As further reference to just how close the proposed casino will be to poverty, please reference the Google map below. I obtained the map by googling municipal housing, buffalo, ny (GOOGLE - municipal housing, buffalo, ny). Result D, which is shown on the map, is the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority Employment Opportunity Center (though sadly it's actually mispelled). The casino would be less than a block from multiple housing projects. (e:joshua,142)
Terry's Journal
My Podcast Link
04/19/2006 00:25 #35760
casino talkCategory: casino
03/18/2006 13:37 #35759
25 years later...Category: birthdays
Happy Birthday, my lover.
03/17/2006 00:57 #35758
srippery thai noodreshard to eat with chopsticks
My phone broke. I didn't buy the insurance. I had it for about 2 months, maybe less. I didn't even do anything to it, it just broke. So, I sent it to the manufacturer, which was LG (with a circle 'round it), though the Spint people said it was Samsung first. I thought it was odd, what with the large LG on the front of my phone. So I paid my postage and sent it to Alabammy to get fixed.
Give or take 2 weeks later. A package arrives. Yay, phone is back. But, no, the battery is back, all by itself.
A week or so later. Yay, phone is back. And this time it really is. Alas, phone doesn't work.
Call Sprint.
Menu: 1 minute
Hold: 5 minutes
Talk: 1-3 minutes, decide I need to be transferred.
Hold: 10 minutes
Talk: 5 minutes (with "Angel" who begins by asking me why I've been transferred)
Hold: 2 minutes while Angel does something or other
Talk: Angel obviously has no idea how to get my phone to work.
Hold: 10-15 minutes (Angel tells me he's calling the Help Desk
.
.
.
Eventually about an hour or so later Angel decides that he has fixed the problem. I say thank god and thank him for his "service".
This morning the phone still didn't work. This evening, phone still didn't work. I called Sprint again and got someone who was able to fix the problem in about 5 minutes. Well, honestly, the phone still doesn't work, but she did say 2-4 hours... I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt...I'm not sure how I am going to act if I have to call again. Most likely very belligerent...maybe some mild threats... hah
St. Matty's is Sat. All should come. I mean who wants to go to the parade without a hangover already?
My phone broke. I didn't buy the insurance. I had it for about 2 months, maybe less. I didn't even do anything to it, it just broke. So, I sent it to the manufacturer, which was LG (with a circle 'round it), though the Spint people said it was Samsung first. I thought it was odd, what with the large LG on the front of my phone. So I paid my postage and sent it to Alabammy to get fixed.
Give or take 2 weeks later. A package arrives. Yay, phone is back. But, no, the battery is back, all by itself.
A week or so later. Yay, phone is back. And this time it really is. Alas, phone doesn't work.
Call Sprint.
Menu: 1 minute
Hold: 5 minutes
Talk: 1-3 minutes, decide I need to be transferred.
Hold: 10 minutes
Talk: 5 minutes (with "Angel" who begins by asking me why I've been transferred)
Hold: 2 minutes while Angel does something or other
Talk: Angel obviously has no idea how to get my phone to work.
Hold: 10-15 minutes (Angel tells me he's calling the Help Desk
.
.
.
Eventually about an hour or so later Angel decides that he has fixed the problem. I say thank god and thank him for his "service".
This morning the phone still didn't work. This evening, phone still didn't work. I called Sprint again and got someone who was able to fix the problem in about 5 minutes. Well, honestly, the phone still doesn't work, but she did say 2-4 hours... I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt...I'm not sure how I am going to act if I have to call again. Most likely very belligerent...maybe some mild threats... hah
St. Matty's is Sat. All should come. I mean who wants to go to the parade without a hangover already?
flacidness - 03/17/06 13:15
MAYBE YOU AND THE PHONE AREN'T MEANT TO BE....
MAYBE YOU AND THE PHONE AREN'T MEANT TO BE....
01/29/2006 13:55 #35757
Paul spilled tomato juice on the rugCategory: day-to-day
We went X-country skiing yesterday in Allegany. [inlink]matthew,692[/inlink] Somehow I always seem to pick the wrong trails. I have memories of these awesome exciting trails, but everytime we go it ends up being fun but quite exertionesque. Yesterday we definately managed to go uphill like 300% more than downhill. And while I realize this confounds the laws of physics my shaky legs will attest to it. So, in order for us to not repeat the same mistakes this time we actually drew arrows on our little map indicating which direction not to take next time. We'll see...
Today is rainy and gray. What to do? (e:matthew) wants to go to Home Depot to get new tortoise care building supplies. Which may end up being it.
