proposed casino's proximity to Union College, and the potential danger presented to students who may be lured there.  I actually went to Union, graduating in 19--......well, a long, long time ago.  Not sure what the student body is into there these days; but I don't recall much in the way of on-campus gambling in the form of poker games, etc.,  Back then, in 19--....well, back then, for horseplayers like myself, the Schenectady OTB office was just a short distance away; and around the block from there was Baum's Newsroom, where one could pick up the NY Post (to keep abreast of the Rangers....no PC's then, not to mention the internets) and the Daily Racing Form, probably for a couple of bucks.  And the Saratoga harness track was about a half hour away; we took many a trip there via Route 146 through Clifton Park, probably a couple of times a week when it was open.  The vast majority of students however made the trip to Saratoga to hook up with Skidmore girls (Union had just recently gone co-ed and the male-female ratio was untenable for guys), and I'd guess that the hormonal instinct is still more powerful than the lure of gambling for most students.  However, I don't want to downplay the concerns; I'd imagine that many of the students whose families can afford to send them there probably have a little disposable income available to piss away, and would therefore be likely targets for a casino operator.

 - City & State reports on the financial woes of Caesars, bidding for an Orange County casino in Woodbury, citing "a streak of quarterly losses and a mountain of debt that is projected to lead the company into a major debt restructuring, if not an outright bankruptcy."  The company points out that the NY bid is through an affiliate, Caesars Growth Partners.  CEO Gary Loveman (one of the smoother presenters that we saw last week) told the location board:

“This entity has in excess of a billion dollars of cash today on its balance sheet, it is very lightly levered and therefore has very sound financial circumstances. And this project, Caesars New York, would exist within the Caesars Growth Partners category. This entity would generate more than $200 million to the state of New York and its various local constituencies.”
.....
But that maneuver has angered creditors, who have found themselves saddled with a weaker set of assets while potentially being on the hook for bigger losses if the company goes bankrupt or refinances its debt.  [City & State]

The piece also points out that Caesars was forced to drop its Massachusetts bid (in partnership with Suffolk Downs) in response to a report by state investigators that expressed doubt about the parent company's debt load, as well as a business relationship with a person with alleged ties to Russian organized crime.  The location board did not question the Caesars team about either of those situations; they skirted around the financial issue by asking generally about the situation in Atlantic City, and about the status of their financing.  Which, once again, raises the question of just how much preparation these guys did, or have done, for the task that lies ahead for them.