26 Comments

1. ike says:

   July 13, 2008 at 11:06 pm

   are there any ultra vires limitations on charities? I would guess so but i have no idea
2. Chris Smith says:

   July 14, 2008 at 12:00 am

   My response to someone who tells me I shouldn’t gamble or my dropping $50 in a casino for a few hours of entertainment is “The fuck do you care?” It’s my money, I’ll spend it as I fucking please.

   This is one of those issues for which I don’t have the energy to argue much beyond the above. The nanny staters who oppose casino gambling will not be swayed and have the money and time to fight to the death. The people who are in favor of casino gambling are just as dug in and the whole argument is academic.

   However, the Seneca Nation has more money, better lawyers, and will either win on appeal or lobby for a piece of pro-casino legislation that they will ram up the collective tight puckered asses of Joel Rose, Diane Bennett, and Bruce Jackson. In the interim, we’ll look like a town of overbearing liberal know-it-all dickbags. Renaissance!
3. Eisenbart says:

   July 14, 2008 at 1:06 am

   I am not opposed to a casino in Buffalo but I am against how this casino is coming into Buffalo. It’s unfair. Unfair not in the sense that they don’t have to pay taxes because they pay millions in “taxes.” Which is a competitive playing that probably in favor of the Senecas but the fact they are the only ones that are allowed to allow gambling which is completely unfair to other venues that run the same line… bars, restaurants, hotels, etc.

   Lets put it this way that Tops against Wegmans. Both are on the same level playing field but Wegmans scored a deal with the state that makes them the only legal venue to purchase milk, bread, eggs, and meat. Does it matter what Tops does at this point? They are dead in the water. The same can be said about many of the businesses when pitted against the casino.

   They should allow gambling or not allowed gambling. This in between shit is a bogus deal. I’m sure if the Senecas were planning on building a casino in the heart of NYC that the state would be singing a different tune. That’s my opinion.
4. hank says:

   July 14, 2008 at 1:45 am

   In the interim, we’ll look like a town of overbearing liberal know-it-all dickbags

   Too fucking late, pal.
5. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone says:

   July 14, 2008 at 1:51 am

   ok, good: let’s dice this up a bit.

   Seems to me that all of the following place the casino issue firmly under the purview for the Foundation:

   social services
   - we’ll require more to deal with problem gamblers
   churches and religious organizations
   - many are in principle against gambling
   Alcoholism
   - if you think there’s no link between gambling and addiction, you have clearly never been in Vegas at 4:00 am.
   Children/youth, services
   - obviously, a habitual gambler with kids is going to have an impact–a negative impact–on their kid’s future
   Crime/law enforcement
   -=aside from how loosing a bunch of money obviously often leades to ciminal problems, we also have to consider the idea that a nine acre parcel of Buffalo will be policed by, what- some Seneca cops. Great!
   Community/economic development
   - duh
   Environment
   -in the sense of traffic at least; possible also in more “environmental” ways.
   Public affairs
   - duh
   Religion
   -already stated
   Substance abuse
   - goes hand in hand with gambling.

   So, what’s your point? Are you trying to get me to be all “OMG; They’re wasting their money?” or something? Because honestly, it’s none of your, or my, business. They have their own board of directors and can do whatever they want.

   Chris- ok, so at what point does keeping people from murdering one another to controlling gambling become the Nanny State? I agree in principle, that the State telling me I can’t go blow a bunch of dough at a casino is stupid. But then, the Casino isn’t really Jim’s Steak Out, if you know what I mean. The casino is a place for one of thwo things:

   Dumb people with a lot misplaced “hope” that in the long run they win (they cannot, as I’m sure you understand)
   Smart people on a budget for entertainment.

   Which do you think best characterizes the average casino-goer?

   I say a casino is pretty well beyond the normal laws of free trade and economics. Well, this one, anyway.

