Online Poker Hearing Misses the Point

220px-Theprocessionofthetrojanhorseintroybygiovannidomenicotiepolo

 

 

 

 

The New York State Senate website has announced that the Senate Racing, Gaming, and Wagering Committee will ‘discuss the future of online poker in New York State’ at a hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m. on September 9, Wednesday. ORAL TESTIMONY BY INVITATION ONLY

Coalition Against Gambling in New York believes that there should be no future for online poker.  Not invited to speak, we submit the statement below to  the record:

No form of internet gambling is now legal in NY. State Senator John  Bonacic’s bill S 5302 proposes to legalize internet poker. The upcoming  hearing looks like a shout-out to gambling interests*, including the Poker Players’ Alliance.  The Senator seems indifferent to social and constitutional legal issues about internet gambling.  According to Tight Poker,   his concern is how   it might profit NYS to legalize  i-poker ASAP.

Online poker is the thin end of the “legalization” wedge because some savants hold there can be enough skill in poker to make it  not gambling. They note that  a star  player may   win big over time, unlike a slot machine user. The vast majority  of players who aren’t stars, however, are certainly gambling. Outside “World Series” tournaments that draw skilled peers, the consistent big winners are sustained by  the predictable losses of the less apt, the more chance-tossed.

Ominously, were i-poker  “legalized,” other on-line games would likely follow. First would come those that have less, but still some, element of decision-making skill relative to chance than does poker. Later, with these precedents, would come casino “games” of pure chance, which everyone agrees are gambling.

If stymied by a future ruling that i-poker is gambling, the Senator may try a different tactic.   He knows that unless a bill to rebuild the longstanding federal ban on internet gambling passes soon, each state may make its own laws about internet gambling (except on sports). He may anticipate that the Legislature would concede him i-gambling after the trite argument that “Other states will be doing it; so, we should too and before them.” New York, however, has a constitutional prohibition against all types of gambling other than those that have been allowed in by amendment, most recently casinos. The Legislature has shown itself ever ready to re-define words like “lottery,” but it cannot amend the Constitution.  That would require a vote of the people, who have shown no special desire for internet gambling.

Article 1 § 9 . . .no lottery or the sale of lottery tickets, pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except lotteries operated by the state and the sale of lottery tickets in connection therewith as may be authorized and prescribed by the legislature, the net proceeds of which shall be applied exclusively to or in aid or support of education in this state as the legislature may prescribe, except pari-mutual betting on horse races as may be prescribed by the legislature and from which the state shall derive a reasonable revenue for the support of government, and except casino gambling at no more than seven facilities as authorized and prescribed by the legislature shall hereafter be authorized or allowed within this state; and the legislature shall pass appropriate laws to prevent offenses against any of the provisions of this section. (Amendment approved by vote of the people November 5, 2013.)

Sen. Bonacic will perhaps argue that i-gamblers can be required (the NJ model) to be registered with an  in-state casino, which they need never visit again.   He may assert that when “Prop 1” passed in 2013  it  implied this easy fix.  Plainly it did not.

Or, less likely, the Senator might try to graft internet gambling onto the New York State Lottery, requiring participants to register with a racino, not a licensed casino.

There are many arguments against i-gambling that we don’t take up here. Our focus today is on the wrongness of hearings that have nothing to do with whether internet poker should be made legal and everything with “When do we start?”  . Mr.  Bonacic acts as if legalizing internet poker in New York State is a mere formality, like closing a business deal with allies. Such arrogance should be called.

[*] In August, Tight Poker interviewed Sen. Bonacic about who had been invited to testify orally. “ ‘Lawmakers and various representatives of the gambling industry will be present at the hearing.’ Bonacic said: ‘I’m bringing in Caesars and MGM plus all of my [emphasis added] casinos, racinos, and OTBs. We are going to have a discussion on the pros and cons of moving the legislation.’ ”

Permission to reproduce this in whole or in part is hereby granted by cagnyeditor as long as the permalink above is cited.  The Trojan Horse painting is by Tiepolo.

The Curse

Pachinko

Pachinko

 

A Talk at Patchogue-Medford Library Long Island NY  July 30, 2015  by Robert H. Steele

Mr. Steele is a Connecticut business executive and former U.S. Congressman, and was a nominee for Governor of Connecticut.

 

Comment by CAGNY editor: This talk starts about  a book set in Connecticut but moves through many important issues about predatory gambling before homing in on a location in New York State now threatened with the imposition of a 1000-device slot parlor.  It is a privilege to present it here.

