Friday, May 23, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Let Your Voice Be Heard!! II
As promised, here's a link to an on-line Petition addressed to the casino siting board. Here's a chance to tell that Board AND the Town Board that you don't appreciate the shady business associated with the way that the dubious "invitation" was extended to casino developers. There's a comment section on the petition too, so have at it.
http://chn.ge/1v4SAei
There's a "hot" link to the Petition on the right. Just click on "Petition against The Casino at East Greenbush"
http://chn.ge/1v4SAei
There's a "hot" link to the Petition on the right. Just click on "Petition against The Casino at East Greenbush"
Monday, May 12, 2014
An Astute Comment from a Regular Reader...
This "comment" came in as a comment on the previous Thread, but is too long to post as a comment. It needs to be read,
I think
there are a couple of items to keep in mind while opposing the casino.
As you read this, please note that I am not opposed to siting a casino
in Rensselaer County, nor am I opposed to casino gambling. I understand
the impact it can have on a community and as such, am confident that it
is not a good fit for this particular location, but on the whole, I am
in favor of casinos.
Where East Greenbush is concerned, I am curious if people would be AS outraged if this proposal was made for acreage, if there was a sufficiently large enough parcel, on East Greenbush lands along the riverfront in an industrial zone. My gut says that people would be far less outraged. My point is that it is the specific location, in the heart of the town in a residential area that has inspired a number of those opposed to be vocal. We are agreed that the manner in which the vote was taken by the Town Board was wrong and that public opinion absolutely should have been sought. Moreover, the casino developers knew full well the deadlines and timelines for a proposal. They knew Saratoga was opposed and did not act for a site here in East Greenbush until the very last minute. If any one of us were to make a last minute appeal to the board for a resolution to get something we wanted, we would likely be told we have to wait until the next meeting and to schedule to be on THAT agenda. THAT is what the casino people should have been told. When they noted that they had specific time constraints, the appropriate answer was, I'm terribly sorry, you should have known better. Our government should not be made to jump through hoops to pacify the whims of educated people well versed at the development process... certainly not the likes of someone like James Featherstonaugh.
Couple of things to consider here as you make your case to oppose, and again, keep in mind I am not entirely opposed, but any good debate deserves its day in court and this effort will not succeed based on emotion, innuendo or speculation. It requires valid arguments that will be considered by the gaming board. Among them are:
1.) Economic need. East Greenbush is considered, for all intent and purposes, an affluent community. Just because we are 2 million dollars in debt, doesn't not mean we are an economically challenged community. Certainly Rensselaer has a much greater need for development than East Greenbush.
2.) There is a conflict of interest component to the decision that should not and can not be ignored. James Featherstonaugh has represented a number of people at the very top of State government including both Cuomo's, Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver, Dennis Vacco. Whereas Governor Cuomo appoints the members of the gaming board, there is a conflict of interest between him and the individual who assembles the board. Beyond that, the East greenbush town board has Sue Mangold as a member who voted in favor of the resolution. Her brother Brian is building a house on adjacent property. If Brian Hart or any of his partners is involved in any way, with the LLC involved in the casino siting, there is a clear conflict of interest for her in her vote and could have influenced the decision of other board members to vote differently. That relationship needs to be clear, exposed and if it exists, the vote should be nullified and brought up again the proper way.
3.) SEQRA is going to be required for any project because it involves Federal data as well as local. There may not be enough time to properly complete the long form Environmental assessment forms required and address any of the concerns. Certainly, in that location, traffic will be a concern. Moreover, we are in the middle of a project to upgrade our infrastructure and our sewer plant to be able to adequately treat all of our existing effluent. We need to have projections done on the ability to handle all of our historic effluent PLUS existing projects in the works and then evaluate the impact of a $150 million dollar casino operation as well as the potential spin off development that might occur as a result.
4.) There is an existing agreement with the Oneida Indians to respect a distance from the Turning Stone casino. For that reason, a casino license could not be considered in Syracuse. Depending on what that distance is, it may dramatically limit the regions or locations for a casino. For instance, Howe Caverns may be too close, but Rensselaer may be far enough away. Certainly East Greenbush would be as well. We need to know the parameters for the siting criteria so we can all identify where a casino can legitimately go and then evaluate those sites independently. If East Greenbush is among the few potential municipalities that can site a casino, perhaps a broader look at the qualified sites is in order.