We got X-Men Legends 2 the other week. We are about 2/3rds of the way through but the games keeps freezing at this one point. We've tried like 5 times to get past it and are very frustrated. The whole rest of the game worked fine, I think that there may just be too much going on for my three year old Gamecube. The disc itself looks fine-no scratches or smears. I also tried replaying various other parts and they seemed to be fine. The freeze just plays this really irritating buzzing noise until you turn it off. Any Gamecubers out there have any suggestions, or experienced anything similar? I will be so sad if I don't get to whomp Apocalypse's ass!
Today is rainy and gray. What to do? (e:matthew) wants to go to Home Depot to get new tortoise care building supplies. Which may end up being it.
We got X-Men Legends 2 the other week. We are about 2/3rds of the way through but the games keeps freezing at this one point. We've tried like 5 times to get past it and are very frustrated. The whole rest of the game worked fine, I think that there may just be too much going on for my three year old Gamecube. The disc itself looks fine-no scratches or smears. I also tried replaying various other parts and they seemed to be fine. The freeze just plays this really irritating buzzing noise until you turn it off. Any Gamecubers out there have any suggestions, or experienced anything similar? I will be so sad if I don't get to whomp Apocalypse's ass!
theecarey - 01/29/06 14:04
sweet.. so the XC skiing was good out there.. hmm.. Let me know when you guys are heading out again. My skis have been standing next to my front door, waiting to be used again.
sweet.. so the XC skiing was good out there.. hmm.. Let me know when you guys are heading out again. My skis have been standing next to my front door, waiting to be used again.
01/23/2006 22:51 #35756
Birthdays aboundingCategory: power
Thanks for the party-space, (e:jessika). Wish we could have talked to you more, but your couch was so comfy (and at that time not puke-covered).
And, after a two week period of diminishing pain, my back is "back" to normal.
So, at the aforementioned party, I joined the discussion mentioned by (e:paul) with (e:ejtower). It was pretty fun. I forget sometimes how much fun it is to have a purely academic discussion. Makes me almost miss school...almost.
His post hits on some of the points that we talked about. He and I are agreed that true innovation and invention are best inspired by free markets. They inevitably tend to maximize effectiveness and reduce cost without any outside interference. We both think any "green" revolution must be market driven. We both think that federal/governmental intervention oftentimes stymies this same innovation. Why make the next energy/food source when the one you're banking on is guaranteed profits not through marketability but through government subsidies? He managed to convince me that he's a pretty smart guy. Who counters your argument that energy is necessary for cyborgs to work with an argument that oil is just another energy-rich oil, many of which are growing right now in a field near you?
We differed in our opinions on government. (E:jtower) wants to abolish government. That may not be quite right: he wants there to be no government (we didn't really discuss the method of disposal). According to him, government inhibits the natural rights of people, or in his words, government "justif[ies] our infringements on each other's right to life". My question is, without government, who protects your individual right to life? I suppose we are all responsible for protecting our own rights, unless we have powerful friends/relatives who decide to help us. I think one of the purposes of government is to provide a base level of survival for everyone. It makes those people who would just die, I guess, able to survive, if minimally. It gives everyone (or at least most) an opportunity to compete with those with lots of powerful (can we just say rich?) friends/relatives. Of course it doesn't always work that way. Most people have no chance of becoming powerful. But, at the same time, most people have the opportunity to survive, without having to earn it on the free market. If you believe in the right to life, shouldn't you want everyone to have this opportunity, regardless of connections to already existing power?
So we could have another discussion on the function/effectiveness of government (which I'm sure the Larson brothers would happily participate in). But I just can't see how a realistic anarchy (and I do mean in the political sense) would ever come to exist. And I worry that ideas of unfettered marketplaces play right into the hands of the entrenched power that exists in our world. Does Wal-mart really need less government oversight?
P.S.: If any opinions expressed here don't actually belong to the owners expressed above, please feel free to comment or clarify.
And, after a two week period of diminishing pain, my back is "back" to normal.
So, at the aforementioned party, I joined the discussion mentioned by (e:paul) with (e:ejtower). It was pretty fun. I forget sometimes how much fun it is to have a purely academic discussion. Makes me almost miss school...almost.
His post hits on some of the points that we talked about. He and I are agreed that true innovation and invention are best inspired by free markets. They inevitably tend to maximize effectiveness and reduce cost without any outside interference. We both think any "green" revolution must be market driven. We both think that federal/governmental intervention oftentimes stymies this same innovation. Why make the next energy/food source when the one you're banking on is guaranteed profits not through marketability but through government subsidies? He managed to convince me that he's a pretty smart guy. Who counters your argument that energy is necessary for cyborgs to work with an argument that oil is just another energy-rich oil, many of which are growing right now in a field near you?