Thank you for the invitation to come to Patchogue and for your interest in my book, The Curse: Big-Time Gambling’s Seduction of a Small New England Town.

The book is a fact-based novel set against the explosion of casino gambling that hit southeastern CT during the 1990.

The novel begins with the Pequot War in 1637, when Connecticut’s Puritan colonists joined with their Mohegan allies to defeat and almost destroy the Pequots, who were the largest and most warlike of the Connecticut tribes. The story then jumps 350 years, as these two tribes reemerge to build the world’s two biggest casinos – Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun – and a Connecticut family, led by a descendant of one of the Puritan colonists, becomes embroiled in a battle to stop a third casino that threatens the family’s town and ancestral home.

In the end, a small, quintessential New England town faces a Faustian dilemma in which it must choose between preserving its character and values or accepting an enormously seductive offer that would change the town forever.

The Curse, in sum, is a novel based on fact, and this evening I’d like to focus on the factual background of what has occurred in Connecticut and elsewhere – in other words, on the story behind the book.

First, I should probably give you a little more of my background since it entered into my writing the book.

I represented eastern Connecticut in Congress in the 1970s. Then, after running unsuccessfully for governor, I left politics and my family – my wife and four children and I – moved to Ledyard, Connecticut well before anyone dreamed of casinos coming to Connecticut. Those two experiences – knowing Connecticut’s politics as intimately as I did and then living in the midst of the subsequent casino explosion – gave me a front row seat for watching the political maneuverings that led to the casinos and then seeing their impact.

Indian casinos got their start in 1988, when Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which was seen as a means of promoting tribal economic development and self-sufficiency by allowing federally recognized tribes to open casinos on their reservations.

It would be fair to say, however, that Congress had no idea of the Pandora’s Box it was opening when it passed the act.

As it turned out, the law not only opened the door to Indian-owned casinos, but it spurred the legalization of commercial casinos as many states rushed to open casinos as way to raise revenue without directly and overly raising taxes.

Continue reading

Bad add

Peering over the Edge Flickr CC

Peering over the Edge
Flickr CC

 

The message below was sent by e-mail on the morning of Jan 5, 2015 to Bradley Fischer, Esq.,  Director of Policy, Development and External Affairs, NYS Gaming Commission.

 

 

 

Coalition Against Gambling in New York (CAGNY) urges the Gaming Commission not to heed the Governor’s request to have its Facilities Location Board amend its recommendations announced Dec 17 and open the door to a second casino site in Region 5.

CAGNY believes that a casino cannot net for any region or sub-region the “benefits” touted by the interests that got “Proposition 1” passed in 2013. We believe that none of the three sites recommended on Dec. 17 will if built be anything but a detriment to the people in its locality and to the state. Thus we see no good reason for a second license in Region 5 or any other region. For that matter, we see no good reason for any license anywhere.

Please convey this message as soon as possible to the Chairman and members of the Gaming Commission.

With best wishes for a healthy 2015 for all,

Stephen Q. Shafer, M.D.. M.A., M.P.H..                                                                  Chairperson, Coalition Against Gambling in New York                                                         cell phone 917 453 7371                                                                                                        e-mail sqs1@columbia.edu or shpcount@earthlink.net

Permission is hereby granted to quote the above in full or in part at long as the permalink above is cited.

 

 

Hidden social costs of predatory gambling

 

Under the rug

Under the rug

Statement of Stephen Q, Shafer MD MPH to the Gaming Facility Location Board of the New York State Gaming Commission at the hearing in Poughkeepsie on Sept 23, 2014

My name is Stephen Shafer. A retired physician who now lives in Saugerties, I am Chairperson of Coalition Against Gambling in New York. I was born and brought up in Dutchess County, where my daughter and her family now reside.

Hudson Valley Casino and Resort has presented an analysis of health impacts as incomplete as an analysis of vehicle traffic limited to trucks. The report finds regional health care facilities ready for a slight increase in physical maladies of visitors and perhaps a slightly larger population. The impact of predatory gambling on society, however, goes far beyond in-casino heart attacks, The report ignores socio-economic impacts of pathological and problem gambling such as lowered productivity at work, administration of the justice system, “abused dollars” and social services. Outside those quantifiable costs are other costs too abstract to have a dollar value. Most are related  to problem and pathological gamblers, who yield about half the revenue of the average casino. These costs include family breakup, psychological hurt, and suicide. Casino promoters are not obliged to tell you about what they call “emotional” costs when they talk money but they should tell you that predatory gambling tolls society in estimatable dollars much more than the trifle Hudson Valley Casino concedes.

