COMMENTARY
Donn Esmonde: A swift look at ‘tragedy’ of casino ruling
Many folks are lamenting the apparent loss of the Seneca casino. I understand why.
A federal judge ruled last week that the Seneca Nation has no legal right to run its temporary casino near the downtown waterfront, much less to build a planned casino-hotel complex.
The decision prompted outraged citizens to call talk radio shows. Our mayor and county executive lamented the blow to the community.
When I look at the opportunities lost and the tradition stymied, I understand their angst.
At long last, we had found a way to relieve our guilt over the shoddy way Native Americans have historically been treated.
How better to say “sorry about that” than to allow a Buffalo casino/hotel complex that will siphon money from the larger community directly into the wallets of a sovereign nation of 7,500 members?
How better to demonstrate our generosity than to allow an entity that will take in an estimated $150 million annually — most of it from local pockets — while returning to the city just pennies on the dollar?
Look at all of the headaches a casino would have spared us. Unlike with some noncasino attractions, we would not have had to deal with the irritation of tourists. That is because the great majority of casino patrons — as noted in the Senecas’ SEC filing — would live right in this community. We would not have to fret about directing out-of-town visitors confused by the city’s one-way streets.
We would not be bombarded with whiny questions about “what else is there to do around here?”
A stand-alone casino would not lure out-of-towners, thus sparing us the annoyances that these visitors would bring.
It is more than that.
The completion of the Erie Canal Harbor project and our successful new airport raised the bar of public expectations. The pressure was growing on politicians to produce worthy projects on a regular basis.
The blunder of a money-siphoning Seneca casino would have adjusted community expectations to their historically limbo-low level. It would have spared politicians the trouble of attracting a business that does not — because folks drop money into slot machines that they once spent elsewhere — cost the community as many jobs as it creates. Imagine the pressure on our politicians if they had to live up to those high standards.
There are other ways that the judge’s ruling throws a wrench into the roulette wheel. Putting a stand-alone casino near the downtown waterfront would have spared city officials the onus of economic development. Decades of studies confirm that a stand-alone casino does virtually nothing for the surrounding neighborhood. Patrons can park, gamble, drink, eat and sleep without venturing outside the confines of Seneca-owned property. You might as well build a wall around the thing for all of the new business it does not stimulate.
A casino/hotel complex spares its patrons the trouble of venturing onto city streets in search of bars, shops and restaurants. It thus relieves city officials of the headache of deciding what sort of development to subsidize. There is no discussion or debate, because there would be no economic development to consider.
A stand-alone casino in a nontourist town is the sort of wrongheaded project that Buffalo built its negative reputation on. Here was a chance to keep that tradition alive, to match the blunder of the University at Buffalo in Amherst or the knifing of the Kensington Expressway through a healthy neighborhood.
Thanks to a lawsuit filed by some do-gooders and the decision of a clear-headed judge, it looks like we’ve blown it.
