A new convention center and hotel at Aqueduct

[Ninjahedge]

Congrats BBMW.

I am not saying it is mutually exclusive.

Thing is, most developers site things like "bringing in economic growth" and other reasons for building a casino, but most of the cash does not come magically from out-of-state pouring into the coffers of the local and state government for the benefit of the people.

Most of it comes from the very people it is supposed to (purportedly) help. It is fleecing. a % of that money will never be seen by the people going there or area it is in. Take a short walk outside the boardwalk in Atlantic City if you want to get a better idea....

[ZippyTheChimp]

Most of it comes from the very people it is supposed to (purportedly) help.

Do you know that for a fact that the chief source of revenue for Atlantic City casinos is the local community?

I don't think so, but if you do, give us some data.

It is fleecing. a % of that money will never be seen by the people going there or area it is in. Take a short walk outside the boardwalk in Atlantic City if you want to get a better idea....

The problems of Atlantic city would still exist if the hotels were resorts without gambling.

The same industry is the primary economic driver of Las Vegas. The difference is municipal management.

At any rate, neither Atlantic City nor Las Vegas are good examples for NYC. Both economies are highly dependent on the hotel-casino industry; that's not the case in NYC. The Aqueduct proposal is simply finding a way to get maximum economic benefit from 200 acres of state land that at present is underutilized.

[BBMW]

true, but...

Right now, not having full gaming is a liability, as it's causing money to flow out of state. Why not stop that. Also, Neither CT or NJ have gaming in NY Metro. Well positioned casinos could bring money in from those markets. Yes, they could respond by building their own casinos in NY Metro, but they could have previously, and haven't. FWIW some of the people playing at the poker games I play in NYC come from North Jersey.

Most of it comes from the very people it is supposed to (purportedly) help.

Here I would substitute "some" for "most". I won't pretend the poor won't gamble, but they'd be far from alone. Then again, I don't think you'll see too many hedge fund managers leaving wall street to take hotel/casino jobs. But the low skill unemployed will, not to mention the construction jobs in the build up. And even if the poor are gambling, at least their money would stay close to home. For example, there's a huge flow of gamblers and their cash from Chinatown down to AC. If gaming were convenient to Chinatown(s - both Manhattan and Flushing) almost all that money would stay in NYC.

As far as AC, it was a slum when gaming started. If anything, it seems a bit (if not much) better.

You have to be realistic about what you'll get from gaming. You'll get jobs, and you'll get tax money. If you want secondary economic development, fuggedaboudit. Casinos are closed enviroments, they do not encourage people to leave and spend money in the neighborhood. However, I think it's worth it for the jobs and tax revenue.

Congrats BBMW.

I am not saying it is mutually exclusive.

Thing is, most developers site things like "bringing in economic growth" and other reasons for building a casino, but most of the cash does not come magically from out-of-state pouring into the coffers of the local and state government for the benefit of the people.

Most of it comes from the very people it is supposed to (purportedly) help. It is fleecing. a % of that money will never be seen by the people going there or area it is in. Take a short walk outside the boardwalk in Atlantic City if you want to get a better idea....

[Ninjahedge]

Do you know that for a fact that the chief source of revenue for Atlantic City casinos is the local community?

I don't think so, but if you do, give us some data.

Quickie:

http://pactoregon.org/facts-economic-thompson02.html

It is not just AC Zip, it is the surrounding area. Stats show that most people that visit the casino come from areas around the casino. Some areas might be able to draw from other states due to proximity, but, for the most part, they find their cash inflow primarily from the surrounding communities.

That being the case, the money made from them also comes from the surrounding area.

What irks me is that politicians in favor of legalizing or approving a casino keep saying that it will "help the local economy".

I think it helps it the same way Wal Mart does. It gives you something you think you want or need that ends up costing you more in the end.

The problems of Atlantic city would still exist if the hotels were resorts without gambling.

The same industry is the primary economic driver of Las Vegas. The difference is municipal management.

Vegas is also a different animal on a much larger scale.