The application is mute on how many new problem gamblers and addicted gamblers a casino in Newburgh might generate, It gives not even an order of magnitude figure for the annual cost to society associated with each new problem or pathological gambler.  The only costs acknowledged due to gambling are for treatment and prevention. It is assumed that all foreseeable increases in these costs due to the casino would be covered by present Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse Services programs plus an annual 1.5 million dollars to be collected by the state for treatment and prevention from 3000 gambling positions @$500/yr. The report writer must think this money would go back to Orange County dollar for dollar. Not so; it would be divvied up across the state.

The applicant is wrong to pretend that 1.5 million dollars would begin to cover the socio-economic costs attendant on a new casino in Newburgh.  Here is one estimate of the quantifiable socio-economic costs, neither best-case nor worst-case:

Within a fifty mile radius of the proposed site live at least 2.5 million adults. At least 1.14% (28,500) of them are pathological gamblers now [ Shaffer et al meta-analysis ref 1 ]. If the allure of a Newburgh casino were to notch up the 1.14% by just 15%, that’s 4275 new pathological gamblers. If the quantifiable socioeconomic cost per year of one pathological gambler is 12,790 dollars ( Grinols ref 2 ) the total cost for new pathological gamblers only (not counting problem gamblers) would be $54.7 million/year.

My attack on this proposal does not mean that I think there’s a proposal in Region 1 or anywhere in the state that has such a better analysis of societal health costs and benefits that it merits a license instead of Hudson Valley Casino.   A cost-benefit analysis that gave due regard to societal health would find that none of the sixteen proposals passes. The Upstate Gaming Act authorized up to four casinos in “upstate;” it did not mandate them. No proposed casino deserves a license.  Thank you.

The opinions expressed  are the speaker’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of any or all members of Coalition Against Gambling in New York .  Permission is granted to reproduce text or image in whole or part as long as the permalink above is cited.

Nowhere

Rainbow's end

Rainbow’s end

Nowhere

Most people assume that the New York State Gaming Commission has to award four new casino licenses in 2014 or 2015.  This assumption has made some individuals and groups in “regions eligible for gaming” hesitant to speak against particular proposals. They worry lest opposition in one place push the site selection to another locale no better suited. Think of the “Far Side” cartoon where a bear in the crosshairs points emphatically at another bear by his side.

It’s not true, however, that the Commission must sign off on four licenses. Coalition Against Gambling in New York (CAGNY) calls the attention of press and public to the fact that the Gaming Commission is not required to award even one casino license now or ever.  The passage of “Prop 1” in 2013 and its enabling legislation, the Upstate New York Gaming Economic Development Act of 2013, authorized the Gaming Commission to award up to four licenses “upstate.”   The law did not mandate a single one.

The law states (Title 1 §1300 ¶ 4) that “The state should authorize four destination resort casinos in upstate New York.”    Note the wording: “should” is used, not “shall,” “will” or “must.”

Further, in Title 2 §1311 the law reads : “The Commission is authorized to award up to four gaming facility licenses . . .”   Again, the language is permissive.

CAGNY observes that if the Gaming Commission has a green light from the legislature for up to four licenses, it also has the prerogative to award fewer. When the built-in drawbacks to casinos, like unchecked problem gambling, are compounded by the current fiscal woes of market saturation and leapfrogging interstate competition, not even one casino is called for. Columnist Fred Lebrun wrote thus of our state’s rush to expand casino gambling: “We’re embracing a corpse.”

Persons who speak against a particular proposal at the hearings on  September 22-24 2014  should make that point loud and clear. If someone asks “Supposing the proposal you’re fighting does not get a license, where should that license go?”   the reply is “Nowhere.”

 

 

Photo image “It’s just an illusion” from FlickrCC  4490566126_9ce7b24272

Permission to use this post  in whole or part is hereby granted  as long as the  permalink above is cited.  The opinions expressed are those of the writer, Stephen Q. Shafer MD MPH,  and are not necessarily shared by any or all members of Coalition Against Gambling in New York.

Caesars at Woodbury: Problem Gambling ? No Problem

thumbonscale

 

 

 

 

 

Summary: This is a critique of Attachment IX.A.2.a_A2  in  section  07 – IX.A. Assessment of Local Support and Mitigation Local Impact  of the  application by Caesars Entertainment to the New York State Gaming Facilities Location Board.    Being an epidemiologist and physician familiar with problem gambling as a public health problem,  I found  Attachment IX.A.2.a_A2  extremely biased in downplaying,  to near zero.  the possible health impacts  of a new Woodbury Casino.   The report asserts  as follows:

  • no socio-economic costs of pathological gambling and problem gambling warrant $ consideration, as none can be quantified so that all parties are close to agreement.
  • making casinos more convenient hardly  increases the prevalence of pathological gambling and problem gambling in the surrounding population in the long run.
  • the only population within a 50 mile radius of Woodbury that is  at theoretical  risk of having even a temporary surge in prevalence of pathological gambling and problem gambling  is that of Orange, Dutchess and Putnam Counties.
  • efforts by Caesars elsewhere to address “problem gambling” have been highly successful and will minimize “problem gambling” in southern New York State.

