mobileCategory: politics
04/30/06 07:49 - 68ºF - ID#21727
More on Gas and oil
Thoughts,
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?
Permalink: More_on_Gas_and_oil.html
Words: 134
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: politics
04/29/06 02:07 - 39ºF - ID#21726
Gas Prices
I'm tired of the short term political 'solutions' to the increase in gas prices. Artificially lowering the price of gas by giving a gas tax holiday, or rebate checks, and all the other bs will just screw up supply and demand, and ignore the real issue of declining fossil fuel supplies. I'm also pissed that we are giving tax breaks to the richest company in the world Exxon-Mobil, which has made record profits the past 6 years straight, but they still get breaks from the government.
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
Permalink: Gas_Prices.html
Words: 615
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: war
04/22/06 12:01 - 65ºF - ID#21725
The devine bomb
You think I'm kidding don't you? 
On June 2 the the pentagon will test a 700 ton bomb at their Nevada testing site. This is the largest open air explosion ever at the site, no others come close. This test just happens to be called called "Devine Strake" seriously. what the hell is wrong with the people in our government? apparently they are all about the holy war metaphors.
From Washington Post
"This is the largest single explosive we could imagine doing," said James A. Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is conducting the test.
The June test will detonate 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion -- creating a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT -- in a 36-foot-deep hole near a tunnel in the center of the Nevada Test Site, according to official reports. It aims to allow scientists to model the type of ground shock that will be created, and to weigh the effectiveness of such a weapon against its collateral impact.
On June 2 the the pentagon will test a 700 ton bomb at their Nevada testing site. This is the largest open air explosion ever at the site, no others come close. This test just happens to be called called "Devine Strake" seriously. what the hell is wrong with the people in our government? apparently they are all about the holy war metaphors.
From Washington Post
"This is the largest single explosive we could imagine doing," said James A. Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is conducting the test.
The June test will detonate 700 tons of heavy ammonium nitrate-fuel oil emulsion -- creating a blast equivalent to 593 tons of TNT -- in a 36-foot-deep hole near a tunnel in the center of the Nevada Test Site, according to official reports. It aims to allow scientists to model the type of ground shock that will be created, and to weigh the effectiveness of such a weapon against its collateral impact.
Permalink: The_devine_bomb.html
Words: 185
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: politics
04/22/06 04:41 - 57ºF - ID#21724
ex-CIA We knew that there were no WMD
Tyler Drumheller, the CIA's number one agent in europe during the lead up to the war has recently retired, and has just come forward to talk about how the Bush administration ignored evidence that Saddam had no WMD.
For example he says that in the lead up to the Iraq War, the CIA got Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to cooperate with them by making a deal. George Tenet went to the whitehouse to deliver the good news to the president VP and other top officials and they were very excited about the success. until the report came back from this new spy that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and then the administration decided it wasn't worth their time, they didn't want any additional data from Sabri.
"The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
I'll just post the full story here it's short:
A Spy Speaks Out
April 21, 2006
Source
(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence - which the administration chose to ignore.
Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.
When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited - but not for long.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.
Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources - when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.
"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.
Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president's speeches.
In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. ... This was a policy failure. ... I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.
For example he says that in the lead up to the Iraq War, the CIA got Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, to cooperate with them by making a deal. George Tenet went to the whitehouse to deliver the good news to the president VP and other top officials and they were very excited about the success. until the report came back from this new spy that Iraq didn't have any WMD, and then the administration decided it wasn't worth their time, they didn't want any additional data from Sabri.
"The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
I'll just post the full story here it's short:
A Spy Speaks Out
April 21, 2006
Source
(CBS) A CIA official who had a top role during the run-up to the Iraqi war charges the White House with ignoring intelligence that said there were no weapons of mass destruction or an active nuclear program in Iraq.
The former highest ranking CIA officer in Europe, Tyler Drumheller, also says that while the intelligence community did give the White House some bad intelligence, it also gave the White House good intelligence - which the administration chose to ignore.
Drumheller talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley in his first television interview this Sunday, April 23 at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Drumheller, who retired last year, says the White House ignored crucial information from a high and credible source. The source was Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, with whom U.S. spies had made a deal.