At any rate, neither Atlantic City nor Las Vegas are good examples for NYC. Both economies are highly dependent on the hotel-casino industry; that's not the case in NYC. The Aqueduct proposal is simply finding a way to get maximum economic benefit from 200 acres of state land that at present is underutilized.

We could always put in a red-light district.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Quickie:

http://pactoregon.org/facts-economic-thompson02.html

Too quick. Read it more carefully.

It is not just AC Zip, it is the surrounding area. Stats show that most people that visit the casino come from areas around the casino.

The link you provided uses Illinois as a case study. Some conclusions:

84% of gamblers are from Illinois while only 16% are from out-of-state

■ 85 percent of people who gamble in Illinois live within 50 miles of the casino

■ Over one-half the out-of-state players live within 50 miles

That doesn't relate to whether most casino gamblers are from Atlantic city, but that they are mostly from the NYC metro area.

What irks me is that politicians in favor of legalizing or approving a casino keep saying that it will "help the local economy".

This is an archaic argument that would be valid if the debate was about introducing gambling to a population that doesn't have access to it at present. That's not the case in the NYC metro area, where there are many venues to gamble. Besides casinos in other states and on Indian land, there are cruises to nowhere, lotteries, internet betting, football sheets at neighborhood bars, bookies - the list is endless.

All that's happening is a flow of revenue out of NY state.

Vegas is also a different animal on a much larger scale.

My point if you're comparing Vegas with Atlantic City. But you compared Atlantic City with NYC, where the relative dependence on gambling revenue is vastly different.

We could always put in a red-light district.

This leads me to believe that your objection is based on morality rather than economics. That horse left the barn decades ago.

[BBMW]

That doesn't relate to whether most casino gamblers are from Atlantic city, but that they are mostly from the NYC metro area.

This is not quite true. A large chuck of AC's action came from Philly. The reason I make a point of this is because this has been severly dinged by the opening of full service casinos in/around Philly in PA. That is a much closer case study for NYC than AC or LV.

As casinos are spreading around the country, and Philly has somewhat followed this model, they tended be located at old horse tracks (al la Aquaduct and Yonkers). I'm not wild about this. I'd put them more where the people are, not the horses. The remaining horse tracks don't tend to be where the action is any more. Those that were well located have tended to be closed and redeveloped. I'd look for better locations.

I also wouldn't go what I call the "Golden Casino" route, authorizing a single casino for a given area. I'd create "casino zones" where serveral could be built in farily close proximity, and let them all go at it.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Since this discussion relates to economic statistics, I should have called NY Metro the NY Combined Statistical Area, which includes just about everything except Philadelphia. This broad area is where Atlantic City gamblers come from; it's not Atlantic City residents providing most of the revenue source, as NH is implying.

[Ninjahedge]

Zip, what I am saying is that this does not generate squat.

Gambling is not a productive venue. The only way it makes money is when people spend it. Few venues benefit, like alcohol distributorships, some entertainment companies and the like, but it only makes its money by taking it from the people that visit it.

What I am saying is not a moral argument, although the Red Light district does lend itself to that comparison. I really would not mind a red-light district were it not for the abuses still present in an industry such as that in our own western european/catholic demographic. (Objectifying the "workers" and treating them without respect, etc).

The point I am making is not a moral one, but one that refutes many of the arguments that are in favor of a casino on unused land.

The best we could hope for would be that more people would waste their cash here rather than going to Mohegan Sun. The worst would be encouraging more people to do something that could seriously hurt them by putting it right at their back door.

Take it for what you will. I am not one that would protest this development as one of the signs of the apocalypse, I just do not believe it is the best thing to do.

[ZippyTheChimp]

Zip, what I am saying is that this does not generate squat.

So what's the deal with Mohegan Sun?

Gambling is not a productive venue. The only way it makes money is when people spend it.

So how does Disney make money?

but it only makes its money by taking it from the people that visit it.

Unlike the rest of today's entertainment-consumer society, right?

The best we could hope for would be that more people would waste their cash here rather than going to Mohegan Sun. The worst would be encouraging more people to do something that could seriously hurt them by putting it right at their back door.

You like beer, right? How do you feel about people wasting their cash, and maybe their health, by buying alcoholic products?

You are making a moral argument.

