Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cookie - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nocasino/public_html/index.php:3) in /home/nocasino/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 423

Warning: session_start() [function.session-start]: Cannot send session cache limiter - headers already sent (output started at /home/nocasino/public_html/index.php:3) in /home/nocasino/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 423

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/nocasino/public_html/index.php:3) in /home/nocasino/public_html/libraries/joomla/session/session.php on line 426
Editorials Joomla! - the dynamic portal engine and content management system http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=3&layout=blog&Itemid=44 Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:51:22 +0000 Joomla! 1.5 - Open Source Content Management en-gb Reasons for Opposing a Casino http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:reasons-for-opposing-a-casino&catid=31:general&Itemid=56 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57:reasons-for-opposing-a-casino&catid=31:general&Itemid=56

 

  1. It's bad for the entertainment businesses.

  2. We lose city and county taxable land. Also the State and the Federal government lose income taxes on whatever business would have been in those locations, and all three levels of government below Federal lose sales tax revenue.

  3. We, the voters, don't get a say.

  4. We, the voters don't get control; we just get the bills.

  5. The number of people we will have to provide counseling for addiction will greatly increase. We will experience increases in alcoholism, bankruptcy, divorce, spousal abuse, divorce, suicide, and crime. The victims will have their own victims, in a perverse multiplier effect.

  6. The Governor's own State study said casinos are bad for urban areas.

  7. Buffalo's casino will have to compete with Niagara Falls, Ont.'s casino and Niagara Falls, NY's casino.

  8. The profits will all go outside the community, either to the Seneca Nation or to the developer. Only the tax amount of 25% will stay in the state and only 6% (a part of the 25%) will stay in Buffalo.

  9. A sovereign nation would be in downtown Buffalo. Any complaints with what is going on would now be entreaties to a foreign nation, rather than a normal administrative, civil, or criminal procedure.


 

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:05:55 +0000
Disastrous Decision http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:disastrous-decision&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=56:disastrous-decision&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 Robert J. Schulman
ANOTHER VOICE, Buffalo News: 10/28/2006

City officials ignore facts about casino gambling

Two days after the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling Regional Conference occurred here, I saw Seneca Nation President Barry Snyder, Mayor Byron Brown and Seneca Gaming Corp. officials on public access TV replaying the Fulton Street sale approval announcement and predicting "development, waterfront connectedness, millions of tourists" and other such misleading sound bites. This offensive and private press staging did not present any opposing views or facts. No public input was offered or allowed. There was no citizen representation. This came as a result of surreptitious, behind-closed-door sham "negotiations" over the last two months that overlooked fact, economic research and obvious outcome in other communities.

By contrast, the educational, open NCALG conference provided solid economic analysis by experts and research founded on realities. It has been clearly shown that urban casinos cause harm far in excess of any help to the city. Again, look at Detroit, Niagara Falls, New York, Louisiana, Turning Stone or the big casinos in Connecticut - all true losers for these communities.

Please understand that there is real human tragedy for individuals and families being created in these "entertainment" palaces. Adult gamblers are modeling the risk of future misery for their children. Buffalo Creek (which will hopefully never open) in legal documents wrote its stated intention is to bring in the local population, but now claims "in writing" that it cares about promoting itself to the region.

The Senecas and Brown have no data, no facts and no proof to support the future benefit to Buffalo. The first year's $125 million will go to the building trades - Brown's allies - and yearly thereafter $150 million or more will leave the economy and bring in a zero-development Niagara-Falls type scene, good only for the Senecas and gambling industry supporters.

For every dollar generated, $3 will be lost and $12 million to $16 million in taxes will belong to the sovereign nation, not the city. Five million dollars for the city from the slot cut is 50 percent less than revenue from parking enforcement as projected in the 2006-07 budget.

Is anyone in City Hall doing the math or checking the facts? Not one city official came to the gambling conference. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission stated that as the money is lost faster, the socioeconomic negatives increase dramatically. Its final report confirmed that the gambling industry had created new addicted gamblers, new bankruptcies and new crime and corruption. The 1999 U.S. Gambling Commission unanimously called for a moratorium on the expansion of U.S. gambling. Sadly, however, it has grown into a monster.

Anyone with sense can see the harm coming to Buffalo. Jobs will be lost, restaurants closed, families devastated, bankruptcies and crime increased. The casino is a strategy for injustice, not economic development.

 

Robert J. Schulman, M.D., lives in Buffalo.

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:07:42 +0000
No Deal on the Buffalo Casino http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:no-deal-on-the-buffalo-casino&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=55:no-deal-on-the-buffalo-casino&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 Bruce Jackson
ARTVOICE: 1/28/2007

The federal case

The bottom line on US District Court Judge William M. Skretny’s 51-page January 12 decision in the Buffalo casino case is this: The nine-acre parcel of land in downtown Buffalo on which the Seneca Nation of Indians wants to build a casino never received the kind of examination from the federal government that would determine whether or not it was in the category of Indian land on which gambling could occur. Absent an adequate determination, no casino gambling can occur in Buffalo.

There was no question, Judge Skretny said, that the Senecas owned the downtown land. But there is a huge difference between land Indians own and land that meets the legal requirements for casino gambling. The Senecas can build anything they like on their downtown Buffalo property—hotel, school, hospital, sphinx, casino, anything at all. But they cannot gamble on that land or invite anyone else to gamble on it. If they build a casino in spite of Judge Skretny’s decision, as some of their spokesmen have said is their plan, they risk pouring money into an enterprise even more pointless than the slot machines their clients so dearly love. But unlike most of their customers, they’ve got lots of money and perhaps can afford to squander it in a pointless public gesture.

