From No East Greenbush Casino

Just got my second copy of Casino Journal (courtesy of the the Republican Chair, I think).  It's chock full of ideas as to how relieve people of their cash.  But I think it's time to focus on what the Capital View people are trying to pull off with regard to the zoning issue.  The way I see it, if you accept their interpretation of the Gaming Law, a casino with all amenities could over-ride all local zoning laws in every municipality in the State of New York.  They could even put one on Langley Lane or Werking Road without much trouble.  Here's an analysis of the issue from "No East Greenbush Casino" with more to come.  Let's get the discussion started.



"* § 1366. Zoning. Notwithstanding any inconsistent provision of law, gaming authorized at a location pursuant to this article shall be deemed an approved activity for such location under the relevant city, county, town, or village land use or zoning ordinances, rules, or regulations.

This is why we were at the Legion Hall last night, to help the Town's Zoning Board interpret this section of the 2013 New York Consolidated Laws
PML - Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, Article 13 - DESTINATION RESORT GAMING Title 8 - (1364 - 1367) MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS, 1366 - Zoning.

That's the clumsy full reference. In case you were wondering what the ZBA's role in this was, read this from the Town's web site: "The Town of East Greenbush Comprehensive Zoning Law, latest revision June 11, 2008 was adopted to promote and effectuate the orderly physical development in the town in accordance with the Town’s Comprehensive Master Plan. The law addresses the use of property, whether residential, commercial or industrial, including but not limited to: buildings, additions, parking areas, driveways, signs, sheds, garages, swimming pools, decks, gazebos, and major landscaping. The ordinance is administered daily and enforced by the Department of Building and Development. All interpretation questions, variances, and special use permits are handled by the Board of Appeals."

Bottom line, as Acting Chairman Thomas Calamaras repeatedly reiterated, we were there to help the Board resolve the apparent conflict between the State's Gaming Law and the Town's revised, 6 year old Zoning Law. Call me simple, but even a 6 year old can see what the issue here is: Albany Attorney Tom West, of the West Law Firm (specializing in Real Estate Development, Oil and Gas, Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Corporate and Business Development, and yes, Public Integrity) contends that it only makes sense that the Gaming Act intends that a casino, with all it's attendant and required amenities (bars, restaurants, 500 square foot retail spaces, parking garages, 3-star boutique hotels, child care centers, etc.) is pre-authorized to plop a destination casino relying on locals for 90% of its revenues anywhere it damn well pleases, including the woods or fields right next to or behind your house, regardless of local zoning laws. Ask yourself: does this really make sense? That's the issue at stake, the issue the Zoning Board wants your help interpreting.

I know that most of you are not attorneys, and that even if you were there would be some disagreement with Tom West's position. In fact, we heard from at least three lawyers last night whose interpretations of Section 1366 varied wildly from Tom West's position. There were about twenty or more other people who aren't attorneys who likewise took issue with Tom West's position, and each of them made more sense to me than Tom West. Using his logic, the developer, with the Town's blessing, could have sited this casino at the Town Park. It's pretty there, with natural beauty and a body of polluted water the Town can't or won't fix, and there's plenty of land. What a wonderful community asset. Millions of investment dollars could make that place shine! There's also two housing developments right at the top of the hill, but no worries- Section 1366 allows it. What about the huge parcel of land adjacent to the High School on the North and East sides?

What if the land owner wanted to put it there? Great place for it, actually, since Capital View has already promised us community soccer fields and lower school taxes (a promise disputed by Superintendent Nagle). They could rename the school Capital View High. Section 1366 trumps all other laws, so why not? Or that big tract of land next to the cemetery along the South side of 3rd Ave Extension, right across the road from that big housing development. Could it go there? According to Mr. West YES, even there! Here, there, anywhere under Section 1366. The unmarked dead, back in the woods under generations of dead leaves, would certainly not protest, though the living living in nearby condos might. But it wouldn't matter: 1366 allows it! Pick a pack of parcels anywhere in Town big enough to accommodate a $300 million casino (Hard Rock proved you can do it on as little as 24 acres) and imagine a casino there. Mr. West says it can be done under Section 1366 of the law.

Now take your pretend lawyer cap off for a minute and think like a reasonable adult: is this really what 1366 is getting at, or is it merely saying that a casino can now legally go (remember, casinos were not lawful before last year) wherever those needed amenities are already allowed or where the community is willing to rezone to allow those uses? In other words, every other proposed site in the Capital District except ours? "Notwithstanding." Can't get past it with 1366. It's "Nothard." Even a six year old can see that."