COMMENTARY
Rod Watson: Anti-casino ruling wise for a poor city
Updated: 07/10/08 8:12 AM
Nothing better illustrates the pitfalls of gambling than the bet the Senecas put down — and lost — on a Buffalo casino.
And the Senecas are the “house,” armed with a bucketful of dollars from their other casinos to pay the best lawyers money can buy.
The fact that they came up losers by betting on a casino is a metaphor for the chance the average person has by betting in one.
That’s why U. S. District Judge William
M. Skretny’s ruling against a downtown casino is good news for the nation’s second-poorest big city.
Nothing better illustrates the vacuity of casino proponents’ arguments about the benefits it would shower on Buffalo than the fact that they’re trying to build it in the shadows of the Commodore Perry housing project.
It’s the poorest neighborhood in a poor city, with median household income just over $7,500.
Many of the residents don’t even have cars. But that’s no problem; the casino would be just steps away, so the patrons would get exercise — the only return most of them would ever see after walking inside and being taken for a ride.
Barring a successful appeal, Skretny’s ruling will save countless Buffalonians — and the businesses they might otherwise patronize — from financial ruin and the social ills that come with gambling.
In essence, Skretny said the Bush administration twisted the law — imagine that — to let the Senecas open a casino on downtown land bought with money given them to settle Salamanca land claims. Congressional authors of the 1990 legislation have said loudly, clearly and repeatedly that this was never the law’s intent.
Skretny called the government’s end-around “arbitrary” and “capricious.” Does that mean the National Indian Gaming Commission could reconsider and do it right? Anti-casino lawyers say no.
“No matter what they do, the judge has ruled that this land is not gambling-eligible,” said lead attorney Cornelius D. Murray. “The judge has slammed the door.”
Attorney Richard D. Lippes agreed, saying the only route now — barring a successful appeal — would be for the Senecas to do what they avoided by going to the commission: go through a full-fledged environmental review process, including an assessment of the impact on the surrounding community.
Or the Senecas could just build something that would help revitalize downtown without the negatives. Like a smart gambler who starts out on a hot streak, they could be content with winnings from their Niagara Falls and Salamanca fleecing parlors and not press their luck here.
Admittedly, a tinge of sadness accompanies Skretny’s decision. It’s another court ruling after another legal fight in a city that seems to have trouble building or doing anything.
But having nothing happen on the site for a while is preferable to having something bad happen immediately.
The fact that they refuse to halt work or shut their temporary casino does not augur well for the Senecas’ willingness to see the big picture. But there are other projects that can pump up the economy without legally robbing the poor and the poorly educated who — unlike in a tourism mecca such as Niagara Falls — will make up the bulk of a Buffalo casino’s victims.
No doubt, the Senecas and the city bet that once they had shovels in the ground and the promise of a shiny new facility in a downtown desperate for action, no one would dare block “progress.”
But if they’re really smart, they will change course after learning the basic lesson of the Skretny ruling: Gambling doesn’t pay.