Judge Skretny reversed and remanded the National Indian Gaming Commission’s (NIGC) 2002 determination that it was “Indian Land” (which is specifically defined by federal law) and therefore gambling-eligible land as “arbitrary and capricious.” He sent the determination back to the NIGC, saying this time they had to give it a serious rather than a cursory look, which means this time the commission will have to say what parts, if any, of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), which controls all gambling in Indian land, applies to the Senecas’ downtown Buffalo purchase.

That act prohibits, with very few exceptions, gambling on Indian land acquired after October 18, 1988. If the NIGC decides the land is in fact Indian land, and if that land falls under one of the few exceptions, gambling will be allowed—at which point casino opponents will be back in court challenging that determination. If the NIGC decides the Seneca purchase is not Indian land, the Senecas will in all likelihood be in court challenging that rejection of their request.

Until the commission determines whether or not the Senecas’ ownership of the land is included or is excluded by the restrictive section of the IGRA, the parcel is just land that the Seneca Nation owns, nothing more.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit were Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County and a number of other groups and individuals. After the suit was filed, Erie County Executive Joel Giambra asked the judge to permit himself and the county to join the suit. The judge agreed.

The defendants were all federal officials and agencies: the Secretary of the Interior, the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs, the chairman of the NIGC and the NIGC itself. Any or all of them could appeal Judge Skretny’s ruling and thereby attempt to block any reconsideration by the NIGC. Most lawyers I’ve talked to think there is little likelihood that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will reject a judge’s decision that a federal agency clarify a poorly done determination.

The Seneca Nation of Indians was not a party to the lawsuit but asked the judge if it could submit an amicus brief. Amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs are documents submitted by individuals or organizations who either have information that the judge might use in his determination or who have interests not represented by the plaintiffs or defendants. Since these briefs become part of the record and take time to deal with, judges are parsimonious about accepting them. Judge Skretny agreed to accept the Seneca amicus brief, but he rejected all of its major points, the most important of which was a request that he dismiss the entire lawsuit. No one, he said, was challenging the Senecas’ ownership of the land; the only questions had to do with the uses to which it was being put and those interests were well enough represented by the actual defendants.

He dismissed as moot most of the plaintiffs’ major requests, which casino proponents have been crowing over in interviews this past week. They’re crowing over nothing. “Moot” means simply that a question has, at this point, no practical significance; it doesn’t mean the question is in any way defective. Judge Skretny said that proper determination of the land parcel’s legal status had precedent over all other arguments, so they had to wait for that determination. Since the judge did not dismiss those major requests on their merits, they can all be brought up again should the NIGC rule that the Buffalo Creek nine acres is Indian land eligible for gambling.

The full 51-page decision is online at http://buffaloreport.com/2007/judge.skretny.order.011206.pdf.

 

Running mouths

For several months now Buffalo lawyer Michael Powers has been insisting at great length and with no perceivable doubt that the proposed gambling joint in downtown Buffalo was a done deal. The only options—Powers confidently told the Common Council, the citizens at the council’s public hearing on the casino, the city’s control board, the Buffalo-Niagara Partnership and who knows who all else—were to go with the flow or to get rolled over by the inevitable.

No one on any of the public bodies before which he performed his “done deal” routine ever made him defend his assertions. No one on the control board or the council or the partnership said, “What’s your evidence for saying this is a done deal?” They just listened to him as if he were presenting a report rather than hyping a position.

Sometimes Powers was paid for his efforts by Buffalo developer Carl Paladino, sometimes by Mayor Byron Brown’s office, and sometimes, he claimed, he was doing it pro bono for the welfare of the city he lived in a suburb of, a claim his quondam employer Paladino disputed.

It was difficult to tell if Powers was working as a lawyer or if he was working as a flack for any of the aforementioned or for clients still unnamed. In any case, he stayed on message: The casino is a done deal, a done deal, a done deal.

Wrong. Judge Skretny’s decision says all bets are off. There isn’t any deal, done or otherwise. There isn’t anything, at least not until the NIGC comes up with a reasoned and documented decision on the status of the Buffalo property, and that decision, in turn, stands up to the court challenges that surely will come.

Powers isn’t the only one who let his mouth get in front of the facts in this case. An hour or so after the decision came down last Friday, Erie County Executive Joel Giambra called a press conference in which he announced that the Buffalo casino was dead. That’s no more a certain fact than Powers’ claim that the casino was a done deal.

As is often the case in major public issues, a lot of people on either side run their mouths, but the only voice that really counts is a judge who looks at the facts and at the law and who then says whether what is going on is legal or illegal, whether it can continue or whether it must stop. That is what happened six years ago when New York Supreme Court Judge Eugene Fahey told the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Authority that it had to stop whatever expansion it was doing and come into compliance with New York’s environmental law. And that is what happened last week when US District Court Judge William M. Skretny told all the talkers and players in the proposed Buffalo casino that they’d have to stop what they were doing until there was a legitimate determination of whether or not that casino would meet the conditions for gambling set forth under federal law.

 

The land in question

This case hinges primarily on the interpretation and application of two laws, the 1988 IGRA and the Seneca Nation Settlement Act of 1990 (SNSA).

IGRA sets up the conditions under which casinos can be operated on Indian land and a mechanism for monitoring their operation. It creates a commission—the NIGC—to oversee and regulate all gambling on Indian land and to consider applications for new casinos. With only a few exceptions casinos can only go on land Indians owned before the adoption of IGRA in 1988.