5.) Schodack has been asked, in the same manner as East Greenbush, to support the casino proposal in East Greenbush. Remember that the East Greenbush proposal comes with an option to purchase the Evergreen Golf course as an auxiliary portion of the proposal. If Schodack agrees, it could possibly put other sites in play in Schodack, so how the Schodack Town Boards drafts their resolution could dramatically alter the proposal submitted. The casino ADJACENT to the golf course makes much more sense than several miles away. Remember, the initial application was not for a definite parcel, it was for the potential operators to be identified. Operators can still shift to a location better suited for the siting criteria.
At the end of the day, our ire is likely more at the way the Town Board handled this than the reality of what is to come. Based on the siting criteria, if the gaming board sticks to what it has identified, East Greenbush is not the spot. That doesn't exonerate the board from making a hasty decision, but it does implore residents to make them fully aware of some of the variables that effect the decision. The county supporting casino gambling within the county is to promote economic development in a community within their jurisdiction that embraces it and NEEDS it. For the individual municipality to extrapolate a yes vote to mean anywhere is absurd. The siting board should be well aware and I doubt they will force this down anyone's throat, especially if it has long standing consequences for the Governor or anyone who helps site the casino where it is not truly welcome. As a Rensselaer County resident, it's hard to argue that on the riverfront in Rensselaer is NOT a good location. It might not be a bad idea for those oppose to be willing to acknowledge that opposition is not universal, but in the interest of the best location with the highest and best potential for success. One thing is for sure, a casino is coming to the capital region. It should be at the location best suited for that kind of development and given the data to date... that location does not appear to be on Thompson Hill.
Where East Greenbush is concerned, I am curious if people would be AS outraged if this proposal was made for acreage, if there was a sufficiently large enough parcel, on East Greenbush lands along the riverfront in an industrial zone. My gut says that people would be far less outraged. My point is that it is the specific location, in the heart of the town in a residential area that has inspired a number of those opposed to be vocal. We are agreed that the manner in which the vote was taken by the Town Board was wrong and that public opinion absolutely should have been sought. Moreover, the casino developers knew full well the deadlines and timelines for a proposal. They knew Saratoga was opposed and did not act for a site here in East Greenbush until the very last minute. If any one of us were to make a last minute appeal to the board for a resolution to get something we wanted, we would likely be told we have to wait until the next meeting and to schedule to be on THAT agenda. THAT is what the casino people should have been told. When they noted that they had specific time constraints, the appropriate answer was, I'm terribly sorry, you should have known better. Our government should not be made to jump through hoops to pacify the whims of educated people well versed at the development process... certainly not the likes of someone like James Featherstonaugh.
Couple of things to consider here as you make your case to oppose, and again, keep in mind I am not entirely opposed, but any good debate deserves its day in court and this effort will not succeed based on emotion, innuendo or speculation. It requires valid arguments that will be considered by the gaming board. Among them are:
1.) Economic need. East Greenbush is considered, for all intent and purposes, an affluent community. Just because we are 2 million dollars in debt, doesn't not mean we are an economically challenged community. Certainly Rensselaer has a much greater need for development than East Greenbush.
2.) There is a conflict of interest component to the decision that should not and can not be ignored. James Featherstonaugh has represented a number of people at the very top of State government including both Cuomo's, Joe Bruno, Sheldon Silver, Dennis Vacco. Whereas Governor Cuomo appoints the members of the gaming board, there is a conflict of interest between him and the individual who assembles the board. Beyond that, the East greenbush town board has Sue Mangold as a member who voted in favor of the resolution. Her brother Brian is building a house on adjacent property. If Brian Hart or any of his partners is involved in any way, with the LLC involved in the casino siting, there is a clear conflict of interest for her in her vote and could have influenced the decision of other board members to vote differently. That relationship needs to be clear, exposed and if it exists, the vote should be nullified and brought up again the proper way.
3.) SEQRA is going to be required for any project because it involves Federal data as well as local. There may not be enough time to properly complete the long form Environmental assessment forms required and address any of the concerns. Certainly, in that location, traffic will be a concern. Moreover, we are in the middle of a project to upgrade our infrastructure and our sewer plant to be able to adequately treat all of our existing effluent. We need to have projections done on the ability to handle all of our historic effluent PLUS existing projects in the works and then evaluate the impact of a $150 million dollar casino operation as well as the potential spin off development that might occur as a result.
4.) There is an existing agreement with the Oneida Indians to respect a distance from the Turning Stone casino. For that reason, a casino license could not be considered in Syracuse. Depending on what that distance is, it may dramatically limit the regions or locations for a casino. For instance, Howe Caverns may be too close, but Rensselaer may be far enough away. Certainly East Greenbush would be as well. We need to know the parameters for the siting criteria so we can all identify where a casino can legitimately go and then evaluate those sites independently. If East Greenbush is among the few potential municipalities that can site a casino, perhaps a broader look at the qualified sites is in order.
