Comments by dagiacalone

Previous | Page 3 of 15 | Next

Posted on August 1 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Jimoconnor, Galesi has said they will continue with Mohawk Harbor (marina, condos, stores, grocery, hotel, etc.), with plans to spend $200 million, if there is no casino. If the casino fails, Cark Erikson told me three weeks ago that there would really be no problem as it could readily be transformed into top-level office space, which is much needed in Schenectady.

From: Commission releases more Schenectady casino application details

Posted on July 31 at 11:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Haley and the Gazette will do a more thorough job tomorrow, but I got through a quick review before the Applications went offline, and you can see a brief run-down on important points from the Application for the Schenectady Casino at this webpage:
You will probably be disappointed at how much information that we'd like to know is redacted, giving us nothing but blank space or black splotches. However, I did capture a look at the actual casino building.

From: Gaming Commission posts, removes casino proposals from website

Posted on July 2 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Fair Game has also reached agreement with seven applicants in the two other Upstate regions where casino licenses will be granted in the Fall. Therefore, the "FairGame" Coalition (Concert Cartel?) may end up achieving joint booking and venue-size limitations, plus a revenue-sharing agreement with each of the 3 or 4 winning casinos. That could mean the equivalent of territorial exclusivity, and joint booking and ticket pricing, for each FairGame member, across all of the eastern portion of Upstate New York, plus midState locations such as Utica and Syracuse, and apparently stretching to their members in the Western end of the State.
If their anticompetitive joint negotiations are not stopped under the antitrust laws, the members of the FairGame Coalition will be allowed to leverage the protection that the State meant to give local and regional entertainment venues from local casinos into a vast network of competition-killing promises among themselves and between each entertainment center and far-spread casinos covering several large regions, and perhaps all of Upstate New York. Will the NYS Attorney General step in to stop this anti-consumer power grab?
For more analysis, including discussion of the inapplicability of the State Action Doctrine, go to

From: Fair Game lines up 3 deals

Posted on June 28 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

At the website "stop the Schenecgtady casino," I have posted my Explanation to the Attorney General for my antitrust concerns, with further discussion of the issues. See:

From: Schenectady casino foe says Fair Game pact would be illegal

Posted on June 10 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Marion Porterfield and Vince Riggi should be thanked and congratulated for withstanding the immense pressure to go along with a Yes vote in order to present the look of unanimity. They did their homework, racked their brains, and searched their hearts. It is difficult to believe that the Council members who have been bubbly enthusiasts for a casino long before the details were known and constantly thereafter ever bothered to look into the real effects of an urban casino and the broken promises that come after every casino developer's pitch. The list of studies that should have been made and research done that apparently were ignored by City Hall is long enough to shame a high school dropout, much less a responsible public official.
I appreciate the opportunities the Gazette reporters have given me to express my views. But, I did think I expressed them a little more clearly than the quotation in the above article. To my recollection, I was asked which of the many concerns of opponents I shareded. I replied that the only major concern that I did not personally share was that gambling itself is immoral. I then said I believed it was not moral, and search for a less-moralistic word, and chose "ethical", to base our tax policy and desire to reduce taxes on a plan that would take so much of its revenues from the poor and vulnerable, who would gamble more with a casino right in our City. If I was less clear than that outside the Meeting room, I am grateful for the chance to do some editing here in a Comment.

From: Schenectady City Council backs casino proposal

Posted on June 7 at 1:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The County should have offered to split the cost with NYS Department of Transportation to install guardrails between the roadway of the high-speed Western Gateway Bridge and the sidewalks, which include a newly-designated, two-way, bike-ped trail segment, connecting the Scotia and Schenectady trails. County and City Planners were asleep at the wheel when DOT unveiled the plans for the Bridge, and did not raise an alarm when the recent $17 million Rehab Project was designed with no sidewalk guardrails along its curbs for the first time in 40 years. Why not correct that mistake with part of the federal grant money? See for photos and discussion.