One of those exceptions has to do with land acquired in a land claim process. In her November 12, 2002 letter allowing the Buffalo project to go forward, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton said the Buffalo property was the result of a land claim process because a small portion of the money used to buy the Buffalo property came from the $30 million provided by the Seneca Nation Settlement Act.

Former Congressman John LaFalce, who coauthored the SNSA with Amo Houghton, disputes that. He says using SNSA to help legitimize setting up a gambling joint 14 miles from any reservation in a location where it would otherwise be prohibited by the state constitution is a perversion of the act’s intention and substance. Neither he nor Houghton, nor the members of Congress who unanimously voted for it, ever contemplated it would be used as a gimmick to get around state law. More important, he says, SNSA isn’t a land claim act anyway, so it and money derived from it have no place in an IGRA action. The Seneca Nation of Indians, he says, owned the land around Salamanca before the SNSA and they owned it after the SNSA. The act didn’t compensate them for land taken from them improperly; it compensated them for having been underpaid by the non-Indian lessees who had been living there. The SNSA was, in Judge Skretny’s words, Congress seeking “to assist in resolving the past inequities to the SNI, to provide stability and security to the non-Indian lessees, to promote economic growth and community development for both the SNI and the non-Indian communities established on reservation land, and to avoid the potential legal liability on the part of the United States that could result if a settlement was not reached.” No land ever changed hands or status as a result of SNSA.

The judge has told the NIGC to sort this out and document how they did the sorting. The commission has three members, two of whom must be Indians. The chair is selected by the president, the other two by the Secretary of the Interior. Most of NIGC’s work has to do with keeping the casinos honest. As the number of attempts to create off-reservation casinos has increased, the commission has taken on a gatekeeper function as well. Since NIGC can only regulate gambling operations on lands taken into trust by the federal government that was either Indian country before 1988 (which the Buffalo parcel was not) or fits through one of the loopholes in § 2719 of IGRA, that gatekeeper function is critical. If they say a parcel of land does not fit through a loophole, then Indian gambling cannot occur on it.

A television reporter at Giambra’s press conference asked, “Since there are two Indians on the Commission won’t they just rubber stamp this?” The answer is no, they won’t just rubber stamp this. That’s what the chair of NIGC did last time and that is why Judge Skretny said he was kicking it back to them. This time, the judge said, they had to give reasons in law for their decision.

So won’t those two Indians find excuses in law to do what they want to do anyway?

That maligns the commissioners and it ignores NIGC’s behavior. It has, in several recent cases, some of them similar in key regards to this one, rejected tribal claims that acquired land was gambling land. They are willing to say no. They post their final determinations in the Reading Room/Indian Land Opinions section of the commission’s Web site: http://www.nigc.gov/ReadingRoom/IndianLandOpinions/tabid/120/Default.aspx. See, for example, the July 19, 2004, Wyandotte Nation and the September 1, 2006, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians restored land rejections. This is not a gimme for the Senecas.

That Web page also contains a link to former-Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton’s November 12, 2002, letter explaining why she did not affirmatively approve the Seneca Nation of Indians’ request but let the permitting go forward by non-action instead. She had, she said, major problems with many key issues in the Buffalo deal, but finally didn’t want to get between the governor and the tribe. Judge Skretny’s decision telling the NIGC to give this a serious, reasoned look doesn’t reverse her letter; rather it abolishes it. The NIGC now has to do the job that Norton sidestepped and the NIGC chair glossed over three years ago.

This gatekeeper function wasn’t envisioned for NIGC when IGRA was written, so there doesn’t seem to be a set of rules and regulations setting forth how these determinations are made. There’s no formal procedure by which interested parties can make their concerns known, no equivalent of the amicus brief in a court case, no notice or hearing requirements in the regulations and the way appeals of NIGC decisions are handled. They seem to be handled on an ad hoc basis.

So we know who gets to make the next decision—the National Indian Gaming Commission—but not how that decision will be made or when it will be made. “Significantly,” a lawyer told me, “the regulations provide for appeal only of a disapproval of a gambling ordinance, and the appeal can be made only by the Indian nation—though if the Indian nation does appeal a disapproval, third parties are permitted ‘limited participation,’ i.e., a written submission either for or against the disapproval.”

 

The state of the suit

Nothing’s over. The Buffalo Creek casino is stopped for now, but there are many stations ahead on the road to final resolution of this mess.

If NIGC says the Buffalo Creek property is not Indian land, then the Seneca Nation of Indians will probably go to court to challenge that decision, and the roles in the case just adjudicated in Judge Skretny’s court will be reversed: The plaintiffs whose case has been underwritten by Citizens for Better Buffalo will perhaps ask to file an amicus brief supporting the decision of the NIGC, while the Seneca Nation of Indians will be challenging the government’s decision.

If NIGC says the Buffalo Creek property is Indian land, it will have to do so with specific reference to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, something no federal official or agency has thus far done. That will provide the specific grounds for the plaintiffs to return to Judge Skretny’s court, bringing along all of the points that were mooted out this time.

It might be that the environmental impact study, which former Buffalo Mayor Anthony Masiello, current mayor Byron Brown and former governor George Pataki worked so hard to avoid is, because of Judge Skretny’s involvement, now inevitable, and for the first time public officials will have to take seriously the huge economic harm the casino would do to the city.

