Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
10/18/2005 20:21 #21683
The Casino is UndemocraticCategory: casino
the casino in Buffalo... there's a lot to the issue, but one thing about it is really offending me right now... NOBODY ASKED US! The governor woke up one morning and said "I know how I'm going to close the gap in our budget, I'm take a piece of Buffalo and give it away to a sovereign nation. They can take the land right off of the tax rolls and make $150 million off of it each year from a casino." And he didn't even ask the State government, nor the Erie County or Buffalo government. And he sure as hell didn't use a referendum to ask us, the people who live here. I'm offended, in fact it really pisses me off.
Especially since Buffalo is not doing bad right now, there's actually a lot of old architectural gems being renovated and turned into mixed use apartments and commercial buildings. And new buildings are even starting to fill in the parking lots. The nice areas of the city are actually growing, as more people are moving into the downtown neighborhoods. Main St is improving from the theatre district past the medical campus and all the way up to the Artspace lofts project near Summer St. There's also the interesting Health Now building right behind City Hall and all kinds of stuff is happening. All we need is for the government not to screw up real bad. You can read about it at Buffalo Rising's City page . Now is not the time to be giving pieces of downtown real estate away to a sovereign nation.
The jobs argument is bullshit, look at other cities that have tried this, like Atlantic city, Detroit, or Niagara Falls, yes even in Niagara Falls at least two hotels and a restaurant have closed, and they actually have tourists! By contrast 80% of the money that the casino makes in Buffalo is going to come from us, the local economy, and it's not staying here, it's going to the Senecas.
The casino will also be nicely situated at the center of all the bus routes, Downtown, where people who can't afford cars can easily get to. Not so with the Niagara Falls or Salamanca casinos. The poor in Buffalo are going to get poorer. I live in an inexpensive Allentown apartment, most of my neighbors in this building are poor, both white and black, I thought about them. Who would go, would they spend more money than they could afford, and what would they do to try and get that money back? What would happen to our neighborhood because of their poverty? I don't like what I see, really.. more theft, more drugs, more broken car windows and missing stereos, more people outside bothering you for change, or asking you to buy their crap, electronics and fake drugs. It won't be as nice of a neighborhood. This is one of the most pedestrian friendly and architecturally beautiful sections of the city, but people will enjoy it less, and less often, because they will be harassed and confronted by the struggling poor.
It's not good, I mean seriously if you want numbers here's some stuff from Donn Esmonde's recent article :
The casino will make $150 million a year
About 80 percent of the people who will gamble at a Buffalo casino live within 50 miles of Buffalo,
The casino brings about 1,000 jobs (although at a cost of some existing jobs), with those workers taking home about $25 million a year.
The state gets about $30 million of the annual casino profits,
With the City and County splitting about $7 million.
But $25 million in take-home pay and a $7 million local cut doesn't balance the nearly $150 million we'll pay for it.
"The number one casino spinoff business is a gas station," Thompson said. "Maybe a restaurant within walking distance . . . Most people going to the casino won't do a single thing in Buffalo other than gamble."
If you read this whole thing you definitely care enough to call some representatives and say that if a casino is proposed the public should have a say,
tell them to introduce a bill to their legislature so that they have to address the issue and hear from their constituents about it.
Or encourage them to sponsor a referendum for the people to vote on. This process is going way too fast, it needs to be properly deliberated. We are handing over a chunk of our city.
You may have read in my last post that there is a public comment period from now until November 7th, you have to fax (FAX# 202-208-6950) or e-mail (webteam@ios.doi.gov) Gale Norton, the Interior Secretary, she's the one who approves land transfers. I encouraged my representatives to send her a fax as well.
You can find your city reps here:
County reps here:
State reps here:
10/16/2005 11:26 #21682
Casino in Buffalo.. Why?Category: casino
here is a fantastic article from Buffalo Rising about the casino. Think about it. this is a permanent change to our city. how will it change us? how will it change the downtown urban living and sightseeing environment. Please make a phone call or write a letter, stop this nonsense. you can find contact information in the Buffalo Rising Article.
by Figmo
Simply put, putting a casino in Downtown Buffalo is the dumbest and most dangerous idea anyone's had in a while. To give away the center of an area finally in the throes of a residential turnaround to a sovereign nation with no obligation to community development standards and guidelines is stupid. To build a low-budget, third rate casino catering to busloads of sad cases carrying plastic cups filled with loose change in the middle of an area where many developers with vision have taken a chance and sunk significant chunks of capital into high-end residential development-that's the ballgame, folks.
Click for the Rest
by Figmo
Simply put, putting a casino in Downtown Buffalo is the dumbest and most dangerous idea anyone's had in a while. To give away the center of an area finally in the throes of a residential turnaround to a sovereign nation with no obligation to community development standards and guidelines is stupid. To build a low-budget, third rate casino catering to busloads of sad cases carrying plastic cups filled with loose change in the middle of an area where many developers with vision have taken a chance and sunk significant chunks of capital into high-end residential development-that's the ballgame, folks.
