Stoner Posted April 12, 2006 Report Posted April 12, 2006 I will admit I haven't read the story in today's Snooze. I saw the headline, and I saw a blurb on TV last night. I don't think I have to read more to figure out why Golisano opposes the casino. He's not a native, and he's owned the Sabres for only a couple of years, but it seems like he has already picked up on the "Buffalo way." Take care of yourself. Waterfront development, progress, jobs be damned.
nfreeman Posted April 12, 2006 Report Posted April 12, 2006 I will admit I haven't read the story in today's Snooze. I saw the headline, and I saw a blurb on TV last night. I don't think I have to read more to figure out why Golisano opposes the casino. He's not a native, and he's owned the Sabres for only a couple of years, but it seems like he has already picked up on the "Buffalo way." Take care of yourself. Waterfront development, progress, jobs be damned. Why are people so quick to assume the worst about buffalo's owners? I've noticed a common theme of reflexive hostility to both Golisano and Ralph Wilson. Maybe Golisano is concerned about the inevitable negative effects of a casino -- the rise in prostitution, crime, gambling addiction, alcoholism, etc. -- that crop up wherever a casino does. Maybe he knows that a casino will just end up sucking up the very limited amount of local disposable income -- esp. since the casino's plan seems to be to market itself to WNY and not more broadly. Maybe he knows that the right way to improve downtown, the waterfront, the local economy, etc. is not by making a quick-fix deal with the devil but rather by doing what many other cities have done successfully -- utilize tax incentives to bring in employers and create jobs that way. Let's not forget that there would be no Sabres without Golisano and no bills without Ralph. Golly has been a pretty good owner so far, and Ralph has been solid as a rock for 40 years and counting, IMHO.
Stoner Posted April 12, 2006 Author Report Posted April 12, 2006 You don't think Golisano opposes the casino because it could (would?) hurt the Sabres? He's just making this statement because he's a good guy who loves Buffalo? Why isn't Bob Rich or other major business leaders saying the same thing? (Maybe they have, I'm not sure.) I also find it curious that Golisano comes out with this statement a few days after positioning himself as the savior of the Bills. Seems like he has the community in a pretty vulnerable position. As for the possible negative socio-economic effects of a casino, don't they already exist in poor communities like Buffalo? Don't they get worse unless more jobs come to town? Do casinos cause these problems, or merely attract a clientele that is prone to having these problems in the first place?
Monkeygirl Posted April 12, 2006 Report Posted April 12, 2006 I've always hated the casino idea. It is not a silver bullet. There are much much better projects that could be developed on the waterfront than to plop a casino down at, say, the Statler building. And while I say this, I know that the city is desperate for jobs, but very little revenue would be going to the city itself and the big thing is, how would they keep this momentum going? Is the casino what we have to look forward to? Yuck. I personally would never step foot in it for many reasons but it would be basically located very near Niagara Street and the lower west side and I can just imagine lots of people who have no business being there spending their money. I have seen sooooo many beautiful artist and engineer drawings and sketches of PROPOSALS for the waterfront and surrounding area over the years that when I see one now, I completely disregard it. There is no reason to believe that the people who have power in this city are innovative and progressive enough to help this city move in the right direction. Masiello was mayor ever since I can remember living here and he did nothing. If a casino is built, I guess Brown would have at least 20 years of mayorship to look forward to. It's like we're stuck in a perpetual rut when other cities find smart ways to pick themselves up. There's a casino in Niagara Falls....and it still looks like crap down there. Clifton Hills on the Canadian side is fun for everyone. A Casino can be addictive and just dirty. People standing around drinking and spending money. It really doesn't make sense to me. What about doing something with the Aud. I HATE going past it because it's just there like every other building downtown. What happened to that Bass Pro Shop idea? And what about the 50 million dollars the government gave to the city like 5 years ago for waterfront development and such? Will we ever see that? Oh, it would go to the casino and the area around the arena would continue to look like death. This isn't directed at anyone, but it's no fun watching buffalo continuously dwindle away and a casino be lifted as the ultimate hope and the best option these people can come up with. Why don't we have a comittee (I know we're tired of those) of buffalo citizens who have been able to CREATE progress like the people of Elmwood Street and Hertel and Chippewa and the young people who have ideas. People who wouldn't be afraid to say what needs to be said and who would have enough energy to keep plans moving passed the proposal stage. But of course, it is a scary thought when the Peace Bridge plans have been in limbo for millions of years, since before man inhabited the earth.
gregkash Posted April 12, 2006 Report Posted April 12, 2006 I dont like a Casino in Downtown Buffalo.. Maybe one owned by the city, just outside the city boarders... but not in downtown. This is gonna be bad. 1000 new jobs. 2000 new murders.
