Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Judge Skretny has ruled that the Seneca's downtown Buffalo Buffalo casino was not properly authorized by the Department of the Interior to run gaming operations-- the land is theirs, and it is "Indian country" but it is not "gaming eligible". In order for the Buffalo property to have been gaming eligible under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act the Buffalo parcel had to have been acquired pursuant to the settlement of a land claim, but the Seneca Nation Settlement Act was not enacted to settle a land claim. It was never disputed that the Seneca owned the land where the City of Salamanca is located; the SNSA was enacted to make up for the fact that the 99 year lease was a poor deal for the Seneca. Background here; decision (long, long pdf document) here.
I've followed this pretty closely, and even made a presentation to AHIA on this topic. I think this decision is correct on the law, although the Seneca Nation Settlement Act could have been better written to have made this clear from the get-go. From the quick look I have been able to give the opinion, it seems to me that the Second Circuit is likely to find little to quibble with-- in the manner of District Court decisions there is a pretty comprehensive record. I am very pleased with this outcome. I have no doubt that quite a few people will be upset, notwithstanding the fact that the casino as it exists has provided no benefit whatsoever to the city-- just as the Niagara Falls casino has in its community.
If I were the Seneca, I'd go full steam ahead on building the hotel. The location-- near the waterfront, near the area-- is a good location, and the property could easily supplant the Convention Center for the meetings and convention business that comes to Buffalo. The Niagara Falls casino does a solid business. It has the best spa in the area; books musical acts that appeal to our demographic (not mine-- never even been tempted by Blood, Sweat and Tears, but people go); and it seems as though it does well on that basis alone, leaving the gaming aside. A first rate hotel and convention cneter in Buffalo would be competing against properties that are faded at best. The Mobil Guide gives the Hyatt three stars, the Adam's Mark two. That's pretty low-end. I've been wondering for years why the local hotel industry hasn't been more visible in its opposition to the Buffalo casino. Perhaps it was because they reckoned they were not in competition for the same business. A proper convention hotel would attract outside money, and, unlike a casino, would benefit other businesses. A casino is a gesture of contempt-- it tells the people in your neighborhood that you view them as chumps. If the Seneca are hell-bent on fleecing marks, they can run a jitney to their Falls establishment-- even at $4.50 a gallon they'll make money.
Obviously this is an argument that is far from over, but the result today is an opportunity for the Seneca to demonstrate that they meant it when they told us that they wanted to contribute to the local economy. Handled properly this can work to everyone's benefit.
I've followed this pretty closely, and even made a presentation to AHIA on this topic. I think this decision is correct on the law, although the Seneca Nation Settlement Act could have been better written to have made this clear from the get-go. From the quick look I have been able to give the opinion, it seems to me that the Second Circuit is likely to find little to quibble with-- in the manner of District Court decisions there is a pretty comprehensive record. I am very pleased with this outcome. I have no doubt that quite a few people will be upset, notwithstanding the fact that the casino as it exists has provided no benefit whatsoever to the city-- just as the Niagara Falls casino has in its community.
If I were the Seneca, I'd go full steam ahead on building the hotel. The location-- near the waterfront, near the area-- is a good location, and the property could easily supplant the Convention Center for the meetings and convention business that comes to Buffalo. The Niagara Falls casino does a solid business. It has the best spa in the area; books musical acts that appeal to our demographic (not mine-- never even been tempted by Blood, Sweat and Tears, but people go); and it seems as though it does well on that basis alone, leaving the gaming aside. A first rate hotel and convention cneter in Buffalo would be competing against properties that are faded at best. The Mobil Guide gives the Hyatt three stars, the Adam's Mark two. That's pretty low-end. I've been wondering for years why the local hotel industry hasn't been more visible in its opposition to the Buffalo casino. Perhaps it was because they reckoned they were not in competition for the same business. A proper convention hotel would attract outside money, and, unlike a casino, would benefit other businesses. A casino is a gesture of contempt-- it tells the people in your neighborhood that you view them as chumps. If the Seneca are hell-bent on fleecing marks, they can run a jitney to their Falls establishment-- even at $4.50 a gallon they'll make money.
Obviously this is an argument that is far from over, but the result today is an opportunity for the Seneca to demonstrate that they meant it when they told us that they wanted to contribute to the local economy. Handled properly this can work to everyone's benefit.
// posted by Bill @ 3:26 PM 
Post a Comment