The  report greatly understates the possibility of harm to residents of the region due to a casino in Woodbury to residents of the region.  This essay addresses the first three  points in the above order.  The fourth  I have discussed in an e-mail to the NYS Gaming Commission last April.

 

In reading the Caesars Entertainment Inc application for a Woodbury casino I focused as a physician versed in public health  on the 40- page report   Study of Addiction and Public Health Implications of a Proposed Casino and Resort in Woodbury New York by Bo J. Bernhard Ph.D., Khalil Philander Ph.D., and Brett Abarbanel Ph.D.

The authors are all experienced consultants for gambling-related  enterprises. Two are senior members of the International Gaming Institute (IGI) at University of Nevada at Las Vegas. This is a highly polished presentation by experts who know the field but hide large tracts of it from view.   It  dismisses or never mentions four crucial facets of the ecology of pathological gambling and problem gambling. The report basically concludes that

  • socio-economic costs of pathological gambling and problem gambling don’t warrant consideration, as none can be quantified so that all parties are close to agreement.
  • making casinos more convenient does not much increase the prevalence of pathological gambling and problem gambling in the surrounding population in the medium  run of 2 to 4 years.
  • the only population within a 50 mile radius of Woodbury that is now under-served by racinos or casinos (and hence at theoretical  risk of having even a temporary surge in prevalence of pathological gambling and problem gambling) is that of Orange, Dutchess and Putnam Counties.
  • efforts by Caesars elsewhere to address “problem gambling” have been highly successful and can be relied on to minimize “problem gambling” in southern NY

The report nowhere mentions a statistic often cited by opponents of predatory gambling but never addressed head-on by casino advocates and never refuted: 40-50% of revenue at the average casino comes from pathological and problem gamblers, who comprise perhaps 12-15% of its customers, maybe 4% of all adults. [ http://cagnyinf.org/wp/april-9-2014-central-stat-of-casino-revenues] For the casino lobby to refute the statistic (if it is refutable) they would have to acknowledge that they can spot pathological and problem gamblers among their “visitors” while those persons are still active customers. This means before the person has loudly threatened suicide within an employee’s hearing or left town suddenly or thrown an ugly scene on the “gaming floor” or been arraigned or jumped.

Casinos will not acknowledge they have any  ability to spot problem or pathological gambling signs and symptoms that are not florid and end-stage. Why not? To move in even gently on such persons would risk offending them so they would go elsewhere or sending them to premature recovery before they have been “played to extinction.” [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9C2BPZYLW_U ] .  To recognize the problem gamblers before they are end-stage yet not do anything for them  would reveal how insincere are the “preventive measures.” .

The casino cartel does not deny that its net revenues follow the Pareto principle: most come from a small proportion of gamblers. What casino promoters won’t say is what proportion on the average of that small proportion are pathological gamblers or problem gamblers. The promoters just do not want to know who among their customers is a problem gambler or pathological gambler until the gambler hits bottom or worse.   Promoters and detractors alike recognize that not everyone who loses a lot of money over time at casinos is a problem gambler. Anti-casino activists hold that most are; the American Gaming Association counters that most are affluent people having fun with their disposable income.

Assuming the central statistic is close to truth, casinos are not motivated to sincerely counter problem gambling and pathological gambling.  A successful effort to do so would lower their revenues by 40-50%.  Nor is government motivated; lower casino gross gaming revenues   would reduce  government’s share  by a like amount.

The report prepared for Caesars (in this no different from all the literature on problem gambling) also does not recognize that “unchanging prevalence” of problem and pathological gambling requires the formation of replacement problem gamblers and pathological gamblers to fill the shoes of those who have recovered, died, moved far away or are no longer free-living. What might appear a steady state is built on creating new problem gamblers. The more effective  the casino is at encouraging current problem gamblers and pathological gamblers into lasting recovery before they have fiscally and emotionally wiped out themselves and and ten people around them, the faster it must generate replacement problem and pathological gamblers to keep up its high profit margins.