Saber61 Posted April 12, 2006 Report Posted April 12, 2006 Yes id like to think as a canadian that Downtown buffalo is still fairly a safe place on game night... but as soon as you put a casino is theres going to be shady people everywhere! you won't be able to get back to your car in a distant parking lot without being mugged or followed... on the bright side people will pay for parking at the HSBC arena thus upping the revenue from that... However developing that water front would be a much better idea then putting a stupid casino in... hopefully the city of buffalo revlots against this and the casino goes elsewhere.
deluca67 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 I will admit I haven't read the story in today's Snooze. I saw the headline, and I saw a blurb on TV last night. I don't think I have to read more to figure out why Golisano opposes the casino. He's not a native, and he's owned the Sabres for only a couple of years, but it seems like he has already picked up on the "Buffalo way." Take care of yourself. Waterfront development, progress, jobs be damned. Can you provide a City where a downtown Casino has helped?
chileanseabass Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Can you provide a City where a downtown Casino has helped? las vegas?!?! it was nothing til the casinos rolled in :P
Hsoj25 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 perhaps at least read the article before immediately pigeonholing golisano
deluca67 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 las vegas?!?! it was nothing til the casinos rolled in :P Vegas never had a downtown. It was a GI stop until the mob took over. The Falls has one of the Eight Wonders of the World and the Casino hasn't done anything t change that city around. ;)
PromoTheRobot Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 If this was 1980 and Buffalo was thinking about a casino, I'd say absolutely, because the only places to gamble back then were Vegas and Atlantic City. In 2006, you can't go 60 miles in any direction without hitting a casino. So who is Buffalo going to draw with it's own casino downtown? Tourists??? Not likely. It will draw the people who can least afford to be gambling...locals! A good idea, about 20 years too late. PTR
sabre31_98 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 If this was 1980 and Buffalo was thinking about a casino, I'd say absolutely, because the only places to gamble back then were Vegas and Atlantic City. In 2006, you can't go 60 miles in any direction without hitting a casino. So who is Buffalo going to draw with it's own casino downtown? Tourists??? Not likely. It will draw the people who can least afford to be gambling...locals! A good idea, about 20 years too late. PTR Exactly!!! I was going to post the same thing but decided to wade through the rest of the responses first. There is absolutely no attraction to Downtown Buffalo for anyone other than locals. It is not like the addition of a casino is suddenly going to attract conventions or anything. I love Buffalo but it is really not a destination for anyone who is not from the area. True, I have brought friends in from all accross the country to Bills games and what not, but not one would have gone on their own. So in the end, the only money that would be spent there is local money. But what about the jobs, you say? I am sure that for every dollar it pays out to local labor, it would take in two (most likely more) from the same locals. Same arguement is going on here in cleveland but at least we can bring in the tourists. The Rock and Roll hall of fame is here. (tongue firmly planted in cheek)
Bmwolf21 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Vegas never had a downtown. It was a GI stop until the mob took over. The Falls has one of the Eight Wonders of the World and the Casino hasn't done anything t change that city around. ;) The Falls also has a city gov't that is, at best, equally as inept as the Buffalo/Erie County "leadership," and at worst, a bunch of crooks, thieves and worse, who employ mob-style tactics to those who oppose their "rule" over the city. County leaders aren't much better, as they continue to reach into the pockets of NF taxpayers, and, (of course) Gov. Pataki is screwing things up in the casino deal as well, throwing a wrench into the casino revenue distribution as well (see link). I liked the idea of a casino in Niagara Falls, but I didn't like the idea of taking a prime piece of real estate off the tax rolls, and I can't believe the gov't is doing all it can to screw up what could be a pretty good deal (in theory). I haven't heard much about crime rates rising, etc around the casino, but I never felt unsafe walking around the casino (well, no more than I would have felt walking around that area without the casino.) I grew up in Niagara Falls, and it breaks my heart to watch that city (and Buffalo, and other areas of WNY) waste away under corrupt and incompetent leadership at all levels of government... http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/patakigrab.html
