A new convention center and hotel at Aqueduct

[GordonGecko]

This may be the one you're talking about (Last post on page) :

http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showth...t=5827&page=10

Yep that's the one, and actually you can get the full history and current conditions from Zippy's PDF link

[mariab]

The author of that paper obviously did his homework. Impressive. I wonder if he's presented it to any of the decision makers yet? But realistically, I don't see them opening up that old high line. They might have to think of other options. The residents, rightly so, will oppose it, & in this case I don't think the nimby tag is entirely fair. You can see clearly, in some of the pics, that entire neighborhoods were built up around the stations by new suburbanite commuters way back when. But this is 60 years later & it's a lot more crowded now. Some of those neighborhoods simply wouldn't be able to handle the extra traffic & population bump that would go along with that.

If they're looking to open it up all the way out to the Rockaways, they can have a limited number of stations, & finally dismantle the remains of the rest as disheartening as that may be to the proponents. Frankly I'm surprised there haven't been tragedies already with those abandoned staircases. They don't have to scrap it entirely, just bring it back in a limited way. Maybe they can call it the Rockaway Limited.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I wonder if he's presented it to any of the decision makers yet?

The author did good job of assembling the report, but the options are well known.

The residents, rightly so, will oppose it, & in this case I don't think the nimby tag is entirely fair. You can see clearly, in some of the pics, that entire neighborhoods were built up around the stations by new suburbanite commuters way back when.

Overall, not true. Before the fire when the branch operated all the way to the Rockaways, the area around the ROW was already built up. You can see this at the NYC Map. Toggle between 2010 and 1951 views. The biggest change is south of Rockaway Blvd. This is the view north on the east side of the ROW. The houses were built c1960. The west side of the ROW had RR tracks; that is now a NYC public school. Another cluster of houses were built post 1951 near Union Turnpike. A Google street view tour will show that a lot of the adjoining property along the route is commercial.

But this is 60 years later & it's a lot more crowded now. Some of those neighborhoods simply wouldn't be able to handle the extra traffic & population bump that would go along with that.

Population is mostly controlled by zoning; these aren't underutilized neighborhoods. Mass transit lessens traffic.

Local opposition to the original Air Train mostly concerned construction noise and disruption - a short-term view.

[mariab]

The author did good job of assembling the report, but the options are well known.

It's probably at the bottom of their "To Do" pile.

You can see this at the NYC Map. Toggle between 2010 and 1951 views.

I tried but it was a zoom-out map of L.I., & when I zoomed in nothing happened. I'd like to see it.

Population is mostly controlled by zoning; these aren't underutilized neighborhoods. Mass transit lessens traffic.

How long before zoning laws change to accomodate apartment buildings?


I'm definitely not against this, & even if i was a resident I would feel the same way. I think it's a great idea but in a more limited way than it was originally. As built up as the area is now, I'm not sure they can bring back all the original stops without heavy repercussions.

[ZippyTheChimp]

I tried but it was a zoom-out map of L.I., & when I zoomed in nothing happened. I'd like to see it.

Once before, the page was frozen whenever I accessed it from Firefox, but it worked normally with other browsers. The only thing that cleared it was a complete uninstall-reinstall of Firefox.

[Merry]

Most Oppose Cuomo’s Plan for Aqueduct

By THOMAS KAPLAN

ALBANY — A majority of New York State voters oppose Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s plan for building the country’s largest convention center at the Aqueduct racetrack in Queens, according to a poll released on Monday.

Voters remain highly contented with Mr. Cuomo’s job performance, the poll, conducted by Siena College, found. But their disdain for his convention center proposal — 38 percent supported it, and 57 percent opposed it — represents the first time since he took office that one of his major proposals has landed with a thud.

“New York City voters are barely supportive, suburbanites are opposed and upstaters are strongly opposed,” said Steven A. Greenberg, a Siena pollster. “Clearly, the governor has his work cut out for him to convince voters on that proposal.”

Mr. Cuomo, speaking to reporters at a memorial observance for Martin Luther King’s Birthday, predicted that once voters learned more about the jobs that the convention center would create and the project’s minimal cost to the state, they would be “overwhelmingly supportive” of it.

“Look, when you say, ‘Should the state build a convention center?’ the answer is no,” Mr. Cuomo said. “Why? Because it just sounds like a big expensive government boondoggle, and it sounds like the state is going to start to build the convention center and there are going to be cost overruns and it sounds like every big public works project gone bad.”

But Mr. Cuomo said that under his proposal, “this is not the state building a convention center at all,” but rather a privately financed project, pursued in cooperation with the state by Genting, the Malaysian company that in October opened a gambling parlor at Aqueduct.

The governor called Genting a “highly successful private-sector company that does this all around the globe, exquisitely well.”

The company issued a statement, responding to the poll, in which it echoed Mr. Cuomo’s forecast that voters would come around to see the benefits of the convention center.

“We’re confident,” Stefan Friedman, a Genting spokesman, said, “that once New Yorkers understand that Genting is proposing to pay for — without a dime of taxpayer money — the biggest convention center in the country, creating tens of thousands of jobs and generating untold billions of dollars in revenue for the state, support for this project will be robust.”