5.) Schodack has been asked, in the same manner as East Greenbush, to support the casino proposal in East Greenbush. Remember that the East Greenbush proposal comes with an option to purchase the Evergreen Golf course as an auxiliary portion of the proposal. If Schodack agrees, it could possibly put other sites in play in Schodack, so how the Schodack Town Boards drafts their resolution could dramatically alter the proposal submitted. The casino ADJACENT to the golf course makes much more sense than several miles away. Remember, the initial application was not for a definite parcel, it was for the potential operators to be identified. Operators can still shift to a location better suited for the siting criteria.
At the end of the day, our ire is likely more at the way the Town Board handled this than the reality of what is to come. Based on the siting criteria, if the gaming board sticks to what it has identified, East Greenbush is not the spot. That doesn't exonerate the board from making a hasty decision, but it does implore residents to make them fully aware of some of the variables that effect the decision. The county supporting casino gambling within the county is to promote economic development in a community within their jurisdiction that embraces it and NEEDS it. For the individual municipality to extrapolate a yes vote to mean anywhere is absurd. The siting board should be well aware and I doubt they will force this down anyone's throat, especially if it has long standing consequences for the Governor or anyone who helps site the casino where it is not truly welcome. As a Rensselaer County resident, it's hard to argue that on the riverfront in Rensselaer is NOT a good location. It might not be a bad idea for those oppose to be willing to acknowledge that opposition is not universal, but in the interest of the best location with the highest and best potential for success. One thing is for sure, a casino is coming to the capital region. It should be at the location best suited for that kind of development and given the data to date... that location does not appear to be on Thompson Hill.
Saturday, May 10, 2014
Don't confuse us with facts....Our "mind's" already made up...
Jack Conway made a comment on another thread to the effect that the Town Board did not do its "due diligence" on the Casino decision. They did not educate themselves as to the effect that the decision might have on the community. They bought the "hype" of those who would benefit from the activity without questioning at all the possible problems which the decision would bring.
An East Greenbush resident who I've never met began asking questions of the Board almost immediately after its Casino decision became public as to what research the Board had done to educate itself. The e-mail exchange below indicates that the Board did nothing to educate itself, but drank the Kool-Aid supplied by the Casino developer.
What's scary is the fact that the Board has refused to reconsider its position, even in the face of the presentation of massive amounts of information. I finally got this from a Board member last night: "We were elected to represent the populace of EG. Who do we think we are? We think we're the majority. Accept it, Don." I think I heard Mr. Malone say something similar sometime back.
Vapid patronizing paternalism is exactly what we don't need from the Town Board on any question. We've got a real problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Ann Matters <mamatters@verizon.net>
To: (EG Resident)
Sent: Mon, May 5, 2014 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
(EG Resident) wrote:
Dear Ms. Matters,
Thank you for responding to my email. I sincerely hope any meeting includes a Town Board presentation regarding their position on a casino in East Greenbush. If the meeting is only a presentation by the developer, that would be insufficient information for the public. I would appreciate information on the research that has been reviewed by the town board regarding the effects of casinos on community economics.
I am opposed to a casino in East Greenbush. I have included links to important information reinforcing my position that a casino is a short-sighted source of revenue and will ultimately lead to economic and non-economic consequences that will change the character of our community.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/pb19gamb.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/06/from_atlantic_city_to_cincinna.php#.U2eFKKIf2EVhttp://
www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/360/AcademicArticles/JHE.pdf
An East Greenbush resident who I've never met began asking questions of the Board almost immediately after its Casino decision became public as to what research the Board had done to educate itself. The e-mail exchange below indicates that the Board did nothing to educate itself, but drank the Kool-Aid supplied by the Casino developer.
What's scary is the fact that the Board has refused to reconsider its position, even in the face of the presentation of massive amounts of information. I finally got this from a Board member last night: "We were elected to represent the populace of EG. Who do we think we are? We think we're the majority. Accept it, Don." I think I heard Mr. Malone say something similar sometime back.
Vapid patronizing paternalism is exactly what we don't need from the Town Board on any question. We've got a real problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Ann Matters <mamatters@verizon.net>
To: (EG Resident)
Sent: Mon, May 5, 2014 5:51 pm
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
Good afternoon, (EG Resident).