When CIA Director George Tenet delivered this news to the president, the vice president and other high ranking officials, they were excited - but not for long.
"[The source] told us that there were no active weapons of mass destruction programs," says Drumheller. "The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.' "
They didn't want any additional data from Sabri because, says Drumheller: "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
The White House declined to respond to this charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that Sabri was just one source and therefore not reliable.
Drumheller says the administration routinely relied on single sources - when those single sources confirmed what the White House wanted to hear.
"They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all," he says. The "yellowcake story" refers to a report the CIA received in late 2001 alleging that Iraq had purchased 500 tons of uranium from Africa, presumably to build a nuclear bomb.
Many in the CIA doubted the uranium report from the beginning, and continued to doubt it, even as White House speechwriters tried to include the report in the president's speeches.
In a major speech the president was scheduled to give in Cincinnati, the leadership of the CIA intervened directly to remove the uranium report from the speech. But that didn't stop it from making it into the president's State of the Union address a short time later.
"As a British report," says Drumheller. A senior CIA official signed off on the speech only because the uranium reference was attributed to the British.
"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. ... This was a policy failure. ... I think, over time, people will look back on this and see this is going to be one of the great, I think, policy mistakes of all time," Drumheller tells Bradley.
Permalink: ex_CIA_We_knew_that_there_were_no_WMD.html
Words: 700
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: casino
04/19/06 09:13 - 67ºF - ID#21723
Casino effects
The biggest issue with the casino is economics. When I go to Latina foods and buy some vegetables and a carton of half and half my money does not stop there, it goes to the workers and owners who also buy things throughout the community. My money also goes toward buying more products for the store, many of which come from local farmers and manufacturers who in turn have employees to pay. and it goes toward infrastructure improvements, parking lots, gardens and etc that make my neighborhood better to live in.
In a casino, especially one owned by a separate sovereign nation, my dollars will not travel as far, and very little will return to my community. It doesn't matter how much Smirnoff or slot machines the casino buys, my community gets nothing. The only thing that comes back is what they pay their workers, $30-$50 million per year, and building contracts for construction, a one time expense of $125 million.
The Casino expects to make $150 Million per year. Add it up, and 10 years down the road our community will lose $850 million. Most of that would have gone to places like Chippewa, Elmwood, Hertel, and the restaurants and bars throughout the city. Small businesses around buffalo can not afford to lose that much money. they will close, and when they do Elmwood, and city living in general, will seem a lot less inviting. We need our businesses, that's why I live here, because I can walk to the store, I can walk to restaurants, cafes, events, grocery stores, and everything else. Destroy our local businesses and you destroy the vitality of Buffalo.
The poor people argument tends to divide people and start conflicts. It is true that poor people gamble in greater numbers, despite the fact that they can't afford to lose. And they inevitably lose more than they gain, they come home from the casino and have to deal with the reality that they can't pay all of their bills. I'm worried that they will decide to rob my car, instead of letting their gas be shut off in the winter. pretty simple. It is in my self interest to keep crime down, so it is beneficial for me to keep some money in the pockets of poor people, because they don't steal for fun, they steal for money. But I don't want to have a "nanny state" any more than ((e:joshua)) and I refuse to allow the state to legislate morality. However when it comes down to preserving property and property values within the jurisdiction of the city, it seems reasonable that the city and it's citizens protect their interests.
this deal is terrible for so many reasons, it amazes me that took 4 years for people to start really speaking out on it.
In a casino, especially one owned by a separate sovereign nation, my dollars will not travel as far, and very little will return to my community. It doesn't matter how much Smirnoff or slot machines the casino buys, my community gets nothing. The only thing that comes back is what they pay their workers, $30-$50 million per year, and building contracts for construction, a one time expense of $125 million.
The Casino expects to make $150 Million per year. Add it up, and 10 years down the road our community will lose $850 million. Most of that would have gone to places like Chippewa, Elmwood, Hertel, and the restaurants and bars throughout the city. Small businesses around buffalo can not afford to lose that much money. they will close, and when they do Elmwood, and city living in general, will seem a lot less inviting. We need our businesses, that's why I live here, because I can walk to the store, I can walk to restaurants, cafes, events, grocery stores, and everything else. Destroy our local businesses and you destroy the vitality of Buffalo.