The poll found that voters were divided over several other initiatives that Mr. Cuomo promoted this month in his second annual State of the State address.

A narrow majority, 53 percent, said they supported amending the state’s Constitution to legalize Las Vegas-style casinos — a process that would require public approval through a referendum. The change was opposed by 42 percent.

New Yorkers were also split over Mr. Cuomo’s plan to set aside $1 billion to lure new employers to Buffalo, and over his vow to end a requirement that food stamp applicants be fingerprinted.

Some of the governor’s proposals were more popular. Nearly three-quarters of those surveyed said they supported his calls for changes in campaign finance laws, including public financing and lower contribution limits, and for accelerating a broad program of public works projects around the state.

The poll indicated that the thrust of the governor’s speech, the need for state government to focus on encouraging job creation, reflected an area in which many voters had not seen the governor as effective. Only a third of those surveyed said they believed that in the last year Mr. Cuomo had improved the state’s business climate for creating private-sector jobs.

One thing was clear from the poll: Mr. Cuomo is still hugely popular with New Yorkers. His favorability rating stood at 73 percent, roughly the same level as in Siena’s poll a year ago, not long after his inauguration.

The new Siena poll, which surveyed 805 registered voters by telephone from Jan. 8 to 12, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...er=rss&emc=rss

[BBMW]

I don't know how clearly the poll made the fact that this would be privately financed, or if so, that the poll takers believe it. They're probably thinking that state money will be used to finance the project.

[GordonGecko]

And look how they're pushing it, as a convention center. Clearly there would be a big convention center, but the only reason Genting wants to build it is to own that casino. No casino, no convention center. To be intellectually honest, this is a fullscale casino project first and foremost.

I'm for this because the money from our residents is being gambled and lost in neighboring states. I'd rather the money be spent here. My problem is with the operator selection. Clearly Genting is in Cuomo's pocket. Genting may or may not have the best offer, but this needs to be opened up to full bidding. There's no way Genting should be just handed over the keys to this unlimited monopoly fountain of cash.

[BBMW]

Based on the poll, people seem to have less problem with the casino than the convention center. They should change the marketing to play up the casino, and play down the convention center.

And it's more likely Cuomo is in Genting's profit than the other way around. If we're going to build casinos, they should zone an area for them, and let several operators build. It should not be granted as a monopoly.

[Ninjahedge]

Yeah, because you can't win money at a convention center, can you?

[BBMW]

If it has a casino you can (note, I did not say will.)

[ZippyTheChimp]

Based on the poll, people seem to have less problem with the casino than the convention center. They should change the marketing to play up the casino, and play down the convention center.

Given the higher percentage of opposition upstate, it seems to me that most of the opposition is the perception that the funding will be public. Why would people in Syracuse care if NYC built a convention center, casino, or whatever - as long as they didn't have to pay for it?

If we're going to build casinos, they should zone an area for them, and let several operators build. It should not be granted as a monopoly.

There is no way that the state constitution is going to be amended to allow only one company to operate a casino at only one site. Whether or not there would be specific zones, the issue is statewide.

Casinos are already coming to the Catskills.

http://statepolitics.lohudblogs.com/...the-catskills/
http://www.timesunion.com/local/arti...al-1424402.php

[Ninjahedge]

If it has a casino you can (note, I did not say will.)

That was kinda my point.

Even if a Convention Center might actually bring in more money to the region than a Casino (Net), people will still go for something they think they might benefit from more.

Image is everything.

[GordonGecko]

There is no way that the state constitution is going to be amended to allow only one company to operate a casino at only one site. Whether or not there would be specific zones, the issue is statewide.

The amendment would obviously not be to grant monopoly to a single company. It would permit casinos, but then who gets to build & operate those casinos. The governor wants one at Aqueduct, which would be the first. Do you think all of a sudden he's just going to let there be a casino on every street corner in NYC? Of course not, it'll start here as an experiment and there probably won't be a second one for a very long time. That's a defacto monopoly, so IMO that operator has to be chosen very carefully and MUST be subjected to a full bidding process - convention center or not. The best proposal most beneficial to the taxpayers must be chosen

[ZippyTheChimp]

The amendment would obviously not be to grant monopoly to a single company. It would permit casinos, but then who gets to build & operate those casinos.

My answer was a response to what I quoted; it had nothing to do with your point about how the company was chosen. If an RFP should be issued, then so be it, but that has nothing to do with gambling. That should be done on any project.

The governor wants one at Aqueduct, which would be the first.

The governor wants casino gambling in NY State.

Do you think all of a sudden he's just going to let there be a casino on every street corner in NYC? Of course not, it'll start here as an experiment and there probably won't be a second one for a very long time.

As I said before, you're never going to get an amendment to the state constitution passed that will allow an "experiment" by one company at one site.

You'll never understand this project unless you include the debate about casinos elsewhere in the state, specifically in the Catskills. Genting already has controlling interest in Monticello Raceway. Some people don't want casinos at all in the Catskills. Others fear that a casino in NYC would draw business away from the area.