Such studies are routinely done elsewhere; Buffalo is an anomaly. Nearly all the pending casino applications listed on the Indianz.com Web site (http://www.indianz.com/maps/casinostalker) have done environmental impact studies or are doing them now. The Bad River and St. Croix bands of the Chippewa Tribe have worked since 2000 on putting an off-reservation casino into Beloit, Wisconsin. First, Beloit had a referendum in which 61 percent of the voters approved the idea of a casino. Then there was an environmental assessment in 2003 and a draft environmental impact statement in 2005. The process is still going on.

What happened in Buffalo was just the opposite. The State Senate had defeated a casino amendment in 1997, so Pataki got gambling by using Indian lands and compacts, an end-run around the state constitution. Buffalo voters were allowed to speak at a special Common Council hearing, but the council paid no attention to what they said. There were never any studies done of the casino’s impact. It has all been based on patronage and politics.

 

What next?

At some point the Senecas might decide the continual legal battling isn’t worth it, but that’s not likely. They’re minting money in Niagara Falls and they can afford to support a platoon of lawyers.

It might be that Buffalo gets a mayor who is willing to look at the economics of a downtown casino rather than the political advantage of the patronage jobs it might bring and there would be a new governmental voice joining the plaintiffs in federal court and speaking out at the EIS hearings. It might be that the congressman in whose district the casino falls, Brian Higgins, decides that it will do so much harm to the waterfront project on which he is developing his reputation that he’ll be willing to go public and say he thinks a downtown casino sucking huge amounts of money out of the city is the antithesis of development. Perhaps politically and financially powerful businessmen like M&T boss Robert Wilmers, who recently said at a control board hearing that he strongly opposed casinos and thought this one was a terrible idea, will get off the fence, take a public stand and apply some of their vast resources to the public’s good.

Lots of things could happen, and they could, in turn, influence agency decisions and judicial attitudes.

Complex lawsuits rarely end. People get tired or run out of money and they stop. That’s why so often in such cases the public gets screwed. Citizens who organize to stop what they perceive as civic abominations hardly ever have the deep pockets of those who expect to reap big bucks at the end of the process. The Senecas were prevented from setting up shop in Cheektowaga not because of the civil feeling of citizens in Cheektowaga, but rather because Buffalo businessman and casino advocate Carl Paladino underwrote the lawsuit that forced everyone to return to Buffalo.

But then Buffalo got lucky. The city’s second-largest foundation, the Margaret L. Wendt Foundation, decided that the downtown casino would do the city such harm that it was worth a major investment to keep it from happening. And a large number of community members contributed money to help that effort. Citizens for Better Buffalo was able, using those contributions and the Wendt support, to mount two lawsuits that have now cost a million dollars.

The opponents of a downtown casino aren’t going away; they’re not wearing out and they’re not running out of money. They don’t have as much money as the casino operators—who does?—but they have enough to stay in the game.

 

Moving on

The action now moves to Washington, DC, where the waffling of the Buffalo-Niagara Partnership and the Buffalo News, the hawking of Carl Paladino, the wishful thinking of Michael Powers and the patronage needs of City Hall will all carry little or no weight. Washington is undergoing an identity makeover. The Democrats control Congress, so the rubber-stamp relationship with the Department of the Interior and other agencies for most of the last six years is gone. Jack Abramoff, the lobbyist who spent millions influencing or pretending to influence casino deals, is in prison, his connections and projects are the subject of a huge Justice Department investigation, and people at the Department of the Interior are far more careful than they were two years ago about improper influence.

People can speculate about what’s going to happen next, but, save for one thing, nobody knows with any certainty at all. The one thing is this: Whatever the NIGC decides, the displeased party will be back in court. We’re not close to hearing the fat lady sing. The curtain just came down on Act One. Enjoy the intermission.

 

Bruce Jackson is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Samuel P. Capen Professor of American Culture at UB. He edits the Web journal BuffaloReport.com and is vice president of Citizens for Better Buffalo.

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:05:27 +0000
Advocate’s Role is to Boost the Senecas, not Buffalo http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:advocates-role-is-to-boost-the-senecas-not-buffalo&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54:advocates-role-is-to-boost-the-senecas-not-buffalo&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 Steven H. Siegel
Another Voice, Buffalo News, 3/7/07

Having suffered a series of legal setbacks followed by the unexplained resignation of three of its top executives, the Seneca Gaming Corp., in its continuing efforts to justify the economically unjustifiable, has now unveiled its newest “hired gun” — Jonathan Taylor.

Recently in this column, Taylor attacked a respected local citizen. The citizen’s crime was that she had dared to join a chorus of experts who, in a recent article in The Buffalo News, had all criticized Taylor’s flawed research into the supposed economic advantages of building a casino in downtown Buffalo.

It may be useful to question why Taylor, who lives in Arizona and has never professed any concern about Buffalo, would not only attempt to tell more than 900,000 people what is best for them, but would launch a personal attack against a longtime Buffalo resident and community leader.

Taylor is a paid consultant for the Seneca Gaming Corp. He generates data to support the Gaming Corp.’s pre-existing but previously unsupported claims that the proposed casino will be an economic boon. In other words, his task was to somehow manage to put the corporation’s cart before the horse by finding a way to support economic claims that were weak to start with.

But good research starts with a hypothesis followed by a methodology that proves or disproves that hypothesis — you do not state a conclusion and then hire someone to justify it.

As a research affiliate for the Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development, Taylor has researched ways the American Indian can produce and sustain economic and social development.

Economically, casino gambling was identified as a major opportunity, but a significant roadblock was convincing the host community that a casino was in its best economic interest. So Taylor became a consultant specializing in research that always presented the conclusion that the casino would be an economic boon to the community.