Click for the Rest
metalpeter - 10/16/05 12:00
First of all good article. I read the entire thing and then put up my thoughts on that site. They also had a couple nice looking pictures up there. Generaly what I said was that I think that if the Casino is done the right way it could be a great boost to Buffalo. My version of the right way is they get a Casino that is it they can't make there own Mall. The casino also has to advertise things or would advertise other events like Sheas and Studio Arena. Is a casino a magicly fix or a death blow to Buffalo NO, it is all about how it is done that determines that.
First of all good article. I read the entire thing and then put up my thoughts on that site. They also had a couple nice looking pictures up there. Generaly what I said was that I think that if the Casino is done the right way it could be a great boost to Buffalo. My version of the right way is they get a Casino that is it they can't make there own Mall. The casino also has to advertise things or would advertise other events like Sheas and Studio Arena. Is a casino a magicly fix or a death blow to Buffalo NO, it is all about how it is done that determines that.
10/07/2005 20:24 #21681
PS. on anti-torture ammendmentCategory: politics
I'd like to point out a couple things about the anti-torture amendment to the latest $445,000,000,000 War spending Bill.
The amendment was spearheaded by John McCain. A good guy in my opinion who unlike most of our Washington officials actually SERVED in the military, and he was a war prisoner. Meaning essentially that he understands what life is like in war. he gets his information from experience instead of movies like Bush and most everyone in his cabinet. interesting.
also the wording of the amendment is not as ambiguous as I originally thought. It bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" which as honorable a policy as it is vague. "Cruel" or "degrading" mean a million things to a million people. but McCain and his cosponsors were not looking for a feelgood amendment they actually are looking to set standards at the federal level, and to learn exactly what those standards are the amendment refers you to the "Army Field Manual". standards the army has already agreed upon.
interesting facts.
The amendment was spearheaded by John McCain. A good guy in my opinion who unlike most of our Washington officials actually SERVED in the military, and he was a war prisoner. Meaning essentially that he understands what life is like in war. he gets his information from experience instead of movies like Bush and most everyone in his cabinet. interesting.
also the wording of the amendment is not as ambiguous as I originally thought. It bans "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" which as honorable a policy as it is vague. "Cruel" or "degrading" mean a million things to a million people. but McCain and his cosponsors were not looking for a feelgood amendment they actually are looking to set standards at the federal level, and to learn exactly what those standards are the amendment refers you to the "Army Field Manual". standards the army has already agreed upon.
interesting facts.
10/06/2005 10:15 #21680
Bush loves TortureCategory: politics
I got a kick out of this article in the NY Times today.
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.
The President wants to veto a bill banning the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" That speaks volumes about this administration. seriously, what kind of America is this guy from?!?!
Senate Moves to Protect Military Prisoners Despite Veto Threat
WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 - Defying the White House, the Senate overwhelmingly agreed Wednesday to regulate the detention, interrogation and treatment of prisoners held by the American military.
The measure ignited a fierce debate among many Senate Republicans and the White House, which threatened to veto a $440 billion military spending bill if the detention amendment was tacked on, saying it would bind the president's hands in wartime. Nonetheless, the measure passed, 90 to 9, with 46 Republicans, including Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, joining 43 Democrats and one independent in favor.
More than two dozen retired senior military officers, including Colin L. Powell and John M. Shalikashvili, two former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, endorsed the amendment, which would ban use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" against anyone in United States government custody.
The President wants to veto a bill banning the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" That speaks volumes about this administration. seriously, what kind of America is this guy from?!?!
joshua - 10/06/05 16:53
In addition, this clip is a perfect example of NYTimes non-sensical sensationalistic drivel. Some of you made it painfully obvious that you bought into it, not necessarily because you aren't thinking for yourselves, but in essence because you either want to believe it or assumed it anyhow without actually understanding the Presidents position in full detail.
In addition, this clip is a perfect example of NYTimes non-sensical sensationalistic drivel. Some of you made it painfully obvious that you bought into it, not necessarily because you aren't thinking for yourselves, but in essence because you either want to believe it or assumed it anyhow without actually understanding the Presidents position in full detail.
joshua - 10/06/05 16:46
Geneva Convention applies to uniformed troops that represent a nation - this way both sides in a war are held responsible for treatment of its prisoners. Al-Queda, terrorists or other such similar groups are not considered such, and as an aside because of their status the Geneva Convention is unenforceable... and since everybody seems to forget the images of captured non-Armed Forces Americans having their heads cut off, lets not be so quick to forget that the terrorists are most certainly not concerned about "international law." Anyhow, for you paranoid freaks out there that are quick to assume that the President will in fact veto this as a result of your continuing existence in some alternate dimension, its almost certain that the President will go along with this as long as the left doesn't successfully blur the details.