The poor people argument tends to divide people and start conflicts. It is true that poor people gamble in greater numbers, despite the fact that they can't afford to lose. And they inevitably lose more than they gain, they come home from the casino and have to deal with the reality that they can't pay all of their bills. I'm worried that they will decide to rob my car, instead of letting their gas be shut off in the winter. pretty simple. It is in my self interest to keep crime down, so it is beneficial for me to keep some money in the pockets of poor people, because they don't steal for fun, they steal for money. But I don't want to have a "nanny state" any more than ((e:joshua)) and I refuse to allow the state to legislate morality. However when it comes down to preserving property and property values within the jurisdiction of the city, it seems reasonable that the city and it's citizens protect their interests.
this deal is terrible for so many reasons, it amazes me that took 4 years for people to start really speaking out on it.
- Geez, I never could spell, just changed it to steAl, yea....*
Permalink: Casino_effects.html
Words: 476
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: casino
04/17/06 10:24 - 54ºF - ID#21722
So, did you write about the casino?
In my last post I urged everyone to write to their representatives. The casino has been in the news lately, so now is the time to get a critical mass of letters to your elected officials, and make sure they know what you think. If they don't hear from us they will just sit back and do nothing, but if they know we are against it they will feel pressured to take a stand.
So, out of curiosity, who sent a letter? anyone?
voting is the most minimal way to participate in government, the real way to have an impact is to contact your representatives, they want your opinion because they need your vote. This is not as true with the president, but with local leaders votes are crucial, 40 votes can make or break an election. Also, local leaders don't get many letters, so at the end of a week if they got 12-16 letters against the casino they think their whole district is up in arms, and they'll start to get worried. I only know this because I have a bachelors in Political Science and I've worked with local politicians.
here are links to district maps so you can find out what district you are in, then you can find out who the head of your district is. if your district is ambiguous just send it to both.
City
County
Leave a comment here if you intend to call or write a letter, or if you already have. Any questions or opposing views will also be much appreciated.
Recent Articles
To help people catch up on the issue, below are a bunch of links to the recent articles dealing with the casino. maybe I'll do this in rambling summary blog form.
The media attention all started a few weeks ago. the common council asked the Senecas to sign an agreement saying they wouldn't acquire any more downtown land tax free, and the Senecas got offended and said "you don't trust us, this is an insult to the entire Seneca Nation" the Buffalo News Covered it and Bruce Jackson writes a very pointed and outraged response to the Senecas "hissy fit" in the Artvoice
Then the same day, the Senecas ask for $6 million in road work and infrastructure improvements around the site. this is also covered well in the Artvoice article above. Paying $6mill for the casino got the media's wheels moving.
In the next Artvoice Bruce Jackson brings to light the Senecas SEC filing with the federal government , this official document contradicts most of the public rhetoric involving the casino, especially the myth that they intend to attract tourists. nope the $150 million profit from a Buffalo casino will be coming from Buffalonians. WBEN and the The Buffalo News (archived ) pick up the story on the SEC filing. both focus on the fact that dollars will be drained from our fragile local economy.
The next day Giambra joins the anti-casino lawsuits and adds it to his caseload .
Tom Golisano goes public with his opposition next, Business First , Buff News , Artvoice does a great interview with Golisano (click the picture for video of the interview). Amazingly enough Byron Brown also finds it troubling that the casino will be devouring local dollars, not tourist dollars , not bad for the casino's biggest cheerleader.
This past Sunday the Buffalo News carries a giant front page article "Casino Promises - Still Waiting" which takes a long hard look at the effects of the Niagara Falls Casino on that city (archived ) That story was first in a two part casino series, today we got "The Hidden Costs of Gambling" which quotes bankruptcy lawyers, gambling addiction councilors, and others whose workload has tripled since the casinos opened , very interesting to get their first hand experience.
The casino idea is on the table, this was never a done deal and now people are finally starting to realize it. I guess 4 years is enough to do a tiny bit of research and discover that this stupid casino idea will devastate our community.