Indeed, Taylor’s resume, located on the Udall Center for the Study of Public Policy Web page, states: “He also directs Lexecon’s [a consulting firm] practice in support of [my italics] Native American economic development, where he provides consulting expertise to tribes and bands in the United States and Canada. . . . He has authored or supported testimony in litigation and public hearings for a number of Native American groups needing economic analysis to support treaty rights or tribal policies.”

Taylor is not an academician and, by his own admission, provides paid services intended to justify economic projects proposed by Native American groups. Therefore, Taylor is hardly an unbiased voice whose opinions we can rely on in the casino debate.

Steven H. Siegel is a senior faculty member at Niagara University’s College of Hospitality and Tourism Management. He is responsible for most of the research showing the negative impact of a casino on the local economy.

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:02:31 +0000
The Famous "Memo of Understanding" of June, 2001 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:the-famous-qmemo-of-understandingq-of-june-2001-&catid=31:general&Itemid=46 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53:the-famous-qmemo-of-understandingq-of-june-2001-&catid=31:general&Itemid=46

¥ Understanding. It is the understanding of the Parties that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") bestows certain rights and duties upon the Parties to work cooperatively and to negotiate, in good faith, to create a compact that will define the parameters of the Nation's Class III gaming activities, and the respective rights of each Party with regard to such gaming. Therefore, these discussions are undertaken pursuant to federal law, and constitute government-to-government talks between two sovereigns. Nothing herein shall be binding upon either Party, unless and until the same is formally ratified according to the procedures implemented by each Party for doing so.

¥ Cultural Exchange. The Parties agree and understand that the Nation possesses its own unique social customs, traditions, laws, and history. In order to make persons working at a Class III facility established pursuant to the Compact*1 more aware of the Nation's culture, traditions, laws and history, the Nation may conduct periodic cultural seminars in a manner of its choosing for all facility employees. It shall be the policy of the Nation and the State that the employees at the facility shall attend such seminars.

¥ Term of Agreement. The initial term of this Agreement shall be 14 years, with an automatic 7-year renewal upon the expiration of the initial 14 year term, unless either Party objects in writing not less than 120-days prior to the end of the initial term. In the event either Party does object to the automatic renewal of this Agreement, the Parties agree to use their best efforts to address the objecting Party's concerns through frequent and regular good faith negotiations. In the event the objecting Party's concerns cannot be overcome within a period of 120-days from the commencement of such negotiations, either Party may submit the issue of the other Party's good faith in the renewal negotiations to binding arbitration pursuant to procedures set forth in the Compact. During the pendency of the arbitration, the existing terms of the Compact shall continue to apply. Notwithstanding the term of this Agreement, the Parties may amend, eliminate, or terminate, any part or all of this Agreement, at any time, by mutual consent. The Compact may be terminated by either Party at any time if: (i) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., is repealed; (ii) the Nation adopts a referendum revoking Nation authority to conduct Class III gaming; (iii) the State Constitution is amended to no longer permit games of chance to be played by religious, charitable, or non-profit organizations and no other provision of the Constitution is amended to permit the operation of Class III gaming; or (iv) a Party commits a material breach of this Agreement.

¥ Location of Facilities. The Parties agree that any facilities shall be located on "Indian lands" as that term is used and defined in the IGRA section 2703(4). The Parties agree that the Compact shall authorize the establishment of a Class III gaming facility at locations in Niagara County in the City of Niagara Falls and in Erie County in the City of Buffalo. In addition, the Compact will facilitate the establishment of Class III gaming on current reservation territory, should the Nation at some point in the future decide to pursue such a facility, with the precise location to be determined by the Nation at such later date.

With respect to the facility in the City of Niagara Falls, the Nation agrees that it will be located on the parcel of land designated in the attached map of downtown Niagara Falls.*2 With respect to the facility in the City of Buffalo, the Nation has not yet decided upon an appropriate parcel of land suitable for development of the facility.*3 Such parcels shall be utilized for gaming and commercial activities traditionally associated with the operation or conduct of a casino facility.

The State agrees to assist the Nation in acquiring such parcels within the limits of the Seneca Settlement Act funds that the Nation has committed to the acquisition of these parcels.*4 The State, through the Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), further agrees that it shall transfer fee title to the Niagara Falls Convention Center and the parcel commonly known as the ''Splash Park' in fee simple to the Nation for a payment from the Nation of $1.00 in funds appropriated by the Seneca Settlement Act.*5 The Nation further agrees that it shall lease back to the State the Convention Center building for a period of 21 years for an annual lease payment of $1.00. The State, in turn, shall lease to the Nation the Convention Center building for a period of 21 years for an annual lease payment of $1.00 until such time as the Nation constructs and begins operation of a permanent Class III gaming facility in Niagara Falls, at which time the Nation agrees to pay to the State the balance, as of April 1, 2002, of the general obligation bonds pledged in connection with the Convention Center.

The State agrees that it shall support the Nation in its use of the procedure set forth in the Seneca Settlement Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1 774f (c), to acquire restricted fee status for the parcels, described supra, in the City of Buffalo and the City of Niagara Falls. For purposes of such support from the State, the State agrees that it shall assist the Nation directly with the Department of Interior, either in writing or in person, as the Parties deem appropriate and necessary, to obtain expeditious action on the Nation's applications under Section 1774f and all other necessary approvals.

The Nation agrees that it will use all but $5 million of the funds remaining from that appropriated by the Seneca Settlement Act to acquire the parcels in the City of Niagara Falls and the City of Buffalo. The Nation agrees that it shall dedicate the remaining Seneca Settlement Act funds to acquire parcels to meet the housing needs of members of the Seneca Nation. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, such housing parcels shall be physically and immediately contiguous and adjacent to either: (1) an existing reservation of the Nation; or (2) the parcels of land acquired in the City of Niagara Falls arid the City of Buffalo set forth above. The State agrees to support the Seneca Nation in the development of such housing projects and shall support any application made under Section 1 774f for a housing development project for Nation members.