[BBMW]

Zip, what I am saying is that this does not generate squat.

Gambling is not a productive venue. The only way it makes money is when people spend it. Few venues benefit, like alcohol distributorships, some entertainment companies and the like, but it only makes its money by taking it from the people that visit it.

You could make the same argument about any service business, and it would be equally wrong. 'Entertainement' is a product (well established - look at the whole hospitalitiy and media industries)

What I am saying is not a moral argument, although the Red Light district does lend itself to that comparison. I really would not mind a red-light district were it not for the abuses still present in an industry such as that in our own western european/catholic demographic. (Objectifying the "workers" and treating them without respect, etc).

This would be an entire thread unto itself.

The point I am making is not a moral one, but one that refutes many of the arguments that are in favor of a casino on unused land.

The best we could hope for would be that more people would waste their cash here rather than going to Mohegan Sun. The worst would be encouraging more people to do something that could seriously hurt them by putting it right at their back door.

Take it for what you will. I am not one that would protest this development as one of the signs of the apocalypse, I just do not believe it is the best thing to do.

Best? Maybe, maybe not. But what alternatives do we have besides more of what we already have? Gaming, at least in the form of full scale, full service casinos is something we don't have around here. There is definitely a market for it. There is a need for the particular kind of jobs it would provide. And it would spin off a lot of useful tax revenue. So what's the problem.

[normaldude]

It's impossible to get to the Aqueduct without driving

The "A" train has two stations for Aqueduct.

[normaldude]

Gambling = fleecing the poor.

In many cases, that's true.

But casinos can help the community if it's positioned to primarily drain money from visitors from around the world, year-round.

- If you place a casino in a place like Gary Indiana, then it just drains money from the locals. People from Europe, Asia & California aren't going to fly to Gary Indiana to gamble.

- On the other hand, casinos in Las Vegas and Monaco make sense, since they primarily drain money from visitors from around the world, year-round.

In fact, Monaco is the richest country in the world ($172,676 per capita GDP, versus $47,199 for USA), and their primary industry is simply the Monte Carlo casino. What makes it work is that residents of Monaco are not allowed to gamble in the casino. Singapore recently opened a casino with a similar strategy. The Singapore casino is free for visitors, but Singaporean residents have to pay a fee to gamble there. The goal is to have the casino primarily drain money from visitors from around the world, year-round, rather than from locals.

So if you have a huge convention center next to the Aqueduct casino, it might work well, since the casino would primarily be draining money from visitors from around the world, year-round.

It might work even better if they extend the JFK airtrain to connect to the casino, so that visitors who have a few extra hours waiting for a connecting flight can throw their money away at the casino. Imagine a casino/hotel/convention complex connected to the JFK airtrain. The casino would be packed year-round with businessmen from around the world (attending conventions), and with visitors who have a few extra hours waiting for connecting flights. A casino like that would generate the vast majority of its revenue from visiting businessmen & tourists, and very little from local poor people.

[eddhead]

I find myself in the odd, and unfamiliar position of agreeing with BBMW. I think I need a cocktail.

[BPC]

I am a big fan of the current Governor, but fear he has stumbled here. Gambling only leads to economic benefits when one does not include in the calculation all the human misery that accompanies it. I enjoy an occasional visit to a casino, but there is a significant minority of persons who have addictive personalities, and gambling ends up ruining theirs, and their families', lives. This does not suggest to me that gambling should be banned (I think gambling prohibition fails for all the same reasons our current regime of drug prohibition is failing), but I do believe the government should stay neutral (i.e., no state run lotteries, which are the worst gambling scams out there), and no government subsidized gambling ventures like Gov. Cuomo is proposing. Let gambling stay in the private sector, and with the Native Americans, who deserve the reward for the genocide inflicted upon them. But state-sposored and subsidized gambling is a bad idea.

[ZippyTheChimp]

The Aqueduct casino-convention center would not be government subsidized gambling. Ironically, that's what you have now at the racetrack, the NYRA is a state agency that runs the tracks.

The project would be privately funded and operated. Like Atlantic city or Las Vegas casinos, gambling would have to be legalized by an amendment to the state constitution.