Here's one of my articles on the casino from December . Jason, sorry I didn't respond to your casino question untill just now, you can read that article and my previous post here to get some idea of my opinion.
Please let's all try to keep the ball rolling. Write a letter, or call someone during Business hours. you can also thank Giambra for coming out against it, tell him that stopping the casino is a lot better legacy than screwing up the budget.
Hope you are all interested in this issue.
So, out of curiosity, who sent a letter? anyone?
voting is the most minimal way to participate in government, the real way to have an impact is to contact your representatives, they want your opinion because they need your vote. This is not as true with the president, but with local leaders votes are crucial, 40 votes can make or break an election. Also, local leaders don't get many letters, so at the end of a week if they got 12-16 letters against the casino they think their whole district is up in arms, and they'll start to get worried. I only know this because I have a bachelors in Political Science and I've worked with local politicians.
here are links to district maps so you can find out what district you are in, then you can find out who the head of your district is. if your district is ambiguous just send it to both.
City
County
Leave a comment here if you intend to call or write a letter, or if you already have. Any questions or opposing views will also be much appreciated.
Recent Articles
To help people catch up on the issue, below are a bunch of links to the recent articles dealing with the casino. maybe I'll do this in rambling summary blog form.
The media attention all started a few weeks ago. the common council asked the Senecas to sign an agreement saying they wouldn't acquire any more downtown land tax free, and the Senecas got offended and said "you don't trust us, this is an insult to the entire Seneca Nation" the Buffalo News Covered it
and Bruce Jackson writes a very pointed and outraged response to the Senecas "hissy fit" in the Artvoice Then the same day, the Senecas ask for $6 million in road work and infrastructure improvements around the site. this is also covered well in the Artvoice article above. Paying $6mill for the casino got the media's wheels moving.
In the next Artvoice Bruce Jackson brings to light the Senecas SEC filing with the federal government
, this official document contradicts most of the public rhetoric involving the casino, especially the myth that they intend to attract tourists. nope the $150 million profit from a Buffalo casino will be coming from Buffalonians. WBEN and the The Buffalo News (archived ) pick up the story on the SEC filing. both focus on the fact that dollars will be drained from our fragile local economy. The next day Giambra joins the anti-casino lawsuits and adds it to his caseload
. Tom Golisano goes public with his opposition next, Business First
, Buff News , Artvoice does a great interview with Golisano (click the picture for video of the interview). Amazingly enough Byron Brown also finds it troubling that the casino will be devouring local dollars, not tourist dollars , not bad for the casino's biggest cheerleader. This past Sunday the Buffalo News carries a giant front page article "Casino Promises - Still Waiting" which takes a long hard look at the effects of the Niagara Falls Casino on that city (archived
) That story was first in a two part casino series, today we got "The Hidden Costs of Gambling" which quotes bankruptcy lawyers, gambling addiction councilors, and others whose workload has tripled since the casinos opened , very interesting to get their first hand experience. The casino idea is on the table, this was never a done deal and now people are finally starting to realize it. I guess 4 years is enough to do a tiny bit of research and discover that this stupid casino idea will devastate our community.
Here's one of my articles on the casino from December
. Jason, sorry I didn't respond to your casino question untill just now, you can read that article and my previous post here to get some idea of my opinion.Please let's all try to keep the ball rolling. Write a letter, or call someone during Business hours. you can also thank Giambra for coming out against it, tell him that stopping the casino is a lot better legacy than screwing up the budget.
Hope you are all interested in this issue.
Permalink: So_did_you_write_about_the_casino_.html
Words: 919
Location: Buffalo, NY
Category: casino
04/13/06 11:20 - 47ºF - ID#21721
About the Casino
I think now is the time to let our public officials know that we are opposed to the casino. there has been opposition in the news lately and we need to make sure that our opinion is known. I wrote a letter and sent it to my city and county officials. I'm going to send it to Mayor Brown and I'd also like to drop a note of encouragement to the people who have come out against it.
The no casino Erie people are urging a letter writing campaign.
Look up your officials:
City
County
Here's my Letter:
I am writing to urge you, to do everything in your power, to prevent a casino from being built in downtown Buffalo.