¥ Local Impact. The Parties agree that host municipalities should be compensated to be able to adjust to the economic development expected to result from the facilities authorized under the Compact. Consistent with this goal, the State shall reach financial agreements with the host municipal governments. Such payments shall be part of the State Revenue Share as set forth below.

¥ Type of Gaming. In addition to those types of games already included in the Mohawk and Oneida gaming compacts, the Nation and the State conceptually agree that the Compact shall include electronic gaming devices, including "slot machines," as permitted Class III game. The State agrees to use its best efforts and influence to attain any necessary legislative approval for the inclusion of "slot machines" at the Nation~s gaming facilities. The Nation agrees to facilitate the State's efforts by contacting state officials and educating them on the benefits a Class III gaming establishment(s) with "slot machines" will have for their people and the Nation.

¥ Exclusivity and Revenue Share. The State and the Nation agree that in entering into an Agreement with the State to offer electronic gaming devices, including "slot machines," at its facilities, the Nation is receiving an exclusive franchise to offer a form of gaming no non-lndian person or entity has been permitted to offer. Moreover, unless any other federally recognized Indian nation with a reservation located within the State of New York as of the effective date of the Compact seeks a gaming compact with the State, the State agrees that the Nation shall enjoy total exclusivity with regard to electronic gaming devices, including "slot machines," within the geographic area defined by: ( I ) to the east, State Route 14 from Sodus Point to the Pennsylvania border with New York; (2) to the north, the border between New York and Canada; (3) to the south, the Pennsylvania border with New York; and (4) to the west, the border between New York and Canada and the border between Pennsylvania and New York. In no event shall the State permit another Indian nation to establish a class III facility within a 25 mile radius of any facility authorized under this Agreement unless the same is to be established on federally recognized Indian lands existing as of the effective date of the Compact. In the event the State were to breach this exclusivity agreement with the Nation, the Nation's revenue share obligations pursuant to this exclusivity agreement shall no longer apply.

This exclusivity agreement shall become null and void as to any one of the sites if: (i) the Nation fails to commence construction on such site within 36 months of the effective date of the Compact; or, (ii) the Nation fails to commence gaming operations on such site within 60 months of the effective date of the Compact.

In exchange and consideration for this exclusive franchise, the Nation agrees to share with the State a portion of the proceeds from electronic gaming devices, including "slot machines," based on the net drop of such machines (money dropped into machines, after payout but before expense) and totaled on a cumulative quarterly basis to be adjusted annually at the end of the fiscal year, according to the sliding scale set forth below (this being the "State Revenue Share" referred to elsewhere herein):

Years 1 - 4*6 Years 5 - 7 Years 8 - 14
18%*7 22%*8 25%*9

In the event the State reaches a revenue sharing agreement with another Indian nation or tribe regarding electronic gaming devices of a like kind or "slot machines" with revenue sharing provisions more favorable that those set forth herein, such terms shall be automatically applicable to the Compact at the Nation's option.

¥ Nation Tort Claims Act. The Nation will establish its o~own tort claims act which will provide due process and an impartial forum for the bringing of private tort claims. The Nation agrees to carry general tort liability insurance to pay claims up to an agreed upon minimum threshold.

¥ Law Enforcement. Law enforcement at the facilities shall be pursuant to applicable law governing law enforcement jurisdiction on Indian lands.

¥ Employee Background Checks/State Report/Nation Licensing. It is in both the State's and the Nation's best interest to be able to represent to the public that every employee at the facility has been screened. The screening of criminal histories and associations of prospective employees will ensure the facility is not infiltrated by organized crime or similar undesirable criminal elements and assure the public that those operating the facility are of a certain integrity. Every employee of a Class III gaming facility established under this Compact shall be fingerprinted and undergo a BCI background investigation. Within the Standards to be agreed upon between the State and the Nation, only prospective gaming and Nation Commission employees whose background checks reveal prior felony or gambling convictions, illustrate bad associations or fail to provide certain information, withhold material facts, or furnish untrue or misleading information, will be Reported as deficient under the agreed upon employment standards. Once a prospective employee has received a positive Report, it is solely within the discretion of the Nation whether to issue the candidate a Nation employee license. Similar to the employee background process, all companies that conduct business with the Nation's gaming facilities are likewise subject to a State Report and Nation license.

¥ Felony Review Process. Applicants may seek review of a Negative Report when the basis for their Negative Report was based solely upon conviction of a felony offense. The applicant commences the review by seeking redress from the appropriate governmental entity of the Nation.

If the Nation's governmental entity determines, based upon extenuating circumstances hereinafter set forth, that the criminal offense for which the applicant was convicted will not have an affect on the applicant's fitness or ability to perform the duties or responsibilities for which the applicant seeks licensure, and that the applicant is of good moral character, the Nation's governmental entity shall forward to the Review Commission (to be established as set forth below)' a resolution requesting a de novo review of the application. The extenuating circumstances that would justify such a de novo review, all of which must be met to justify a resolution requesting de novo review, are as follows:

a. the applicant's offense does not equate greater than a class E felony;
b. the applicant has not been convicted of more than one felony offense;
c. five years have passed since the expiration of the sentence imposed for the felony conviction;
d. the applicant has not been convicted of any misdemeanor or felony offense since the expiration of the sentence imposed;
e. the felony offense for which the applicant was convicted was a non-violent offense; and,
f. if the offense for which the applicant was convicted was alcohol or drug related, the applicant has completed a program of rehabilitation or an employee assistance program.