I will now cover the first three bullet points above in more detail. The fourth bullet point I wrote about in the above-mentioned letter to the Gaming Commission.

Continue reading

Cornfields and Dreamfields

The New Bridge

The New Bridge

 

States of the States in Casinoland: Cornfields  and  Dreamfields

Summary:  An overview of casino spread in the United States                                             (1) Looks at locations and fiscal markers of “cornfield casinos” in Iowa, a thinly-populated state that  has  eighteen commercial casinos and two Indian ones.                                       (2) Discusses likely rationales for two sites proposed for new casinos in Iowa.                (3) A table using  figures from  the American Gaming Association web site  compares  year-2012 fiscal data for commercial casinos or racetrack electronic gaming devices  among all  twenty-three states that have either or both.  States can be ranked on  characteristics such as “win per capita” or taxes paid to government.  

Talking with someone from a very small city in NY (pop 900)   proposed as casino site,  I  remarked  naively that it must be unique in the country in being a truly rural community into which a commercial casino might come. I had thought all commercial casinos are in suburbs,  exurbs or fair-sized towns when  not in big cities.  Iowa then came to mind as predominantly rural but with commercial casinos.

A look at that state surprised me.  Iowa has fifteen commercial casinos classed  as “riverboats,”  three tracks with electronic gambling devices (EGDs)  and two Indian casinos.   It is hard to understand how the state could support so many; yet it is  considering two more.    This count led me  to compare Iowa to other states as to number, size and locations of casinos.  Two questions arose:  (1) were  impacts on small rural communities  assessed  in any way by  independent studies?  (2) how  did landlocked rural casinos fare financially compared to ones at riverside  or more urban settings?

Question 1 is a rapid dead end. No.  Question 2 opened a window on the United States as casinoland that this essay props wide.

To imagine from  the Iowa experience what a very small rural community in upstate NY might expect from a casino’s arrival,   I picked  four  similar locales in Iowa that now have casinos and one (Jefferson, in Green County) for which a casino is proposed.  Click here for a map.    Four locales were chosen by developers.  One, in Tama (Tama County),  is Indian-operated and was thus not free to roam.  Because it is a small “city” like the other four  and evidently  a test case for new competition while Iowa plans  more  casinos,  I included Tama.

Emmetsburg, pop 3900,  is home since 2006 to the Wild Rose Casino (550 slots,  17 table games, or TGs).   The casino is right in town on (literally)  Main Street,  US Rte 18,  which crosses the state.  Emmetsburg is the County Seat of Palo Alto County,  with a population  density of 16.5/sq mile it ranks 84th out of 99 in the state (Iowa pop. density is about 54/sq mi).  The town’s web site shows merited civic pride in history.    A report by a consulting group  in 2009 commented that there are no communities of much size nearby,  though Highway 18 eases travel.  The report stated that win/admission ratio (“win” means “gaming revenue”  of course)  and gaming revenue in first two full years were below most other markets in Iowa.  This is still true through FY 2013.

Northwood, pop 1989,  hosts  the Diamond Jo Worth casino  with 1000 slots and 32 TGs.  The casino is right off  I-35,  ( 9 mi west of the center of town)  about 25 mi south of  I-90 as it traverses southern Minnesota.   Click here for  Christmas Greetings from the casino in  2009.   Worth County ,  with population  density of 18.9 / sq mi,  ranks 76th in the state.   The  report by a consulting group in 2009 remarked that  the casino’s nearness to I-35 brought Mason City  into its reach at the time.  In its first two years the casino had an   “win”/admission ratio  and adjusted gross gambling revenues that outdid the state average.

Larchwood (pop.  866) is the city in Iowa most remote from  the capital, Des Moines.  Lyon County ranks 75th in state in pop density,  at 19.7.  In the northwest corner of Iowa,  Larchwood  saw in 2011 the rapid   opening of the Grand Falls casino,  which cost $120 million and offers   900 slots.  Tables games are now up to thirty-seven. This casino was obviously sited to capture Sioux Falls, South Dakota,  the largest city in that state.  A website blurb says it’s just eight minutes from Sioux Falls.  Actually eight miles from the extreme eastern side,  it is  more like 15 mi and 25 minutes from the center of the city.  The manager of the Grand Falls casino   told a reporter that she expected  an annual revenue of $70 million,  with 80%  to come from out-of-staters.