My objection to the casino is not based on moral nor religious reasons, I am simply looking at the practical consequences of this casino, and I see no benefit. In fact I see grave harm, especially in regards to property values, crime, the local economy, and the desirability of Buffalo as a place to live or visit.
I would like to buy a home in Buffalo. I am the type of person who is not afraid to buy a home in an area that might not appear to be great, but has potential. I am also the type of person who will take it upon myself to keep my yard and my neighborhood clean, not only of trash but also of crime. If I buy a house in a community, that community then becomes my responsibility, I intend to work with and strengthen any block clubs that are involved in my neighborhood.
Right now Buffalo is a great place to buy a home. Private investment is steadily beginning to return to the city, and property values have increased dramatically in some areas. Now is the time to find that diamond in the rough and buy it for $40-$60,000, and fix it up while helping the neighborhood to improve, and in 10 years sell it for double what I paid. But there's a problem, the casino throws a whole bunch of doubt into this little plan. The current trend of investment and property values will be significantly altered by the creation of a casino.
The city needs people. Not just dollars, not just jobs, but people who are willing live here and start a business. These people, like me, will own a piece of the city, and therefore it will be in their self interest to take care of Buffalo. Just ask the business owners on Grant and Ferry, they know that if they want to protect their investment they have to take care of the neighborhood. The casino will not make this a better place to live, work and raise a family, that is the bottom line for Buffalo, and if the casino will not help, then it should not happen.
When the plans for a casino were announced, I kept a very open mind. I was encouraged by the prospects of converting the DL&W terminal and went down to the area to check it out. But when I returned home, I thought about my neighbors, who would go, and what would happen to my neighborhood and my life, when some of them lost more than they could really spare.
We will have an increased number of panhandlers, harassing people for change or to buy whatever they had stolen out of somebody's car the night before. And an increased amount of theft, more cars being broken into, more people returning from vacation to find they have been robbed, more people running off with your wallet when you take it out to benevolently give them a dollar. We will also have more drugs, people will try to sell drugs to make up for money they lost at the casino. With more drug dealers on the streets, we will also have more violence, and more murders.
I don't care how many cops you are able to hire with the $7 million Buffalo and the county get to split, they will not make me comfortable living on the west side, let alone buying a house there. Until this casino proposal is dead, my money is staying in my pocket, and if the casino is built I am leaving Buffalo for Albany, Pittsburg or Philadelphia. That's not a scare tactic, it's the truth, I do want to buy a home, and I'm not going to buy it in an area of increasing crime and uncertain property values. And who would?
The economics of this Casino also don't favor the city. Look at the restaurants in Niagara Falls, a casino is an unfair competitor, people do not venture out of the casino to eat or go shopping. Local dollars that were spent at restaurants, shops and entertainment venues will now go to the casino, and those dollars will not circulate through the community the same as if the were spent at say, D'Arcy McGee's. We do not need to compete with other gaming venues in the area, Buffalo hardly notices the dollars going to Fort Erie, Salamanca, and Niagara Falls. But we will notice the dollars left at a downtown Buffalo Casino, because it will be directly competing with local businesses, and those businesses will begin to close.
This Casino was never intended to help Erie County. It was born of an inept state government looking to balance its budget. The idea of a casino did not start with "how can we help Erie County?" the main concern was balancing the budget, and they chose to do it with our money. The reasons for the casino are no more than excuses. Common sense and empirical evidence dictate that the so called benefits of the Casino are false. Jobs will be lost, and money will leave the economy, tourists will not come, and I will not feel safer in my city with a casino downtown.
Please oppose any legislation that would open the door to a casino. And take whatever measures are within your power to put a stop to this casino from happening. This will be a terrible legacy to leave the city.
Thank you for your time,
David Coffee
The no casino Erie people are urging a letter writing campaign.
Look up your officials:
City
County
Here's my Letter:
I am writing to urge you, to do everything in your power, to prevent a casino from being built in downtown Buffalo.
My objection to the casino is not based on moral nor religious reasons, I am simply looking at the practical consequences of this casino, and I see no benefit. In fact I see grave harm, especially in regards to property values, crime, the local economy, and the desirability of Buffalo as a place to live or visit.