Upon receipt of the Nation's resolution requesting review, Review Commission Members shall examine the background investigation conducted pursuant to the Compact, the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services criminal fingerprint history, Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal fingerprint history, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police criminal fingerprint history, if applicable, and the application and supporting documentation.

The Review Commission shall consist of 3 members who are not employees of either the State or the Nation. One member shall be selected by each party and the third shall be selected by the two. All decisions rendered by the Review Commission must be consistent with the terms and conditions of the Compact and shall be final.

The Review Commission shall meet twice each year to consider resolutions for a de novo review. Each applicant who has obtained a resolution for a de novo review shall appear before the Review Commission at the first meeting of the Review Commission after completion of its own review of the information above to discuss the applicant's employment, criminal history, and any other relevant and related matters. The Review Commission shall determine the fitness or ability of the applicant to perform the duties or responsibilities applied for and whether such applicant's employment would impair public confidence and trust in the credibility and integrity of the regulation and operation of gaming under the Compact. Within 5 days of such hearing, the Review Commission shall make an appropriate recommendation to the Nation Gaming Commission regarding the applicant, which shall be binding on the Nation Gaming Commission.

¥ Regulatory Expenses. Pursuant to section 271 0(d)(3)(c)(iii) of the IGRA, the Parties agree that the State shall charge to the Nation the costs associated with the regulation of each Class III facility established under this Agreement, and the Nation agrees to reimburse the State for those costs (quarterly). The State agrees to consult with the Nation on an annual basis and to provide the Nation with a comprehensive budget estimate of the State's expected regulatory costs for the next fiscal year. These costs shall include personal services, non-personal services, and equipment, including but not limited to: the actual wages of State employees, their fringe benefits, and their necessary expenses when performing their duties under this Agreement. The Nation's agreement to reimburse the State's regulatory costs is separate and apart from any other agreements for payments made herein. The Nation shall have the right to object to billed State regulatory expense pursuant to mutually agreed procedures contained within the Compact.

¥ Ratification. Because of the uncertainties caused by the case Saratoga Chamber of Commerce v. Pataki, and further because both Parties desire an expedited time line for development with as much certainty as possible, it is mutually agreed that the Parties will jointly seek timely (1) legislative authorization for the Governor to execute a Tribal-State Compact with the Seneca Nation consistent with this Memorandum of Understanding; and, (2) ratification of the Compact by the enrolled members of the Nation and the United States Department of the Interior.

__________________________________________________________________________
1. Compact shall mean the Nation-State Compact to be negotiated between the State and the Nation pursuant to the terms agreed herein.

2 In the event the specified Niagara Falls site is not available for any reason, the Nation would propose an alternate site.

3 In the event a site in the City of Buffalo site is not available for any reason, the Nation would propose an alternate site.

4. The Seneca Settlement Act appropriated a total of $30 million to further specific objectives of the Nation and its members.

5 The State's obligation to transfer title to the "Splash Park" is contingent on its legal ability to do so. Should it be unable to transfer the title, the State agrees to assist the Nation in whatever manner appropriate to obtain the "Splash Park;" in the best economic terms possible.

6 For purposes of this provision, Year I shall begin on the date on which the first facility established pursuant to this Agreement begins operation.

7 Payments during this initial period to be made on an annual basis.

8 Payments during this period to be made on a semi-annual basis.

9 Payments during this period to be made on a quarterly basis.

Note: This document was obtained from the Fair Government Foundation Website

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:47:06 +0000
Chronology of Gambling in New York State http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:chronology-of-gambling-in-new-york-state-&catid=31:general&Itemid=2 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=52:chronology-of-gambling-in-new-york-state-&catid=31:general&Itemid=2
  1. Private lotteries for goods were prohibited by NY statute in 1721.

  2. Private lotteries for money prizes were prohibited by law in 1772.

  3. All public or private lotteries for goods or money prizes were prohibited by the Constitution in 1821, and the same prohibitions were re-adopted in the Constitution of 1826.

  4. In 1877, private forms of gambling, such as "bookmaking" and "poolselling" were outlawed (constitutional amendment).

  5. In 1887, the "Ives pool law" allowed seasonal exceptions to the prohibitions from 1877, during the racing season (constitutional amendment).

  6. The Constitution of 1894 absolutely prohibited bookmaking, poolselling and all forms of gambling.

  7. Pari-mutuel betting was allowed in 1939 (constitutional amendment).

  8. In 1957, charitable organizations were permitted to sponsor bingo and similar games (constitutional amendment).

  9. In 1966, an exception was made to permit the state lotteries (constitutional amendment).

  10. In 1975, charitable organizations were permitted to sponsor "Las Vegas" nights (constitutional amendment).

  11. The U.S. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 authorized Indian Tribes to operate casinos for profit using any game that charities in the state are allowed to run: therefore, casino gambling, without slot machines, is permitted at Indians reservations.

  12. 1993: Cuomo entered into a compact with the Oneida Indian Nation in 1993 with the Oneida Nation of Indians to permit the opening of the Turning Stone casino.

  13. In 1995, both the Senate and Assembly passed a Constitutional amendment to permit casino gambling in several locations in NYS (this was later reversed; see 17, below).