Geneva Convention applies to uniformed troops that represent a nation - this way both sides in a war are held responsible for treatment of its prisoners. Al-Queda, terrorists or other such similar groups are not considered such, and as an aside because of their status the Geneva Convention is unenforceable... and since everybody seems to forget the images of captured non-Armed Forces Americans having their heads cut off, lets not be so quick to forget that the terrorists are most certainly not concerned about "international law." Anyhow, for you paranoid freaks out there that are quick to assume that the President will in fact veto this as a result of your continuing existence in some alternate dimension, its almost certain that the President will go along with this as long as the left doesn't successfully blur the details.
sbrugger - 10/06/05 13:34
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
sbrugger - 10/06/05 13:34
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
What ever happened to the Geneva Convention?
jason - 10/06/05 13:11
In principle you are right. We have to come up with this kind of law. I think if we are going to do something like this, we shouldn't leave it in such vague terms. List A-Z the things that we are not going to do to the terrorist prisoners. Have the Senators argue about it. The way you get Bush on board is to be specific, because he is paranoid about wacko groups telling us what is and what isn't cruel and unusual (oh heavens you insulted his mama).
In principle you are right. We have to come up with this kind of law. I think if we are going to do something like this, we shouldn't leave it in such vague terms. List A-Z the things that we are not going to do to the terrorist prisoners. Have the Senators argue about it. The way you get Bush on board is to be specific, because he is paranoid about wacko groups telling us what is and what isn't cruel and unusual (oh heavens you insulted his mama).
paul - 10/06/05 12:12
The texas kind
The texas kind
10/03/2005 14:00 #21679
My New Favorite WebsiteCategory: websites
I'm rather picky when it comes to websites and web-design, being a designer myself I quickly notice holes and flaws in design. Also I am currently taking a class at UB called Interface Design, which looks at websites from the perspective of the user, and it has made me even more critical of sites that are difficult to navigate or understand.
That being said, I really like the New Buffalo Rising site It looks slick, but more importantly you can navigate freely through the content and find what interests you without a problem. They have given the articles categories and subcategories which allow you to find exactly the stuff that interests you, no matter when they were published. and the site is updated often, like 6-12 new articles per day.
I just realy like it I couldn't have come up with a better design myself. check it out
That being said, I really like the New Buffalo Rising site It looks slick, but more importantly you can navigate freely through the content and find what interests you without a problem. They have given the articles categories and subcategories which allow you to find exactly the stuff that interests you, no matter when they were published. and the site is updated often, like 6-12 new articles per day.
I just realy like it I couldn't have come up with a better design myself. check it out
dcoffee - 10/03/05 17:11
Thanks Jason!!! I had no idea, I guess I followed instructions a little too closely and put parenthesis in the adress.
Thanks Jason!!! I had no idea, I guess I followed instructions a little too closely and put parenthesis in the adress.
jason - 10/03/05 16:41
Hey, I like your Flickr blog but unfortunately the link that's listed here doesn't work. I always have to do some other mumbo jumbo to get to it.
Hey, I like your Flickr blog but unfortunately the link that's listed here doesn't work. I always have to do some other mumbo jumbo to get to it.
peter, I'd rather get the results from Niagara Falls Casino before rushing to get one completed here. particularly because this is a perminent change, it's not just any developer, we can't get the land back easily.
Uncut, I know what you mean, trusting the masses can let you down, especially when the news media doesen't do its homework before parroting the mayor's sunny predictions. but a lot of people I talk to are unsure of the idea, if they do accept it and try to look on the bright side it's usually because they think it's a done deal and there's nothing anybody can do. if people understood that it was their decision and that the legeslatures have to vote on it we will have some serious descussion. and I will be out there working my ass off to get information out.
A referendum is a good idea to see what Buffaloians think about the casino. But one of the bugbears of democracy is that majority rules.
If one has a group of three and two of them vote to kill the third person, that is true democracy in action.
I'm not at all certain that a referendum would vote down the casino
First of all I'm glad that you are speaking up for what you belive in. My view is a differant then yours But i think it is important for people to get invovled who arn't in government no matter what side they represent. I do agree that it is wrong that the people really had no say in it. But that being said I can't belive I'm supporting the crooks. I think the politians don't want what is going on with the peace bridge to go on with a casino. A good portion of us on (e:strip) might be dead before a bridge is finished or even before a decision is made. To be honest the citizens don't have much of a say in what goes on. We elect officals and they do what they want, or what there consituants want so they can get reelected. We don't really have a direct government verry often anymore. Some times there will be some proposal that is on the ballot on election day, but that isn't to often. I think there should be more votes on things be the citizens and not just be registerd voters. It wouldn't be perfect but you could have a vote by mail system. Everyone in the city gets a ballot by mail and they fill out social securtiy numbers and all that information then when done with the vote put it in the mail box. Give a certain window maybe two weeks to send out all the ballots and have them returned. But that will never happen because it takes the power away from the politians and gives it to the people.