Best online casino craps guide

Anti-Gambling Gains Foothold in City Council

Posted on February 19th, 2011

News Sponsored by Online Vegas Casino

Rated 5 Stars by BestCraps.com

Read Review

Visit Casino

Download Software

————————————————

Seneca Gaming Corp. faces a huge obstacle today when anti-gambling activists successfully got the attention of three Common Council members last Tuesday. Furthermore, two more Council members have considered taking into consideration some of the arguments brought forth by anti-gambling groups. Seneca Gaming Corp. has been steadily expanding their operations which has been the cause for concern of the Citizens for a Better Buffalo group. The group based their assertions on the Niagara University study about the effects of the gaming corporation’s expansion. One of the experts from the University said that the casino operations could suck up local economy. With Buffalo already facing problems with its dropping unemployment rate, this news could not have come at a worse time. The group also accused Seneca Gaming Corp. for not adhering to a 2006 agreement; city leaders also received flak for allowing Seneca Gaming Corp. to have done so.

“It seems to me the city is the Senecas’ poodle,” said attorney Dianne Bennett. “They are not acting like good business people in this transaction.” Attorney Bennett also said that the Seneca Gaming Corp. is overstepping its boundaries, the city belongs to the people and the people should decide whether or not they want the casino to operate in their already poverty-stricken district. Furthermore, she added that even though federal rulings were rendered null and void by legal efforts, the construction site of the Cobblestone District is not a done deal. Ellicott Council Member Darius G. Pridgen issued a statement to a reporter, saying that the city should actively participate in the investigations. Pridgen added that it will cause the people to doubt the authority of the city even with some of the council members taking the side of the Citizens for a Better Buffalo group. “If this was any other developer, we would have had his head,” said Pridgen.

Delaware Council Member Michael J. LoCurto said that the Seneca Gaming Corp. has acted against their agreement with the city and may have breached the contract. LoCutro also brought up the fact that Seneca has not delivered in most of its promises. “This has been a tall tale from the beginning,” LoCurto lamented. “At some point, something has to give.” Michael P. Kearns who is a member of the South Council said that he does not think that Seneca is that much of a threat to the surrounding businesses. He argued that Seneca isn’t big enough to be able to to suck up the market. Kearns, however, does support the rescinding of the agreement to show that his loyalty lies with the people and not to any organization. Due to the significant tax contribution of Seneca to the city budget per year, Golombek is concerned that this might cause a drawback in the area’s financing. Meanwhile, City Council President David A. Franczyk and North Council Member Joseph Golombek Jr. are keeping an open mind on canceling the contract with Seneca. The Council’s top legal adviser Timothy A. Ball said that a lot of things needs to be done in order for the contract to be rescinded. Ball maintains that the process will take a huge a mount of time. The whole process will eventually lead to judicial proceedings which will necessary lengthen the entire process further.

Niagara Professor Steve H. Siegel says in his report that Seneca is getting a 15% advantage over other operators who are not Native Americans. He also indicated in the report that the casino expansion in the city was larger in scale than what was originally planned. “The continued viability of that vibrant industry as an economic generator would be at stake if the Buffalo Creek Casino was ever completed,” Siegel said. “What we rarely hear about is the devastating negative economic impact that research shows occurs when a tax-exempt casino is placed in what is claimed to be sovereign land within an urban setting.” A case was filed against Seneca Gaming Corp. contending that they had no legal right to claim the land which they have based their expansions on, and has gotten a favorable decision in court. However, Seneca Gaming Corp. has appealed the judgment and any final decision on the matter is not expected any time soon.