mrjsbu96 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 I will admit I haven't read the story in today's Snooze. I saw the headline, and I saw a blurb on TV last night. I don't think I have to read more to figure out why Golisano opposes the casino. He's not a native, and he's owned the Sabres for only a couple of years, but it seems like he has already picked up on the "Buffalo way." Take care of yourself. Waterfront development, progress, jobs be damned. I'm still not personally sure where I stand on the casino issue but there really does seem to be a lot of evidence to support that it would only downgrade the area and the only "new" infusion of money would come from the local economy. Whether you agree on a casino or not, as far as Golisano goes I would suggest reading the article. He openly admits that he is late getting to the game and he also made the point and I agree 100% that he would actually stand to personally do better with a casino. It would be located fairly close to the Arena and it could actulaly help out attendance for Sabre games during the lean years and also on 'bad' game nights. I think he is making his voice heard b/c he is now a proven leader in the community and b/c he has had time to research the issue. I won't even begin my 'blogging' on how much potential our region has and how little of it we have taken advantage of - that has been done enough
Taro T Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 If this was 1980 and Buffalo was thinking about a casino, I'd say absolutely, because the only places to gamble back then were Vegas and Atlantic City. In 2006, you can't go 60 miles in any direction without hitting a casino. So who is Buffalo going to draw with it's own casino downtown? Tourists??? Not likely. It will draw the people who can least afford to be gambling...locals! A good idea, about 20 years too late. PTR I am in favor of casinos in Buffalo and NF, NY for one simple reason; they exist on the other side of the border. Erie and Niagara Counties will get the downside of casinos simply due to proximity, they may as well minimize the net negative effect by at least getting a portion of the revenue. They currently get nothing from casinos on the Canadian side. NF SHOULD be a tourist mecca. The Canadian side is, and with some more thought and a little less graft, the US side could be as well. Buffalo, is gorgeous in the summertime, and should market itself outside the area (it doesn't currently). During the winter, there are hockey tournaments going on nearly constantly, and again, the city could market itself better. If the casino in NF, ON never opened, I would not be in favor of casinos primarily for the reasons you have stated.
Stoner Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Posted April 13, 2006 He openly admits that he is late getting to the game and he also made the point and I agree 100% that he would actually stand to personally do better with a casino. Not to split hairs, but Golisano said the casino COULD help the Sabres, not WOULD. No one really knows for sure, but if 150 million entertainment dollars a year are taken out of the local economy, isn't it reasonable to think it's going to hurt the Sabres? Just why is Golisano so late "getting to the game"? He met with the Seneca president weeks ago and had nothing to say. I haven't followed this story day to day, so I might be all wet, but it seems to me that the story turned when information came out that the casino would market to and draw from the local area. What might have looked like a positive for the Sabres began to look like a real threat -- hence Golisano's interest in the subject. Just my humble opinion. :) Please... let's not be naive. You don't become a billionaire in business without being cold and calculating. Golisano is just trying to protect his business interest. I'm sure he cares about the folks, but he didn't oppose a casino in Buffalo two years ago, one year ago, six months ago or two months ago, did he?
Taro T Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Not to split hairs, but Golisano said the casino COULD help the Sabres, not WOULD. No one really knows for sure, but if 150 million entertainment dollars a year are taken out of the local economy, isn't it reasonable to think it's going to hurt the Sabres? Just why is Golisano so late "getting to the game"? He met with the Seneca president weeks ago and had nothing to say. I haven't followed this story day to day, so I might be all wet, but it seems to me that the story turned when information came out that the casino would market to and draw from the local area. What might have looked like a positive for the Sabres began to look like a real threat -- hence Golisano's interest in the subject. Just my humble opinion. :) Please... let's not be naive. You don't become a billionaire in business without being cold and calculating. Golisano is just trying to protect his business interest. I'm sure he cares about the folks, but he didn't oppose a casino in Buffalo two years ago, one year ago, six months ago or two months ago, did he? Well, I don't know how he felt about it 6 months ago, but ~3 years ago when Golisano last ran for governor, he was in favor of the casino in NF but opposed to the other 2 proposed casinos.