South Dakota  on the AGA listing ( see table below ) has thirty-five (35) “casinos”  but total “gaming” revenue is only $107M with revenue to state only $ 16.6M.  [Note well: these data may be wrong, but are copied correctly from the web site.]  I did not research the  state  in detail but would guess that many  of the “casinos” are like Borrowed Buck’s Roadhouse, the only “casino” in Sioux Falls that shows on a commercial website map  It has ten (10)  VLTs, pool tables and foosball.  South Dakota had decided,  upon legalizing casinos,  to put all its  real commercial casinos in one town,  Deadwood, almost 400 miles from Sioux Falls.   Since 1989 S. D. has had video lottery.  In FY 2013 an average of 9133 machines operated in the state in an average of 1426 establishments.  The nearest real casino to S.F. is an Indian one at Flandreau, 44 miles away.   A casino in nearer-by Larchwood was supposed to appeal to people in Sioux Falls who want live table games and lots of slots.

In Larchwood  gaming revenue has not reached the anticipated 70 M .   At 59 M for 2012 it was in the red $ 4.8 million.  Adjusted gross revenue in 2013 was $58 million, and the “win”/capita $46 in FY 2013, below the state average.  It may be that Sioux Falls gamblers find the convenient VLTs in town surpass the call of the casino.

These three active commercial casinos can be compared in the table to the fifteen “riverboat” casinos in Iowa, which includes them.  Data are for FY 2013   Some figures are rounded-off.

Continue reading

NYS-based Civil Society Organizations Opposed to Gambling Expansion

Watkins Gen, New York, October 2009

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As the November 5 referendum on casino gambling nears, Coalition  Against  Gambling in New York  (CAGNY)  is often asked “who’s with you?”   In  response we provide here a guide  to  non-profit organizations in New York State divided  into two sections  according to their position on government-sanctioned gambling.   These organizations are not formally members of our coalition. It consists of  individuals,  who may represent informally an organization.  Some of  the organizations listed below work  closely with us; others at arm’s length.  Some have a few members; the larger, denominational,  ones have hundreds of thousands among them.   We are privileged to all be aligned at this crucial time and beyond. This guide is not complete, but we believe the assemblage here represents well the spirit of New York State.

Oppose  gambling   expansion

Catholic  Conference September 2013

The Archdiocese of  New York  published the  statement of the Conference of Bishops as an editorial in Catholic New York  3 October 2013  

Council on Alcoholism and Addictions of the  Finger Lakes,  Geneva

Council on Addictions of  New York State,  Oneonta

Erie County Council for the Prevention of Alcohol and Substance Abuse. Buffalo

Institute for American Values, New York

LEAF Council on Alcoholism and Addictions,  Oneonta

Prevention Network of Central New York, Syracuse

Seaway Prevention Council, Ogdensburg

Steuben Council on Addictions, Bath

 

Urge a “NO” vote on   “Proposal  1”  to legalize 7 new  casinos

Casino-Free Sullivan County, Woodbourne   contact  joanthursh@gmail.com

Catskill Mountain Keeper, Youngsville

Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County (CACGEC), Buffalo contact joelrose@buffalo.edu

Coalition  Against  Gambling in New York (CAGNY), Buffalo

Conservative Party of New York State,  Brooklyn

Statement  of  the Right  Reverend William Love,  Bishop of  the Episcopal Diocese of Albany,   Greenwich

Statement of the Right Reverend Lawrence Provenzano, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, Garden City

Statement  of  the Right Reverend Andrew Dietsche, Bishop of the   Episcopal Diocese of New York,   New York

Statement  of  The Rt. Rev. Prince G. Singh VIII , Episcopal Bishop of Rochester can be requested by an e-mail to the Bishop.

Interfaith Alliance of  Rochester

Interfaith Impact of New York State,  Albany

New York State Council of Churches, Albany  read  statement here

New Yorker’s Family Research Foundation,   Spencerport

New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms, Spencerport

Network of Religious Communities, Buffalo

No Casino 1000 Islands, Wellesley Island contact  cwellinshphs@yahoo.com

Saratogians Against More Casinos in Our Town contact

No Saugerties Casino, Saugerties

Partnership for the Public Good, Buffalo

Sustainable Saratoga, Saratoga Springs

United Methodist Church, New York  Annual  Conference , White Plains

United Methodist Church, Upper New York  Annual  Conference ,  Syracuse

VOICE- Buffalo  contact france@buffalo.edu

*********************************************************************************************************

Photo of Watkins  Glen NY from flickr creative commons “looking-up-the-sky” 4002696878_b439720a72.jpg

list compiled by CAGNYEDITOR,  who is responsible for any errors.