From: $4.6 million to fund Schenectady County road, trail work

Posted on June 1 at 4:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Tocker, It doesn't look like a referendum is possible, as the casino siting process was clearly set up to leave the question to the elected leaders closest to people and businesses that will be most impacted. Kinda makes one yearn for recall and impeachment powers at the City level.
Note: When explaining above why a County is not a Host Municipality that can give the required approval, I forgot to include the most direct passage in the Request for Applications. At page 7, it says "For purposes of this requirement, the Host Municipality of a Project Site located in a city is the city."
A cynic might think folks in the County Building and at Metroplex were lending Mayor McCarthy a helping hand for arm-twisting. Undecided Council members might have concluded over the weekend that the courage it takes to resist the Party's bullying tactics was simply not worth the aggravation: If the County could override their No vote, it would simply be symbolic and quixotic. Please let Mssrs. Erickson and Mootooveren know a no vote can indeed be worthwhile and gratifying.
Over at , reasons for opposing this urban casino will be collected and posted over the next two days, along with a Petition to download and sign, and information on the Anti-Casino Rally at 1 PM Saturday, June 7, at Arthur's Market, across from Lawrence the Indian, at Front and N. Ferry Streets.

From: Casino developer will air plans to Schenectady council; foes to gather

Posted on May 31 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mezz3131, I wish I had the time to do this, too. But, it seems too important to ignore, so I am giving up a lovely weekend. As you have probably seen, the proponents of casinos have had lots of press and lots of meetings with the powers that be, and they spend millions to make their billions, so can hire pr firms and cheerleaders.
The best neutral information I have found says that urban casinos do indeed bring several kinds of street and financial crime with them. The neighborhoods nearest a casino are negatively impacted. It is a gamble I am not willing to take with my neighborhood, especially given the excessive predictions of tax revenues and the trends in many places of a significant drop-off in revenues. And, what happens when businesses not connected enough to partner up with Galesi-Rush suffer greatly and reduce staff, go out of business, or move to the suburbs.
Thanks for disagreeing without getting ornery.

From: Casino developer will air plans to Schenectady council; foes to gather

Posted on May 31 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The City of Schenectady is the only Host Municipality that can approve a casino application. The definition of "Host Municipality" in the Gaming Commission's Request for Applications (page 9) is "each town, village or city in the territorial boundaries of which the Project Site described in an Application is located. " The County cannot supply the needed "local support" if the City fails to pass an approval resolution.

From: Casino developer will air plans to Schenectady council; foes to gather

Posted on May 29 at 2:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I hope the appearance of a tornado in Town gives the Duanesburg Town Board, and its new Supervisor, second thoughts about letting the Town's scofflaw Planning Board grant a special use permit to Long Energy for placement of a 30,000-gallon propane tank in the Town. Duanesburg's Zoning Ordinance places the storage of explosive and flammable materials in the category of a Heavy Industrial Use, and the Ordinance allows no heavy industrial use anywhere in Duanesburg. That did not stop the Planning Board from granting the huge storage tank a special use permit under the business category of a "shop or store," although there was no shop, no personnel, and no customers or sales allowed at the bulk propane storage facility.
Long Energy brought no new jobs to Duanesburg, and surely lowered values of nearby properties. The Town Board could have taken the question of whether a tank is a store to the Zoning Board of Appeals, which should have ended the farce. It also could have refused to pay to finance a defense of the special use permit when it was challenged in court (the petitioners lost under the doctrine of laches, because the court said the nearby family had waited too long to bring their lawsuit, despite having acted within the short statute of limitations).
As for safety, the Planning Board let Long Energy place the tank 75 feet from Western Turnpike, within 200 feet of the nearest home, and near many other homes and a church. The tank also sits atop a hill with no barriers to protect it. The Planning Board said there was no danger of an explosion harming neighbors, because it never considered what would happen if there were a large rupture of the tank. It simply accepted Long's data, which only covered normal leakage from small tubes or pipes.
The Town Board should make sure no other huge propane tank or other bulk storage of explosive or flammable materials is allowed in Duanesburg, perhaps by further clarifying the Ordinance, for those who do not use dictionaries. It might also consider ways to refuse the renewal of the tank's certificate of occupancy, as it was and is inconsistent with the Town's Zoning Ordinance. Also, the doctrines of laches and estoppel would normally not apply to a governmental body wanting to remove an unlawful dangerous use that was not grandfathered in. The Board should perhaps consider bringing a lawsuit to have the bulk propane facility declared to be a dangerous inconsistent use, which must be ended. That might sound harsh to Long Energy, but a propane tank can be merely placed on the back of the same kind of truck that brought it to Duanesburg, and brought to an appropriate location.
What would have happened if that tornado lifted or toppled, or hurled a large object into, a 70-foot-long propane tank?
[Note: I was the lawyer on the appeal by the neighbors who had hoped to stop the tank, and I still wonder how it ever could have been allowed.]

From: Editorial: Storm puts focus on storage

Previous | Page 3 of 15 | Next

columnists & blogs

Log into

Forgot Password?