   I’m clearly anti-casino. Not because I think it’s cool for the State to tell me how to waste my money, but because it’s a shit deal for Buffalo business as a whole, and also, it’s a tempatation that those who can least afford to be tempted by are likely to be tempted by.

   Sorry for the bad grammar. It’s late.
6. Mike In WNY says:

   July 14, 2008 at 3:20 am

   Then Nanny State is what is trying to cram the casino down our throats. The Wendt foundation is helping citizens exercise their 1st Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
7. Buffalopundit says:

   July 14, 2008 at 9:43 am

   The casino is only a bad deal because it’s on sovereign Seneca land. That’s the only reason. I don’t want to hear whining about the social cost of gambling any more than I care to hear about the social cost of any other vice that happens to be legal as hell in this state (including the Lottery, video slots in Hamburg and Batavia, casino gambling in Niagara Falls, ON or Erie, PA or the racetrack in Fort Erie). It’s an established industry in this region, and companies should be permitted to participate and compete for gaming dollars.

   So spare me the “people drink” and “people spend too much” talk which is really just “I have to protect stupid people from themselves” double-speak.

   I wish Trump could build and operate a taxpaying casino in downtown Buffalo.
8. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone says:

   July 14, 2008 at 10:58 am

   The casino is only a bad deal because it’s on sovereign Seneca land. That’s the only reason

   I disagree, and your opinion isn’t necessarily the unassailable truth, guy.

   And yeah, while I think in the long run it’s better to have policies and institutions in place that reduce the sheer number of stupid people at all, in the short term, we’re going to have to protect them from themselves. This is why 9 year-olds can’t drink, vote or… gamble. No doublespeak about it.
9. Buffalopundit says:

   July 14, 2008 at 11:28 am

   I disagree, and your opinion isn’t necessarily the unassailable truth, guy.

   Sorry, I thought it was understood that just about anything I write is “my opinion”. If you’d prefer, perhaps you could develop a script that adds, “in my opinion” to everything I write, so as to render it all a bit easier for you to digest.

   Also, I’m not quite sure where or when I ever said my opinion was the “unassailable truth”, but thanks so much for the unnecessary patronization.
10. Chris Smith says:

    July 14, 2008 at 11:29 am

    I’d argue that the communal costs of public drinking establishments and the availability of alcohol in stores and restaurants are much higher than those of casinos.

    Alcohol is a scourge on the public health system. Cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and assorted maladies which accompany the availability and use of alcohol. Also, the amount of money we spend on public safety to deal with those addicted to or those who are occasionally overserved far outweighs that which we spend on the effects of one casino. DUI, fights, domestic abuse, child abuse, rape, sexual abuse, propensity to use illegal drugs, loss of employment, ets are all heavily linked to the use of alcohol.

    Why is consumption of alcohol alright but gambling isn’t? They are both behaviors which are highly addictive and destructive and also completely optional and based on personal responsibility and discretion. The costs to a community of bars and alcohol are much higher than that of any one casino, sovereign or not.
11. Buffalopundit says:

    July 14, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Also, Snarky – it’s one thing for society to protect 9 year olds and other people under the age of majority. Once you turn 18 / 21, all bets are off (so to speak) and you’re generally on your own.
12. Chris Smith says:

    July 14, 2008 at 11:41 am

    Problem: The consequences of alcohol use affect everyone—even those who drink rarely or not at all.

    • There is a strong association between alcohol consumption and physical assault; communities that have a higher density of liquor stores and bars experience more violent assaults.

    • Every year in the U.S., approximately 40 percent of fatal traffic crashes involve alcohol. Estimates from 2000 show that the societal costs of driving under the influence come to $1 per drink, with people other than the drinking driver paying 60 percent of those costs.

    • Alcohol costs the U.S. economy an estimated $134 billion per year in lost productivity and earnings due to alcohol-related illness, premature death, and crime.

