Tuesday, July 15, 2008
They oppose blight. They oppose gambling. They oppose addiction. But mainly, it would seem to me, they oppose progress.
For every study and statistic I've seen showing that legalized casinos are the downfall of any community they're in, I've seen a corresponding study and statistic stating exactly the opposite.
Although I've read several quotes from attorney Joel Rose and heard him on the radio numerous times saying that his organization, Citizens Against Casino Gambling, opposes a new casino being built in Buffalo (and even the makeshift one open there now), I've never fully understood WHY they oppose it.
A visit to their website didn't help much. Frankly, it seems to be the same old tired "facts" and stats. Casinos are a blight. Gambling an addiction. And they suck money from the community. Blah, blah, blah. According to one post, the Seneca Niagara Casino and Seneca Allegheny Casino cost Western New Yorkers $300 million in gambling losses in 2004.
Were it any other industry generating $300 million in sales, it would be heralded as a victory for the area, but because it's casino gambling, it's derided as being akin to satanism.
Personally, I view casino gambling as a form of entertainment. Every so often, I'll go to the Seneca Niagara Casino ... or even one of the Canadian casinos ... and drop $20 into the slot machines. That's my limit. $20.
I understand that other people aren't as frugal as I am ... and some people spend more than they can afford to at the casino. But those people spend more than they can afford to on everything. They spend too much going out to eat. They spend too much going to the movies. They spend too much on junk food. And yet, I don't hear Joel Rose complaining about the movie, restaurant or grocery industries.
And were there not an option in Niagara Falls and Allegheny for those same folks to go gamble at, I believe a very compelling argument could be made that they'd still be losing money at the casino ... just not the local ones contributing to the local economy. They'd be losing their money in Canada.
Or, worse yet, on the lottery.
If Citizens Against Casino Gambling really wanted to help people who can ill-afford to lose money gambling, they'd fight against the biggest gambling entity in the area: the New York State Lottery.
According to the state lottery commission, New Yorkers spent $7.9 billion on the lottery in 2007. Of that, $3.9 billion was paid out (or promised) in prizes, $2.5 billion was spent on education, and over $1 billion was spent on operating costs. Assuming "winnings" and "education" aren't losses, that puts the statewide lottery loss at over $1 billion in 2007. My math says that's more than the $300 million "lost" to casino gambling in WNY.
But I haven't heard a peep from Joel Rose on the state lottery. So it would seem to me that it's the "Casino" part of Citizens Against Casino Gambling that his group really opposes. The "Gambling" part must be fine.
Over at WLVL, I discussed a story from the Union Sun & Journal about the fire chief reminding folks that open burns are illegal ... even though they aren't. For more on the topic, check out the Gasport, NY blog by my friend Bob Confer.
She said the initial crowd estimate of 8,000 for the Gramm performance was exaggerated.
“There were only 4,000 people there. This concert [tonight] is a more popular concert. You get 8,000 or 10,000 people, where are they going to park? We can’t afford to change [the price]. You have to clean up the next day and pay the liability insurance,” Seekins-Smith said.
Paradowski said her advice to satellite parking lot owners would be to cut their fees.
“No sense in being greedy. I think if they’d kept it at $5, they’d have done a lot better. But people get dollar signs in front of their eyes,” the promoter said.
So. Was that lot filled up? Or might Seekins-Smith start to rethink $10 parking? I'd love to hear from people that were there.
Matt over at The Buffalo Bean, a great local blog, discusses his disgust with the way things in WNY don't change ... specifically the Skyway, which - it appears - is never going anywhere.