Casino endorsements shouldn't be for sale

Editorial: Casino endorsements shouldn't be for sale

Wednesday, August 20, 2014


There's just so much fundamentally wrong with the city of Rensselaer's attempt to buy the city of Albany's support for a casino that it's difficult to know where to start criticizing.

Rensselaer Mayor Dan Dwyer has offered Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan $10 million over 10 years out of his city's share of tax revenues from the proposed Hard Rock Hotel & Casino. In exchange, Albany would come out publicly in support of the Rensselaer project, an endorsement Dwyer hopes will help sway the state Gaming Commission to award Hard Rock the Capital Region’s gaming license.

What about this doesn't sound like a bribe? Is it fair? Is it even legal? In any case, what about this sounds remotely like a legitimate way to decide the location of a casino?

One of the casino application requirements was a demonstration of local support. How does voting to split the casino booty with surrounding communities in exchange for an endorsement demonstrate actual community support? For $10 million, most local towns would probably round up all their grandmothers and hand them over. For an endorsement, this is a great deal.

Would the Gaming Commission actually take this endorsement seriously, or would it see it for the fraud that it is? And if it did take the endorsement seriously, then what would that say to the other applicants who garnered actual local support from chambers of commerce, government bodies and citizens?

By allowing this to influence them, the Gaming Commission would be admitting to tilting the table in favor of one applicant over another. The whole thing is an invitation to lawsuits and criminal investigations.

If you're residents of the city of Rensselaer, you might be rather upset that your city government is willing to part with a substantial chunk of money that, by design of the application process, rightly belongs to you. The money is to offset the cost of dealing with the casino's effects on the local community, such as increased crime, traffic and loss in local business. By giving Albany $1 million, that's $1 million less that the city of Rensselaer has to combat the problems.

Rensselaer stands to collect about $5.7 million a year in gaming taxes, so the $1 million a year represents about 17.5 percent of the local share. For that, they’re assuming Albany’s endorsement will sway the Gaming Commission, a very risky assumption.

And what if you're a casino operator, who is being forced to pay a lot of taxes for all the problems your project is going to allegedly cause? If the host communities don't need all that money, as Rensselaer appears to be admitting, then you'd have to wonder why you're paying so much to them.
Albany officials justify accepting the money by saying their city will be affected by a casino, too. But the surrounding counties are already getting a share of casino taxes. Why does Albany deserve even more?

Schenectady's mayor says even if the city was approached, it isn't looking to share its casino revenues. He's right. The city should not have any part in this affair. In fact, no one should have any part in this affair.

The Gaming Commission should strongly declare that it will not consider endorsements that were garnered in exchange for money. And the other potential host communities should protest this practice for the unfair influence-buying that it is.

So to answer the question, where do you start criticizing this? Pretty much anywhere.



http://www.dailygazette.com/news/2014/aug/20/0820_editcasino/