    • Less than half of the economic burden of alcohol abuse falls on those who drink alcohol—government bears nearly 40 percent of the burden, with private insurance and victims also losing billions of dollars.

    I can keep going…
13. Frieda says:

    July 14, 2008 at 12:05 pm

    Here’s hoping they lose their tax exempt status.
14. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone says:

    July 14, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    re Alcohol v. Gambling

    Obviously, there’s some valid points there regarding the overlap of ills caused by the two things- however it’s necessary to draw a distinction between a substance (and all activities related to it- manufacture, usage, taxation, etc) and something that is inherently an activity. To whit: I cannot hold “gambling” in my hand.

    The importance of this distinction can be seen in the effects of prohibition. Forbidding the sale, manufacture and transport of alcohol, was, by pretty much everyone’s account, a colossal failure. In distinction, what happens when gambling is fully prohibited? We can’t know for certain, but I think the idea of a vast criminal network nearly as powerful as the government itself (as was occasioned by our national prohibition) arising so people can go ultimately loose money for entertainment is far-fetched. Can you really imagine a network of underground BTOs, roulette and card joints, like speakeasys?

    So, we can talk about the ills of each of these two things, but to draw parallels is, I think, only somewhat useful because when it comes to “dealing with alcohol,” we already know from experience that banning it outright is worse than managing it. When it comes to “dealing with gambling”, however, we don’t have a reasonable fear that banning it outright would be worse than managing it’s effects.

    I think this distinction has other implications as well, but let’s just start with what I’ve laid out for now.
15. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone says:

    July 14, 2008 at 2:10 pm

    bp-

    right, I’m far to stupid to understand that; clearly.
16. Snarky Snarkmore McSnarkamaphone says:

    July 14, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    bp-

    what if you’re over 21, but have the mental age of a 14-year old? Should we honestly treat you like an adult? ‘Cause actually, we don’t, right? Mildly and certainly severely retarded individuals are absolutely protected for their own good.

    The question when it comes to government “protecting people from themselves (and others)” isn’t whether there’s a line, it’s where the line is. Much like gun control, frankly, and many other issues.
17. Buffalopundit says:

    July 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

    Snarky, you’re changing the subject now for the second time. First it was 7 year olds whom we had to protect from the ills of gambling, and now it’s the developmentally disabled adult.

    Of course, both of those are wholly beside the point, which is that non-developmentally disabled adult people don’t need Joel Rose or Bruce Jackson telling them whether or not they can spend their money in a casino or on the Lottery or on video slots or on booze or on pork rinds or on Twinkies or on chicken wings.
18. hank says:

    July 14, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    BP wrote:
    So spare me the “people drink” and “people spend too much” talk which is really just “I have to protect stupid people from themselves” double-speak.

    Be careful BP—”I have to protect Stupid People from themselves” is the first Commandment of Modern American Liberalism. Is that not what Big Government does?

    In a “Nice Way”, they say–You’re not smart enough to spend your own money, so we tax you to death and spend it on what WE feel is important.
    Merely a re-statement.

    Your Conservativism is showing Alan, not a plus in WNY.
19. Dan says:

    July 15, 2008 at 6:38 am

    I agree with snark – 7 year olds should not be allowed to gamble.

    Nor should all those mentally retarded people who fill the casinos.

    Please.
20. Timothy Domst says:

    July 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

    Purposefully Ignoringmore McHistorymaphone said;

    Can you really imagine a network of underground BTOs, roulette and card joints, like speakeasys?

    I say;

    Familiarize yourself with “numbers”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_game

    one of the cornerstones of the mob. I am fortunately not into wasting my money gambling, but so many people are, that it is exactly like prohibition in that if proscribed it will go underground and enrich criminals.
21. Peter Farrell says:

    July 15, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    I’ll add to above comment and say that that doesn’t even begin to touch the enormous amount of illegal betting on sports events in this country through “bookies” and such. Also something that organized crime has had it’s hand in through the years.