I would like to buy a home in Buffalo. I am the type of person who is not afraid to buy a home in an area that might not appear to be great, but has potential. I am also the type of person who will take it upon myself to keep my yard and my neighborhood clean, not only of trash but also of crime. If I buy a house in a community, that community then becomes my responsibility, I intend to work with and strengthen any block clubs that are involved in my neighborhood.
Right now Buffalo is a great place to buy a home. Private investment is steadily beginning to return to the city, and property values have increased dramatically in some areas. Now is the time to find that diamond in the rough and buy it for $40-$60,000, and fix it up while helping the neighborhood to improve, and in 10 years sell it for double what I paid. But there's a problem, the casino throws a whole bunch of doubt into this little plan. The current trend of investment and property values will be significantly altered by the creation of a casino.
The city needs people. Not just dollars, not just jobs, but people who are willing live here and start a business. These people, like me, will own a piece of the city, and therefore it will be in their self interest to take care of Buffalo. Just ask the business owners on Grant and Ferry, they know that if they want to protect their investment they have to take care of the neighborhood. The casino will not make this a better place to live, work and raise a family, that is the bottom line for Buffalo, and if the casino will not help, then it should not happen.
When the plans for a casino were announced, I kept a very open mind. I was encouraged by the prospects of converting the DL&W terminal and went down to the area to check it out. But when I returned home, I thought about my neighbors, who would go, and what would happen to my neighborhood and my life, when some of them lost more than they could really spare.
We will have an increased number of panhandlers, harassing people for change or to buy whatever they had stolen out of somebody's car the night before. And an increased amount of theft, more cars being broken into, more people returning from vacation to find they have been robbed, more people running off with your wallet when you take it out to benevolently give them a dollar. We will also have more drugs, people will try to sell drugs to make up for money they lost at the casino. With more drug dealers on the streets, we will also have more violence, and more murders.
I don't care how many cops you are able to hire with the $7 million Buffalo and the county get to split, they will not make me comfortable living on the west side, let alone buying a house there. Until this casino proposal is dead, my money is staying in my pocket, and if the casino is built I am leaving Buffalo for Albany, Pittsburg or Philadelphia. That's not a scare tactic, it's the truth, I do want to buy a home, and I'm not going to buy it in an area of increasing crime and uncertain property values. And who would?
The economics of this Casino also don't favor the city. Look at the restaurants in Niagara Falls, a casino is an unfair competitor, people do not venture out of the casino to eat or go shopping. Local dollars that were spent at restaurants, shops and entertainment venues will now go to the casino, and those dollars will not circulate through the community the same as if the were spent at say, D'Arcy McGee's. We do not need to compete with other gaming venues in the area, Buffalo hardly notices the dollars going to Fort Erie, Salamanca, and Niagara Falls. But we will notice the dollars left at a downtown Buffalo Casino, because it will be directly competing with local businesses, and those businesses will begin to close.
This Casino was never intended to help Erie County. It was born of an inept state government looking to balance its budget. The idea of a casino did not start with "how can we help Erie County?" the main concern was balancing the budget, and they chose to do it with our money. The reasons for the casino are no more than excuses. Common sense and empirical evidence dictate that the so called benefits of the Casino are false. Jobs will be lost, and money will leave the economy, tourists will not come, and I will not feel safer in my city with a casino downtown.
Please oppose any legislation that would open the door to a casino. And take whatever measures are within your power to put a stop to this casino from happening. This will be a terrible legacy to leave the city.
Thank you for your time,
David Coffee
Permalink: About_the_Casino.html
Words: 1046
Location: Buffalo, NY
hiking recovery 
Hummus ? 
Nephew's Art 
Spring Feelz 
Hello hello 
moz://a
The best economic incentive for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars is kind of self-evident. Many people don't understand or don't care that inefficient cars are more expensive: fuck 'em.
The best economic incentive for manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient cars is no less obvious: people would buy them. Many automobile manufacturers don't understand why nobody is buying a 26mpg subcompact :::link::: : fuck them, too. :::link:::
- Z