Voters will decide this November whether or not casino gambling will be expanded in New York State, but there is growing concern over the way the proposition is written.
Ballot Measure – Proposal 1 Authorizing Casino Gaming, states that approval would, “… allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated.”
Governor Andrew Cuomo has expressed support for the referendum and has said he will be working to get it passed.
“This new law will bring the state one step closer to establishing world-class destination gaming resorts that will attract tourists to upstate New York and support thousands of good paying jobs as well as revenue for local businesses,” the Governor said when he signed the Upstate NY Gaming and Economic Development Act which is pending approval of Proposal 1. “For too many years, gaming revenue has left New York for our neighboring states. Today, we are putting New York State in a position to have those dollars spent here in our communities, which will benefit our local economies and tourism industries, as well as support education and property tax relief.”
But others are not so happy with the way the ballot proposition is worded – casting a positive light on the passage of the referendum.
Blair Horner, legislative director for the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG), tells the Suburban News and Hamlin-Clarkson Herald he doesn’t believe the wording violates state law, but called the referendum “an advocacy document rather than a pure description of the constitutional amendment. The wording is spun in an effort to get people to vote yes.”
Horner says NYPIRG does not take a position for or against the proposition, but does feel the wording for Proposal 1 “goes beyond a simple, straight-forward manner.”
He advises voters to familiarize themselves with the wording of the constitutional amendment itself. The amendment includes only the addition of the words “and except casino gambling at no more than seven facilities as authorized and prescribed by the legislature,” to section 9 of article 1 of the state Constitution.
“Voters shouldn’t be confused by all the benefits and no downsides,” wording of the referendum, Horner says. “Voters should be educated about the amendment and not be bamboozled by the summary.”
What voters should ask themselves is, “Do we want to create an exception that would create casinos?” Horner says. “If the public wants it, the public should have it.”
He notes voters should be aware of the potential downsides of casinos including problem gambling and the fact some casinos do fail, and if they do, who will pick up the tab?
The referendum should be worded as a straight-up yes or no on the amendment, Horner concludes, and then, “let the combatants educate the public.”
In fact, a recent Siena College poll found that wording did make a difference in whether New Yorkers said they supported private casinos in the state.
When voters were asked if they supported the state allowing the development of non-Indian Las Vegas style casinos, they were evenly split. However, when they were given the question with the exact words used for the proposition on the ballot – which includes the benefits of job growth, aid to schools and tax revenue – support increased to 55 percent for and 42 percent against.
In a statement released to Westside News Inc., State Assemblyman Steve Hawley said casino gaming expansion is a tricky question for many people.
“But I think most would agree that the ballot initiative is a great example of democracy in action,” he said. “Too often, citizens are robbed of their voice in government, whether through hasty enactment of controversial legislation – like the S.A.F.E. Act – or important bills not receiving an open vote – like my legislation to create two separate New Yorks. The health of a democracy relies on the people making their voices heard, and I’m glad New Yorkers will have that opportunity with casino gaming.”
If the proposition passes, the first four casinos would be in the Southern Tier, Catskills and the Albany area.
Because of agreements that affirm the exclusivity of Indian gaming zones, none of the new casinos would be located in areas already served by Indian casinos.Published reports say that includes all of western New York west of Route 14 which runs north-south from Elmira to Sodus Bay.
The state legislature has already passed the measure, but legalizing casino gambling in the state requires a change in the state Constitution which voters must approve by way of the ballot proposition.
10/13/13