  14. In 1996, the Governor's own study on gambling discovered that "urban casinos" are detrimental.

  15. The results of a ten year replication study, commissioned by the NY Council on Problem Gambling and published in July 1996, found that 7.3% of New Yorkers are problem or compulsive gamblers. New York and Louisiana are tied with the highest percentages in the US.

  16. The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act of 1996 set up a commission to study the effects of gambling.

  17. On Nov. 11 1996, the Coalition Against Casinos of WNY was formed.

  18. In 1997, the Senate defeated the amendment to permit casinos in NY.

  19. In 1997, there were 8 different state sponsored lottery games, including a highly addictive form of video lottery called "Quick Draw," which is available in bars, restaurants with bars, and neighborhood delis and mini-marts.

  20. In Sept. of 1999, a lawsuit was brought against the Governor for illegally entering into a compact with an Indian Nation to open casinos in NYS.

  21. On (date-to-be-researched), the court found that the Governor broke the law.

  22. In June of 2001, the Governor agreed in principal with some of the Seneca Nation leaders to negotiate a compact to open 3 casinos in WNY. This only affirmed an intent to negotiate a compact.

  23. In October of 2001, The Senate and the Assembly illegally approved the illegal compact with the Seneca Nation. It is illegal and they acted illegally, because the US Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 authorized only casinos with games that charities are allowed to run in that state. These casinos approved by the legislature include games not authorized in NYS. This approval is also illegal by virtue of the fact that it contemplates games on non-reservation land purchased by the Indians.

  24. On May 2, 2002, the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court ruled against the Governor and for the Casino Opposition, in regards to the Oneidas and the Mohawks.

  25. In May 2002, the Seneca Nation passed a referendum approving the compact between the Governor and their leaders. As of this writing, however, (7/4/02), the Governor has delayed signing the "compact". The reason the Governor gives for this delay is that the Seneca version of the compact does not provide for union organizing. Therefore, we can conclude that the "compact" is undefined.

  26. May 6, 2002, CACGEC was officially formed (Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County). Soon afterwards (mid-May) we were joined in this fight by the Citizens for Common Sense.

  27. August 18, 2002: Governor Pataki signed the Seneca Compact with the Seneca Nation of Indians authorizing the SNI to open three class-III gambling casinos in Niagara Falls, Erie County, and on existing reservation territory. In signing the compact, the governor cited an October 2001 law approved by the state Legislature. This law, according to Cornelius Murray "purports to authorize activity that is expressly prohibited under the constitution." Because the State Constitution does not allow casino gambling in New York State, the compact attempted to bypass this constitutional prohibition by allowing the SNI to use the Salamanca Settlement Act to acquire land for casino-development.

  28. October 24, 2002: By neither approving nor disapproving the compact on Oct. 24, Norton allowed the project for three new Indian casinos to go forward, "but only to the extent that its terms comply" with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. (IGRA). In a Nov. 12 letter to New York Gov. George Pataki, Norton explained that she was reluctant to encourage the trend of off-reservation Indian casinos. She complained in a footnote that Interior had no chance to "express its policy views" during New York State's negotiations with the Senecas. She distinguished the Seneca case from others because it was based on a Congressional land settlement act.

  29. December 31, 2002, SNI opens the Niagara Falls casino.

  30. May 1, 2004: SNI open the casino on the Cattaraugus reservation.

  31. April 10, 2004: SNI announce their intention open a casino in Cheetkowaga.

  32. A Cheektowaga organization, "CONCERN", files a lawsuit asserting that an Environmental Impact Study would be required before opening a Cheektowaga casino. A second lawsuit, funded by Buffalo developer Paladino, claimed that the compact said that the casino had to be in the city of Buffalo.

  33. Following unfavorable rulings from Judge Makowski on both lawsuits, the Seneca Nation of Indians announces plans to open a casino in Buffalo.

  34. February 25, 2004: CACGEC presented State Senator Byron Brown with a petition signed by 5000 Erie County residents opposed to an Erie County casino.

  35. October, 2005: Senecas announce purchase of 9 acres in Buffalo's historic Cobblestone District, and write to Sec. of State Gale Norton asking for approval to take the land into trust.(i.e., to make it sovereign territory).

  36. November-December of 2006: Over 800 citizen signatures were sent to Sec. of the Interior Gale Norton protesting the planned casino and asking her to disallow the land-transfer.

  37. December, 2005: Gale N. allows the land transfer to proceed.

  38. December 8, 2005: Casino Developers break ground for the "Buffalo Creek" casino by demolishing historic structures on the 9-acre Cobblestone site.

  39. January 3, 2006: CACGEC and other plaintiffs including State Assemblyman Sam Hoyt, County Legislator Maria Whyte, residents living near the proposed casino site, and other community organizations, file lawsuit "CAGCEC v. Norton" (.pdf file) in Federal Court, in opposition to the proposed Buffalo casino.

  40. January 21, 2006 A second lawsuit, "Scot et al. v. Pataki et al." (.pdf file), in opposition to the casino, is filed in NYS Supreme Court

  41. April 6, 2006: Private Citizen Dan Warren files a third lawsuit in State Court challenging the constitutionality of the Compact: "Warren v. United States of America, et al.". This is a civil action against the United States of America, Governor George E. Pataki, New York State Racing and wagering Board Chair Cheryl Ritchko-Buley, and others.

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:44:41 +0000
Coming soon! http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:coming-soon&catid=31:general&Itemid=55 http://nocasinoerie.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51:coming-soon&catid=31:general&Itemid=55 This page is currently being updated. Watch for new content to come.

]]>
admin@nocasinoerie.org (Joomla Q. Admin) General Mon, 15 Mar 2010 12:53:22 +0000