Comments by dagiacalone
Posted on September 30 at 1:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm concerned that the Gazette has again forgotten to mention the strong Stockade opposition to the casino, which has focused on the traffic issue for the past two months. Instead, you speak with the President of the Stockade Association, who has refused to have a meeting on the casino, which she supports, and talk about a traffic letter that received a few minutes of attention almost as an afterthought at an Association meeting.
Casino opponents collected 126 signatures by Stockade residents on their petition, as compared to the membership of the Association which is under 100, and compared to the 18 people who voted for the "neutrality position" at the September Association meeting.
Had you spoken with us, we would have pointed out, as was stated on August 14 at StopTheSchenectadyCasino.com, that the Applicant's traffic study predicted casino patrons would generate 681 new vehicular trips during morning peak rush hour and 1,615 new trips during evening peak rush hour, not 680 during the day and 1615 at night, as your article states. In fact, the traffic report states that the peak rush hour numbers are those at the peak of the nearby roads, and that the casino's even higher peak numbers come at different hours (which are never discussed in the Report).
The Table from the Traffic Report with the trip generation numbers can be found at this webpage:
It is strange that after 40 years of constant worry about traffic from development, the "leaders" of the East Front Street Neighborhood Association "don't mind the traffic" from the casino. Yes, Front St. will get the traffic, and two-thirds of Front Street is very narrow and runs through a very densely populated portion of the Stockade neighborhood. For photos and description of the traffic problem likely to be created by the casino, see
Finally, the Casino's access plan has an arrow directing exiting traffic west up Front St. If that is any indication of the good working relationship between the casino Applicant and the Stockade Association, perhaps we are lucky the Association has decided to disarm itself and abandon its role of protecting the residential nature of the Stockade.
Posted on September 27 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can find 50 photos from the 2014 Walkabout here
Posted on September 23 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for correcting that headline. As much as Schenectady County might feel at times like a dictatorship, "New Schenectady County Legislature named" did not seem correct.
Posted on September 23 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It is disappointing that Schenectady's "newspaper of record" does not mention that there was opposition to the Schenectady Casino at yesterday's event. Readers can find the 20-page Statement explaining our opposition, which was submitted yesterday to the Location Board by Stop the Schenectady Casino, along with links to attachments, at
Posted on September 22 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you trying to confuse us? The headline needs a bit of an edit.
Posted on September 21 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stop the Schenectady Casino campaign is about much more than preserving the livability of the Stockade, as important as that goal is. See more at
Posted on September 11 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for showing your concern, Tom. If Rush Street is willing to invest millions to become the industry leader in luring children from social media into real-world casinos, I wonder what it will be willing to do to lure Union College undergraduates across the street to the old ALCO site.
From: Viewpoint: Too Tempting?
Posted on September 11 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Was Joe anticipating this promotion when he gave his strong support to the Schenectady casino, despite the fact that in November 2013 every single one of the Town's 20 election districts voted against casinos, with 61% of Niskayuna voters saying No to Proposition One and only 35.4% saying Yes? As a lifelong Democrat, I am tired of being embarrassed by the tactics of Party Leaders. It would be great if Joe Landry started giving Democrats outside the Party's inner circle reasons to stay in the Party. A good start might be letting elected officials vote without constant fear of Party retribution for disagreeing with its "leadership". Saying "no" to Gov. Cuomo when his desires hurt our County would be another move in the right direction.
Majority support for Zephyr Teachout in this week's Primary was not merely a vote against Andrew Cuomo. It was also a message to the County Democratic Party, as was the election of Jill Polk to Family Court over the Party's designated candidate.
Posted on September 9 at 10:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm sorry to hear the Location Board does not believe there is any opposition to the Schenectady Casino. I guess the Board doesn't read newspapers. Stop the Schenectady Casino [stoptheschenectadycasino.com] has not filed any lawsuits because we have not seen any issues we believe are colorable (much less winnable) at this point, given the Schenectady fact situation. It is not illegal to tell half-truths and mislead the public, nor for local politicians to accept promises without doing meaningful research, and to chase new revenues without regard to a casino's effects on the community.
Rather than send the Board email messages that are short on facts and only give conclusions, we plan to make a thorough written submission, along with our presentation on Sept. 22 to the Board. We asked for a reserved time slot for the representative of Stop the Schenectady Casino, and they gave us one more than a week ago for 10:00 to 10:05 AM on the 22nd.
It was amusing to hear Rush Street Gaming say twice that one of the benefits of its project is that "you can bicycle to Buffalo" from Mohawk Harbor. I hope the other promises and projections they have made are more meaningful to the average citizen of Schenectady.
In touting their record, they also stated that there was only supposed to be one casino licensed for Philadelphia. Every other account i have read says that the PA Legislature voted to have two casinos in Philadelphia, which RSG knew when it applied for a license. The other license was withdrawn when the development team could not get financing. Despite that, RSG's revenues its first year were 33% less than they had projected. And, they loss when they recently went to court to keep the Gaming Commission from re-issuing the second license. They predict dire results for their Philadelphia SugarHouse Casino if there ever is a second casino.
Posted on September 9 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Public statement? How optimistic of you, Crane. The OpEd piece has not moved anyone at Union College to respond privately to my messages to them (not the President's Office, not the counseling center, not the Faith center, not the Parents coordinator). As yet, no office has even sent an acknowledgement that the inquiry was received, unless you count an automatic message saying the President's assistant had left for another job; naturally, the person I was referred to did not respond either.
From: Viewpoint: Too Tempting?