We differed in our opinions on government. (E:jtower) wants to abolish government. That may not be quite right: he wants there to be no government (we didn't really discuss the method of disposal). According to him, government inhibits the natural rights of people, or in his words, government "justif[ies] our infringements on each other's right to life". My question is, without government, who protects your individual right to life? I suppose we are all responsible for protecting our own rights, unless we have powerful friends/relatives who decide to help us. I think one of the purposes of government is to provide a base level of survival for everyone. It makes those people who would just die, I guess, able to survive, if minimally. It gives everyone (or at least most) an opportunity to compete with those with lots of powerful (can we just say rich?) friends/relatives. Of course it doesn't always work that way. Most people have no chance of becoming powerful. But, at the same time, most people have the opportunity to survive, without having to earn it on the free market. If you believe in the right to life, shouldn't you want everyone to have this opportunity, regardless of connections to already existing power?
So we could have another discussion on the function/effectiveness of government (which I'm sure the Larson brothers would happily participate in). But I just can't see how a realistic anarchy (and I do mean in the political sense) would ever come to exist. And I worry that ideas of unfettered marketplaces play right into the hands of the entrenched power that exists in our world. Does Wal-mart really need less government oversight?
P.S.: If any opinions expressed here don't actually belong to the owners expressed above, please feel free to comment or clarify.
Downtown is a perfect spot for a casino for a bunch of reasons. Close to the projects and south buffalo plus people are moving into lofts bass pro may be coming and Downtown may be growing. Plus there are a bunch of Buses from all over the city that end in Downtown Buffalo. Plus if they decide to try and get tourism dollars people who fly into buffalo can take a shuttle from the airport right downtown.
I'm prone to believe after looking at the evidence that the location of the casino was chosen primarily because it was cheap and available land. Yes, there is more than one run down area in the city to build in, but what makes one run down area better than another run down area? To me that is splitting hairs. Why? Because no matter where you put it people are going to complain, ESPECIALLY in this city. Just more evidence that nobody really wants this except for the developers and the politicians.
I get to see alot of casinos because of how much I travel. I don't think there is any evidence whatsoever that casinos explicitly target low income areas for any reason other than cost. Somebody please explain to me why the WOULDN'T choose an area that has available and cheap land... what are the Senecas supposed to do; build in Amherst or Clarence because a few people think that if they don't they are trying to victimize low income people? BALONEY. Naturally that implies that if they target low income areas that they are targeting low income people - now we are back in Mike Niman territory. If some of you argue that even if casinos wanted to build in more affluent areas that residents and politicians would try to stop it, then you're in an area that I think I'm in agreement with you on. Did anybody ask the residents of Perry St. what they thought about the casino?
Around our country casinos outside of AC or LV are built primarily on tribal land or along bodies of water - I see this all the time. Some are riverboats. Just like any business, casinos are built where a) a high amount of traffic takes place and b) where is most affordable. A combination of these two factors is considered, with the possible exception of tourist attraction areas just like Niagara Falls.
Lets remember that the only reason this casino is even being considered is because of the potential to draw tourists from NF - people wouldn't ever come to Buffalo explicitly to gamble. This is a very "Buffalo" thing - people are in agreement about the casino being a terrible idea yet people are still arguing about WHY its a bad idea.
I think it's common knowledge that casinos target low income areas. Also, there is more than just one run down area of the city with cheap and available land.
I can agree with anyone that the casino's probably a bad ide, but I really don't think it's a conspiracy against the poor. It's business venture designed to maximize profit for the casino owners. The city's benefit (or detriment) is not a concern. I don't think there's an intention to do harm, or an intention to do good. Just profit, that's all that matters in a business venture.
With that in mind, the choice of location is most likely due to the fact that it's easier to grab a lot of land cheap near the less desirable neighborhoods. (i.e. public housing)
There's always the "added benefit" that those with less means (and less access to transportation) can still reach the casino. (That way they can pour their resources down the drain like everyone else.)
We can't legislate fiscal responsibility, so I guess it's their choice whether or not to support the "new business" in their back yard.
I'm not so sure that the site was chosen for the proximity to the projects.
The city wanted a run-down, depressed neighborhood so that it would be easier to take peoples' homes and generally push people around; and where there was lots of land available.
Guess where the projects are typically put? In a depressed neighborhood...
I see what you mean. Are you suggesting that the proximity to housing projects was nefariously selected in order to take advantage of the poor?