In a hotly contested race like legalizing casinos in New York, it is worth noting what the leading newspaper editorial boards have to say about the issue.
The New York Times makes the most compelling case against casinos. Interestingly, the New York Post agrees with The Times: It is not often those two papers are on the same page, which is telling. This must be a bad idea on all fronts.
A number of other leading newspapers urge residents to vote no against casinos, including The Albany Times Union, The Syracuse Post-Dispatch and The Watertown Daily Times. Each paper makes a thoughtful and well-reasoned case against casinos.
What is even more compelling are the papers in support of casinos. Those editorials struggle to make the case for casinos and lack common sense and logic. In doing so, the editorials actually underscore why commercial casinos would be bad for the state.
The New York Daily News said casinos are a lousy way for government to raise money and will lead to more addiction, but vote yes anyway. Uh?
The Poughkeepsie Journal called the casino ballot language “one-sided” and said the state played “fast and loose with this issue,” while failing to mention the “legitimate concerns.” Keep in mind, this is an editorial in support of casinos.
Newsday actually praised Cuomo’s crass politics and secret deal-making. But then added this gem as part of its, ah, casino support: “It’s not that there isn’t plenty to oppose in both the gambling expansion and the way it’s been handled. The casinos may not provide as much upstate revitalization as hoped. They would inevitably increase the number of problem gamblers where they are located.”
With casino supporters like this, who needs an informed opposition?
Tags: casinos, editorial boards, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, New York, New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Syracuse Post-Standard, The New York Times, The Poughkeepsie Journal
Gov. Cuomo continued his “soft opening” campaign to legalize casino in New York by telling the Daily News that he would support a casino in the Big Apple.
“Like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Cuomo said he doesn’t want to see a casino in a densely populated part of the city, but would be open to putting one at a place like Aqueduct Racetrack in Queens, which already has a virtual casino,” according to the Daily News.
Does a densely populated area mean Manhattan? If so, why not? Casinos are a bad idea anywhere, but it would seem that a densely populated area like Manhattan would be the best location if Cuomo and others were serious about a casino that draws tourists and maximizes revenue. Perhaps what Cuomo and Silver are really saying is that a casino is fine in out-of-sigh and out-of-mind locations, like working class neighborhoods, but not in Manhattan where the more powerful elites live.
“I’m not excluding any locations at this time,” he told the Daily News, adding that establishing a casino in a part of the city “certainly can” make sense because the operation would capitalize on the massive population. “New York City is a real location. Albany is a real location. Buffalo is a real location.”
The Daily News said Cuomo is expected to call on the Legislature in his Jan. 4 State of the State address to give the first of two needed votes to a state constitutional amendment to legalize casino gambling in the state.
Tags: casino, Gov. Cuomo, Manhattan, New York, New York Daily News, sheldon Silver