I found the quote by the Depty. Secty for Gaming and Racing to be interesting. I don't think it's true so I'll check into it further. The Town Board expressed their position on a casino when we voted unanimously (5-0) to support the siting of a casino in EG and to allow for the presentation of proposals. If the state siting board chooses EG, Saratoga Casino and Raceway (i.e. the developer) will build on the (Thompson Hill) property they have already purchased. While there are many differences of opinion about the effect of a casino on a community, it would seem by the wide-spread polling that at least as many people are for it as an entertainment venue as there are against it, and considering the shape of the town, why not have EG benefit from the revenues if a casino could sited as close to us as Albany? There are practical considerations that can't be ignored. The developer will be making presentations to all who are interested. The dates and times will be posted on the website. However, your opposition to the casino has been duly noted.
I found the quote by the Depty. Secty for Gaming and Racing to be interesting. I don't think it's true so I'll check into it further. The Town Board expressed their position on a casino when we voted unanimously (5-0) to support the siting of a casino in EG and to allow for the presentation of proposals. If the state siting board chooses EG, Saratoga Casino and Raceway (i.e. the developer) will build on the (Thompson Hill) property they have already purchased. While there are many differences of opinion about the effect of a casino on a community, it would seem by the wide-spread polling that at least as many people are for it as an entertainment venue as there are against it, and considering the shape of the town, why not have EG benefit from the revenues if a casino could sited as close to us as Albany? There are practical considerations that can't be ignored. The developer will be making presentations to all who are interested. The dates and times will be posted on the website. However, your opposition to the casino has been duly noted.
Mary Ann
(EG Resident) wrote:
Thank you for responding to my email. I sincerely hope any meeting includes a Town Board presentation regarding their position on a casino in East Greenbush. If the meeting is only a presentation by the developer, that would be insufficient information for the public. I would appreciate information on the research that has been reviewed by the town board regarding the effects of casinos on community economics.
I am opposed to a casino in East Greenbush. I have included links to important information reinforcing my position that a casino is a short-sighted source of revenue and will ultimately lead to economic and non-economic consequences that will change the character of our community.
http://www.itep.org/pdf/pb19gamb.pdf
http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2012/06/from_atlantic_city_to_cincinna.php#.U2eFKKIf2EVhttp://
www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/360/AcademicArticles/JHE.pdf
Please note that in a letter to the editor of the Times Union published today:
"Municipalities can demand full disclosure of the backers of a casino and the entire scope of the casino project. They have a veto that cannot be overriden. In short, they have unfettered authority over casino approvals." Bennett Liebman Albany, Deputy secretary for Gaming and Racing.
Please VETO the casino in East Greenbush.
Sincerely,
(EG Resident)
"Municipalities can demand full disclosure of the backers of a casino and the entire scope of the casino project. They have a veto that cannot be overriden. In short, they have unfettered authority over casino approvals." Bennett Liebman Albany, Deputy secretary for Gaming and Racing.
Please VETO the casino in East Greenbush.
Sincerely,
(EG Resident)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Ann Matters <mamatters@verizon.net>
To: (EG Resident)>; klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: ddimartino <ddimartino@eastgreenbush.org>; pmalone <pmalone@eastgreenbush.org>; smangold <smangold@eastgreenbush.org>; mamatters <mamatters@eastgreenbush.org>; egilbert <egilbert@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Thu, May 1, 2014 6:57 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
(EG Resident) wrote:
From: Mary Ann Matters <mamatters@verizon.net>
To: (EG Resident)>; klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: ddimartino <ddimartino@eastgreenbush.org>; pmalone <pmalone@eastgreenbush.org>; smangold <smangold@eastgreenbush.org>; mamatters <mamatters@eastgreenbush.org>; egilbert <egilbert@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Thu, May 1, 2014 6:57 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
Dear (EG Resident),
Please keep your eye on the town's website for dates and times of scheduled presentations about a possible casino siting in East Greenbush. At that time, residents will be afforded the opportunity to ask their questions and voice their concerns.
Thank you.
Mary Ann Matters
Please keep your eye on the town's website for dates and times of scheduled presentations about a possible casino siting in East Greenbush. At that time, residents will be afforded the opportunity to ask their questions and voice their concerns.
Thank you.
Mary Ann Matters
(EG Resident) wrote:
Dear Supervisor Langley and members of the town board,
Again, I urge you to schedule a community meeting or public forum to discuss the proposed Casino in East Greenbush.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/211629/few-questions-some-anxieties-from-casino-hopefuls/
Again, I urge you to schedule a community meeting or public forum to discuss the proposed Casino in East Greenbush.