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Quote from the article: And at City Hall, leaders are worried about Seneca Gaming's disclosures in corporate filings that the slot machines, gaming tables and restaurants will cater primarily to Buffalo and its suburbs and not try to pull in tourists. As a result, the Seneca Buffalo Creek Casino could just feed off assets already here and not bring new dollars into the region's economy, as hoped. "This is a very troubling development and raises the strong possibility that the Buffalo Creek Casino will have negative impacts on our local economy," Mayor Byron W. Brown said in a statement Tuesday, repeating words expressed by his economic development director over the weekend. http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060413/1006437.asp
Stoner Posted April 13, 2006 Author Report Posted April 13, 2006 Thanks for that interesting tidbit, Dave. It's a tough logical spot for Golisano to be in, eh? I guess he can argue that when he ran for governor, he hadn't done his homework on the social ills of gambling. But if he admits that he knew then what he knows now, that casinos contribute to crime, suicides, child abuse, bankruptcies and the like, it would sound like he didn't care if those problems were visited upon the good people of the Falls. The reality is that in life, things are not black and white, but shades of gray. As a candidate for governor, he clearly believed that the positives of a casino would outweigh the negatives, that economic issues outweighed social issues. As owner of the Sabres, economic issues still outweigh social issues, but it's his economy we're talking about, and he arrives at a different conclusion.
topshelfcookies Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 I think the best reason for not having a Casino built in downtown Buffalo comes from Detriot. During Super Bowl week I heard a pretty candid interview with the Mayor of Detroit (which does have a downtown casino that was recently built) who said that the casino absolutely did NOT help to stimulate Detroit tourism. I understand that Buffalo isn't as crime ridden as Detroit is, but Detroit is also at least twice as populous as Buffalo, and much more well known throughout the country. Like Buffalo, the Detroit casino is also competing with Candian casinos across the border in Windsor. What I remember most from the interview was the mayor stating that the casino places such an emphasis on being all inclusive, that it doesn't help to grow the economy in neighboring buisnesses. Shopping, night clubs and restaraunts are always a staple inside a casino so it's rare for people (ESPECIALLY tourists, who bring "new" money into a city) to venture outside a casino to neighboring local establishments. So for those that argue a casino would bring in tourists and their pocketbooks...well, yes it does do that...but those same tourists are much more likely to stay at the casino's hotel, eat at least 2 of their 3 meals a day at the casino and then party that night at one of the bars/clubs inside the casino. The most these tourists bring into the area is maybe a $10 trip to McDonalds on their way out of town or to the airport. Big whoop. If the Native Americans aren't going to redevelop the old NFTA terminal, then there's no way they should take tax revenue away from the city. I seriously hope that this whole casino idea gets bogged down by the same incompetence and beaurocracy that has ruined waterfront development for the last 25 years.
Rayzor32 Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 I'm definitely conflicted about this -- I think it would be a nice bookend to an entertainment district with Bass Pro, Erie Canal re-creation/museum, and HSBC arena, IF it's done right -- there's a casino on the waterfront in Halifax that's a good model, and there's an Indian casino in Milwaukee that works as well - but some of what I hear is making me very wary of the Senecas' intentions, and I really trust Golisano at this point -- he has done nothing to make me question his motives thus far. When the standard Buffalo status-quo obstructionists were complaining about the casino, I didn't listen, but if Tom talks, I will certainly consider what he (and Quinn says)...for all we know, he could be plotting to bring the Bills to the waterfront when their lease ends in 2013...given the option of a stadium on the waterfront or a casino, I'd take the stadium..
Taro T Posted April 13, 2006 Report Posted April 13, 2006 Thanks for that interesting tidbit, Dave. It's a tough logical spot for Golisano to be in, eh? I guess he can argue that when he ran for governor, he hadn't done his homework on the social ills of gambling. But if he admits that he knew then what he knows now, that casinos contribute to crime, suicides, child abuse, bankruptcies and the like, it would sound like he didn't care if those problems were visited upon the good people of the Falls. The reality is that in life, things are not black and white, but shades of gray. As a candidate for governor, he clearly believed that the positives of a casino would outweigh the negatives, that economic issues outweighed social issues. As owner of the Sabres, economic issues still outweigh social issues, but it's his economy we're talking about, and he arrives at a different conclusion. Not really, from my take on the Snooze article and his older position, he feels that there is already a large availability of gambling in the area and that additional gambling will not bring any benefits along with the problems that it will bring. That he supported a casino in NF may have simply been an acceptance of the fact that NF, ON has a casino and NF, NY will suffer some of the harm from that existing casino. By having one of it's own, a 10 minute walk or a 15 minute drive away from the other one, it is at least getting SOME benefit without substantially increasing the problems associated with the gambling. I don't know his reasoning for supporting the NF casino in the past, I am guessing as to his reasons. I just think that he sees far more gray in this matter than people want to accept.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.