Ugh. 6 martinis at Cecilia's last night did me in fairly harshly. Sorry (e:nejifer) (e:decoyisryan) and (e:ladycroft) - I hope I wasn't too much of a pain in SPoT last night! I was wobbly... and even now my body feels like its aching for hydration. You guys have been catching me on bad days - Timika will attest that I'm actually a very nice guy and I don't drink or go out all that often.

I'm glad to see some dialogue about the casino - (e:dcoffee) makes some points that I agree with, and it seems like I'm united with most people out there that think that this thing is a bad idea.

If you oppose the casino, or support the idea... why? I'm kind of curious about it.

For me, I see the casino this way - its good for the Senecas (tax free land in the city of Buffalo?) and for the developers but its horrible for the populace. Casinos are never investments in the traditional sense. This isn't something that is going to benefit our city in any meaningful way because a casino isn't like a mall. People go to casinos not to buy things but to risk things, and in most cases the money stays directly in the pockets of the people who build and run the casinos. Local dollars will not get recycled back into our economy... traditionally casinos are black holes for dollars. Usually this is tourist dollars, and this is what the supporters of the casino are arguing for and banking on.

My sentiment is this - WHAT tourists?!? People don't come to Buffalo to see Buffalo - people come to Buffalo to see Niagara Falls. Theres no guarantee that building a casino is going to bring in tourists when you already have two casinos 20 minutes away. We are arguing about building an attraction for the sake of tourism that has already been built twice over in other areas. In our case they would be local dollars being sucked in by the vortex, and I have a serious problem with that because our area cannot afford to waste the money. You might say, "Josh, I think that if people want to waste their money at a casino, so be it... if they don't want to waste their money than they shouldn't gamble." I tend to agree. However, if people don't want to waste their money gambling, then why bother to build the casino in the first place? Take a look at Niagara Falls. Do you see a city that is rejuvenated by the casino? That place is a ghost town... even more so than when the casino was simply the convention center. Here's a thought - if we want to attract tourists and compete against Niagara Falls, or possibly lure them away from NF to dump a few tourist bucks here, why not build something DIFFERENT than what you'll find in NF and that has a more tangible and realistic revenue scheme?

I completely object to what Mike Niman (my favorite non-journalist) said recently in the Artvoice. He and I agree that building this casino is a bad idea, but for different reasons. Mike Niman suggests that this casino would affect the poor the most because they can least afford to gamble. This is absolute baloney. When do you ever see poor people in ANY casinos? That suggestion is an absolutely hollow argument because there is no factual basis to be able to make that assumption on. Poor people as a segment of the population do not gamble that much, and if you don't believe me you can go ahead and spent a week in Niagara Falls to study the clientele.

What Mike Niman is really saying is this - "Poor people, we are trying to protect you from yourselves, because I, Mike Niman, believe that you are too stupid and irresponsible to be able to handle yourselves if a casino is built." This is a perfect example of the nanny state. I believe in personal liberty first and foremost. If you want to go bankrupt in a casino as far as I'm concerned that is your right as an American. Suggesting to hold off on building a casino because you think that the people can't handle the responsibility is absolutely ludicrous. It might be true, but we simply cannot begin restricting what we build or do because a select group of people think they are smarter than the poor people - "daddy knows best!"