http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/211629/few-questions-some-anxieties-from-casino-hopefuls/
Sincerely,
(EG Resident)
(EG Resident)
-----Original Message-----
From: (EG Resident)>
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>; pmalone <pmalone@eastgreenbush.org>; smangold <smangold@eastgreenbush.org>; mamatters <mamatters@eastgreenbush.org>; egilbert <egilbert@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
From: (EG Resident)>
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>; pmalone <pmalone@eastgreenbush.org>; smangold <smangold@eastgreenbush.org>; mamatters <mamatters@eastgreenbush.org>; egilbert <egilbert@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 30, 2014 9:58 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
Dear Supervisor Langley,
I urge you to schedule a community meeting or public forum to
discuss the proposed Casino in East Greenbush. Please do not ignore the
need for the community to receive accurate information from the town
and/or the developer. Please do not wait until the town board meeting
on May 21, 2014
Please recognize that there are 11,234 registered voters in the
town of East Greenbush. The number of voters who participated in the
November 2013 election was only 5,014 (44.6%). Out of that 5,014 only
2,453 people voted YES to Prop 1; there were 2,271 people who voted NO
and 291 people did not answer the question. The difference in votes
between YES and NO is only 183. With this slim margin, I urge you and
the town board to meet with the public specifically to address the
proposed casino and how it will alter the character of the community.
I have not had the opportunity to speak with you so I will let you know that I am opposed to a casino.
My reasons are multiple, and I have done a literature review and have
statistics that would confirm my opposition. I would be happy to share
sources with you and the town board.
Sincerely,
(EG Resident)
-----Original Message-----
From: (EG Resident)
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 9:48 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
From: (EG Resident)
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Wed, Apr 23, 2014 9:48 am
Subject: Re: Website update and Literature review
Dear Supervisor Langley,
Could you please let me know when the town of East Greenbush will
have a public presentation of the plans for the proposed casino? My
only information is coming from the local media, I would like the town
and/or the developers to provide information.
Thank you,
(EG Resident)
-----Original Message-----
From: (EG Resident)
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 1:49 pm
Subject: Website update and Literature review
From: (EG Resident)
To: klangley <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: DDiMartino <DDiMartino@eastgreenbush.org>
Sent: Mon, Apr 21, 2014 1:49 pm
Subject: Website update and Literature review
Dear Supervisor Langley,
Could you please give me information on when the Town of East
Greenbush website will be updated with information about the resolution
regarding casino development?
Also, could you please let me know who on the town board has done
research on the effects of casinos on community economics? If possible,
could I receive a list of the research that has informed the town board?
Sincerely,
(EG Resident)Sunday, May 4, 2014
No questions.... No comments...... Just shut up and let us govern....
Such was the "mantra" of the current Town administration, delivered to persons labeled as "reformers" soon after Mr. Langley took office. The message was delivered in various locations by various persons - Ed Gilbert's back yard, DeFruscio's basement, the Gateway Diner (so we wouldn't be seen).
Well, with the delivery of the slick "The Casino at East Greenbush" piece to our homes yesterday, we've seen the very worst that this kind of paternalism can bring to a community. It's sickening. And the Board - the entire Board - should be ashamed of itself. It looks like they have no clue as to what they fell for. The gambling/casino industry makes its money off of selling the get-rich-quick illusion. Well, the Board and Kathy Jimino and her henchmen fell for the illusion.
There may have been other factors at work too. The usual ones around here. Looks like some of the insiders may have made some quick bucks on the transactions. I have heard that the Planning Board was in on some of it. That would explain the continued lack of intervention by those responsible for the continued construction on Thompson Hill even in the face of no Plat approval. And who are the "principals" of those corporations who passed the land to the casino corporation? That one could be very revealing.
As Jack Conway has stated elsewhere, the Board failed in its responsibility of due diligence. I'll go further, this is a case of active breach of faith. No member is qualified to hold office because they actively excluded the public from the most important decision to EVER hit this community. Their moral compasses have no magnets. Fools.
Well, with the delivery of the slick "The Casino at East Greenbush" piece to our homes yesterday, we've seen the very worst that this kind of paternalism can bring to a community. It's sickening. And the Board - the entire Board - should be ashamed of itself. It looks like they have no clue as to what they fell for. The gambling/casino industry makes its money off of selling the get-rich-quick illusion. Well, the Board and Kathy Jimino and her henchmen fell for the illusion.
There may have been other factors at work too. The usual ones around here. Looks like some of the insiders may have made some quick bucks on the transactions. I have heard that the Planning Board was in on some of it. That would explain the continued lack of intervention by those responsible for the continued construction on Thompson Hill even in the face of no Plat approval. And who are the "principals" of those corporations who passed the land to the casino corporation? That one could be very revealing.
As Jack Conway has stated elsewhere, the Board failed in its responsibility of due diligence. I'll go further, this is a case of active breach of faith. No member is qualified to hold office because they actively excluded the public from the most important decision to EVER hit this community. Their moral compasses have no magnets. Fools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)