 

NYS Council of Churches: No on Prop. 1

Statement of the  Rev. Dr. Paula Gravelle, Executive Director, New York State Council of Churches    Oct 28, 2013

The New York State Council of Churches has long opposed casino gambling, and we stand in opposition to Proposal 1.  The stated purposes of this amendment are to promote job growth, increase funding to schools, and permit local governments to lower property taxes.  However, in places where casino gambling has been introduced, any actual gains have come at the high cost of addiction, family disintegration, and deepening poverty.  There are no quick fixes to the challenges of struggling cities and towns, and we call on our elected officials instead to focus on the kind of investment and hard work that will build sound, long-term economic health and self-sufficiency for New York’s communities.

transmitted by e-mail from the Rev. Dr. Gravelle to Coalition Against Gambling in New York.   The address of NYSCOC is 1880 Central Avenue Albany, NY, 12205                     518 436 9319                             nyscoc@aol.com

Ballot stuff

vote8076635893_84a6a41e67_m

 

The letter immediately below was sent to the four Commissioners of the New York State Board of Elections on the letterhead of Coalition Against Gambling in New York and received at 40 N. Pearl on 28 October.  It requests them all to resign.

Below the text of the letter its signers review in detail the webcast of the meeting in which this lamentable chapter of New York election history emerged.  We also review the legislative history of the 1966 amendment that gave us “Lottery for education.”  It does not show the rewriting for which  “Proposal 1”  is now infamous.

New York State  Board of Elections
40 North Pearl Street, Suite 5, Albany, NY 12207 2729                  October   24 2013

James A. Walsh,  Co-Chairman
Douglas A. Kellner,  Co-Chairman
Evelyn J. Aquila,  Commissioner
Gregory P. Peterson,  Commissioner

re: “Proposal One”  2013 ballot language and position

Dear Commissioners:

The New York State Board of Elections is “charged with the preservation of citizen confidence in the democratic process and enhancement in voter participation in elections.”  By crafting  pro-amendment  language for Prop. One, the Board has betrayed our  trust.  You should resign.

An initial draft of Prop One (NY Times, 10/17)  read “The purpose of the proposed amendment to sec. 9 of article 1 of the constitution is to allow the Legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos.”  The Board added to this “for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?”

The Board did not make public the changes until the challenge period had elapsed. The Siena Poll of September 30 showed a huge effect of the added language, misrepresented by the Commissioners (p. 25) as  “minor revisions.”  Where “yes” and “no” had been tied when the earlier language was read, a gap of thirteen percentage points – landslide proportions – opened when respondents were read the adorned language.    In addition, the Board put the amendment into position one when it stood sixth by custom. The Board has made a mockery of a fair election.

The Coalition Against Gambling in New York  and  No Saugerties Casino call upon you, the Commissioners,  to resign forthwith.

Sincerely
s/  Arnold Lieber, MD                                                    s/ Stephen Q. Shafer MD, MPH, MA
Member, Exec. Comm. No Saugerties Casino             Chairperson, CAGNY

 

Background: As many citizens know, amending the NYS  Constitution without  a Constitutional Convention  requires two steps  by the Legislature, sometimes called first and second passage. “Second passage” sends the proposed amendment to  referendum at a General Election.  The resolutions passed for a second time on 21 June 2013  (A 8068 same as  S 5898)  were to  amend the existing prohibitions on  gambling to make an exception for

“CASINO GAMBLING AT NO MORE THAN SEVEN FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED  AND  PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE.”   [caps original].

Following the rules, this resolution was sent to the Attorney General for final approval and for the AG’s recommendation on how the ballot should be worded.  According to the New York Times, the first draft for the ballot said “The purpose of the proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the constitution is to allow the  Legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos.  If approved, the amendment would permit commercial casino gambling in New York state.”  This version went from the AG to the Board of Elections on or around July 19.  The BOE made revisions during  the next week before their scheduled meeting of  29  July.  At that meeting they certified a rewording done in the previous week, after referring to  it as one of   two “minor changes”  among the six amendments whose language was to be certified.

When the certified language finally hit public awareness on  Sept 11, it was clear that the “minor change”  in “proposal 1”   was anything but minor.  A storm of   protest arose over what reporter Michael Gormley on that day called  “the rosy language,”  which ran thus:

“The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated.  Shall the amendment be approved?

The effect of the rewording was dramatically shown in a Siena Poll of September 30.  Respondents split 46-46 in reaction to the following version of the  amendment proposal  developed  by the poll itself:  “Do you support or oppose passing an amendment to the state constitution to allow non-Indian, Las Vegas style casinos to be built in New York?”  To the elaborated language above, however,  55% of respondents said yes and only 42% no.  A landslide-size gap of thirteen points had opened.

