Guess The Number Of Casinos In The Jar And You Win A.... - April 24, 2005

The latest game of chance in this region is the effort to guess (or second guess) the actual number of casino proposals aimed at Sullivan County. Originally focused on one casino, the ante was raised some time ago by Governor Pataki to 5 casinos. Embedded subsequently in five native land claim settlements, these casino “opportunities” were then included in a bill sent to the legislature for ratification. As readers know, this bill has now been withdrawn giving the appearance that only one casino is under active proposal by the Governor.

The number of actual casinos to be proposed is not insignificant, however. When the number was raised to five, casino opponents multiplied dramatically. “Too many” was heard throughout the region and state. Suddenly the governor had politically risked getting even one casino approved. And, there was another issue, advanced by Orange Environment and others, that the impact statements for the two advanced proposals — the St. Regis Mohawk and the Stockbridge-Munsee — address the cumulative impacts of all potential casinos. If the adverse impact of one casino was huge, the impact of five was astronomical.

What is striking is the public impression created by the Governor’s strategic retreat that we are back to only one casino proposal. In fact, the Governor may have many reasons for his step backwards. He certainly laid claim to a desire to revisit the terms of the land settlements in light of a recent Supreme Court decision that suggests that he gave too much away in these deals. He knew that the Assembly was likely to turn down the original proposal in any case. And he may have wanted to give the Mohawk proposal a chance to be fully approved without complicating matters as he might have originally done had his timing of the five casino escalation been more calculated. But nowhere did the Governor say that he was retreating from the use of casinos as a carrot in achieving land claim settlements. In fact, they may play an even bigger role in reaching agreements that will be comparatively paltry in their native benefits. The native groups that came to Assembly hearings to complain that they were left out of the land claims settlements may strike yet new deals. And the Stockbridge-Munsee casino application is far advanced and not easily abandoned.

We are deluding ourselves if we think that there is only one casino proposal in play. The only realistic assumption that can be made is that there are in fact five casinos in eventual play, although the real number could be less or even more depending on eventual conditions. Certainly, the Governor’s intent to approve five Sullivan casinos remains.

While the regional impacts associated with even one casino are great enough to be cause for denial of the required permissions or at least serious steps toward mitigation, Orange Environment will continue to demand that all casino impact statements consider the cumulative impact of five casinos in their analysis. And we suggest that others concerned about the mismatch between the needs of the region and thinking in Albany similarly not let down their guard.

What should happen now? In my recent testimony before the New York Assembly, I proposed that applications for casinos be suspended until the state undertakes a generic cumulative assessment to examine three things: impacts to the region and needed mitigation, alternative paths for advancing the region’s prosperity, and policy issues relating to the use of casinos in land claims settlements and as a state revenue-generating tool. The current hiatus now allows time to undertake such a comprehensive policy study. All regional voices should demand that the Governor comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and use its tools to protect us from unintended or irreversible effects of maldevelopment in the region.

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D. is President of Orange Environment, Inc. And Professor of Psychology at Ramapo College of New Jersey.