Comments by dagiacalone
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 The other license was withdrawn when the development team could not get financing.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?
Posted on September 9 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I just went to the County Board of Elections webpage to find out when the polls open, and it says "Primary Election: to be announced." No date, no time.
Posted on September 8 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Many thanks to the Gazette for quickly letting your readers know Friday afternoon that the Show was postponed until Sunday. It was a beautiful day and Show.
Thanks for sending Stacey to photograph the event. Her Gallery is great, as usual.
You can see all of the winning artists and their work at
And 80 more photos from the Show at
Posted on September 1 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Correction: It was the President of the Union Graduate College, Laura Schweitzer, and not the Dean, who nominated Dave Buicko for this year's YMCA Community Hero award and praised the Mohawk Harbor project.
From: Viewpoint: Too Tempting?
Posted on August 22 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Poor Kathleen Moore, she has to cover another City Hall deja vu, with a seemingly easy-to-fix problem continuing at City Hall. See, for example, “Businesses want workers to use city lot: Jay Street spaces occupied all day,” by Kathleen Moore, March 14, 2008. At
How hard would it be to crack down on City employees who park on Jay Street and at meters around City Hall? Beyond internal discipline, why not ask the SPD Parking Division to enforce the rule, still on the books, that you may not keep feeding a meter (or kiosk) in order to stay pass the hourly maximum time limit set for that location? Someone at City Hall can surely lend SPD some chalk to mark the tires.
Two questions for the Mayor, who City Council crowned as Kiosk King and Parking Meter Czar last year: Who set his discounted $25 a month fee for parking around City Hall? (By the way, that's only 25 hours worth of parking at his newly-installed kiosks.) And, are you receiving a mileage expense reimbursement for driving your own car?
Clearly, when the Mayor went door to door on Jay Street in June asking shop owners to support his Casino, they should have pushed a bit harder for a crackdown on City employees taking up all the street parking spaces.
Posted on August 18 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
A patrol officer on foot at any corner with a traffic light or stop sign would more than pay for his salary by ticketing people talking on handheld cellphones.
Posted on August 16 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Environmental Impact Statements aren't usually humorous, but I had to smile to read at page 18 of the SEIS that "Elements of the architecture [of the amended proposal] take into account the Stockade Historic District."
If you're wondering about the RPI nuclear reactor, the SEIS says at p. 22 the "The Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute owns and operates an existing building on site which is used as a teaching center for their nuclear engineering curriculum. For the foreseeable future, this teaching center will remain and aesthetic improvements will be made to the building and surrounding area to visually improve and screen the facility."
Posted on August 15 at 12:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it that Zephyr Teachout has figured out the casino scam, but our local politicians are playing Hear-No-See-No-Speak-No Evil? Thanks, Zephyr. I couldn't have said it better myself, and I've spent the past three months trying to Stop the Schenectady Casino.
Posted on August 5 at 1:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The RPI reactor is not a secret and certainly could not have stayed hidden from the Location Board. Much more worrisome is the fact Rush Street Gaming [RSG] asked that some very important answers be kept from the public that would appear to have little or no truly sensitive information, or that could have easily been partially redacted, leaving useful information available to the public. The fact that the Gaming Commission's Location Board has permitted the requested redactions certainly does bring into question its notion of transparency, its definition of sensitive information or competitive disadvantage under FOIL, and whether it sees its job as protecting the public interest or the casinos' interests.
Examples of topics totally redacted that are important to many segments of the public are: a) RSG's Market Analysis, including its projected revenue from out-of-state customers. b) Job Promises -- how many jobs it is promising to ensure at the opening of the casino, and how many would be high-quality jobs. c) its Target Market Segments (i.e., is it going after senior citizens, undergraduates from across the street and across state lines, customers who come monthly or 4 times a week, etc.?). d) The terms of the agreement it has made with the Fair Trade theater coalition to limit its competition with those large entertainment and cultural venues, including what exclusivity arrangements it has made as to territories and types of entertainment where it would not compete with Proctors or other nearby venues; what kind of joint ticketing and marketing it has accepted, and what maximum or minimum ticket prices or discounts RSG has accepted.
Such information could be crucial in deciding just how good a deal Schenectady and the County are getting in exchange for their support, which segments of the leisure services market should fear casino competition, whether consumers are likely to suffer higher ticket prices at entertainment venues, and which vulnerable groups will be targeted as easy marks. It is "sensitive" only to the extent that it could embarrass Rush Street Gaming, its business partners, and its development cheerleaders.