The BOE also elevated the measure from last of six proposals (where it belonged by custom, having been the last to gain.  This is a disgrace to New York State.

Using the webcast and transcription of the meeting we reviewed the crucial short interval in which the language for all of the six proposals is voted upon as certified and the order on the ballot set.

Position  on the ballot:  Co-Chairman  Kellner  is heard to say  (around 1:38:50 of the webcast provided by the BOE for the July 29 meeting)  “Because of the relatively high profile and substantial interest in the press on the casino gaming issue we decided it is in the best interest to list that first  …  to reduce potential voter confusion.”

Our comment:  Whose best interest?  Moving the casino amendment to the top line does not combat voter “confusion,”  but does give  special status.   Once the custom (last in second passage,  last on ballot) has been broken, or random ordering is not used, number  1 is obviously Somebody’s favorite.   This position is set to interact with catchy campaign slogans associating “yes”  with 1.  For (say) two measures the position effect is negligible; with six, considerable.

Wording   There is said to be precedent for the BOE to add to or change what the Attorney General’s office recommended to them,  though we have not seen examples.  Note well: the CONCURRENT RESOLUTION OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY   (S. Pr 906, A. Pr 1606. Jan 17 and 18 1966) that underlay the amendment passed that November to establish Lottery for education reads the same as the ballot word for word.  The ballot wording is therefore much longer than even the 54 words of “rosy language,”   but voters did see the same words the Legislature had voted on.

In the webcast  section where the Commissioners  discuss the revisions (ca. 1:37:30),  Mr. Brehm (Co-Exec Director)  is reciting changes in two of the amendments from the language sent by the AG.  Only two amendments coming from the AG  were rewritten by the BOE.  One editing was to remove the redundant words “even more” from the proposed amendment about veterans’ benefits.  Mr Brehm  then  says, “with regard to the gaming, which is number 1  … to .. um  when Co-Chair Kellner cuts in to say  “review the legislative purposes that were included in the underlying statute.”

We as citizens, not lawyers, now ask “What was the underlying statute?”

The second passage resolutions of June 2013  (same for  both  chambers)  were to  amend the prohibition on  gambling in article I sec 9 to allow  “CASINO GAMBLING AT NO MORE THAN SEVEN FACILITIES AS AUTHORIZED  AND  PRESCRIBED BY THE LEGISLATURE.”    To us, this is the “underlying statute.”  Its legislative purposes are clear. Technically  this is a resolution, not a bill.

The legislators knew voters would not like an amendment so open-ended as the fifteen words above; so, they developed the 220 pages of the  Upstate New York Gaming and Economic Development Act of 2013 (UNYGEDA) as a road map to sketch fiscal projections and write regulations on a practice that when the act was passed was, and still is, illegal in New York.  Sad to say, this act is written in mud, not stone.  However tightly UNYGEDA has been grafted onto the proposed amendment, it is not what the electorate is supposed to be voting on, which is the proposal to legalize seven casinos.

The phrases added by BOE  “to review the legislative purposes that were included in the underlying statute”  do  reflect  the aims of the amendment’s promoters.  These might by a stretch be called “legislative purposes.”  They are campaign promises, however, not statements of fact.   It is a fact that a successful transportation bond issue will pay for materials and labor to improve highways and bridges.  It is fond hope, not fact,  that seven casinos will “promote job growth.”   It  is a fact that by the provisions of UNYGEDA revenue to government from casinos can be designated for “aid to schools” or for  “permitting local governments to lower property taxes.”  These apparent benefits, however, are not provably greater than the hidden social costs due to  adding casinos to the NYS economy instead of sincerely trying to reduce problem gambling in New York State.  We believe they are much less.  These apparent benefits are deceptive.  As one commentator said, “it’s like balancing your checkbook by entering only deposits.”

We understand the complexity of all these casino amendment issues, understand that it would hardly be possible to put detailed pros and cons for even one amendment (still less, six) onto a ballot without daunting voters.  All the more reason, then, to stick with terse, neutral language.

Moving the amendment up the ladder and slanting  its language  interact strongly “in the best interest” not of a fair voting process but of those who desperately want the amendment passed.

The Board of Elections has failed signally in its duty to the People of New York State.  The four commissioners  should resign immediately.

*****************************************************************************************************

photo captioned “vote” is from flickr creative commons

The request  in the letter is endorsed by the Boards of Coalition Against Gambling in New York and No Saugerties Casino.  Permission to quote from this post or to reproduce in whole or part is hereby granted as long as the permalink above is cited