Save East Greenbush Attorney Says to Reject Capital View Proposal

RESIDENT GROUP ATTORNEY IN LETTER TO GAMING COMMISSION: REJECT CAPITAL VIEW; EAST GREENBUSH RESIDENTS ARE "UNEQUIVOCALLY OPPOSED"

East Greenbush, NY (September 30, 2014). In written comments submitted yesterday to the Gaming Commission Facility Location Board, Save East Greenbush attorney Jeff Meyer states in no uncertain terms why the Capital View application should be “summarily rejected from consideration.”

"It is evident that East Greenbush residents are unequivocally opposed to the siting of this team's casino on Thompson Hill Road," said Meyer. "It should be remembered that the residents of Saratoga Springs rejected this team, as well. Clearly these developers have had not a few missteps in their bid for a license in the Capital Region."

Meyer delineates further reasons for rejecting the Capital View application, including but not limited to: incompliance with local zoning and intended land use; impossibility of necessary infrastructure improvements; violation of the intent of the Upstate Gaming Act to locate a gaming facility in a host community in financial need; and standing litigation regarding the Town Board resolution of support. Additionally, Meyer scrutinizes Capital View’s market analysis.

Meyer: “The market analysis required in the Application was supposed to detail the recapture rate of gaming related spending by existing residents traveling to an out-of-state facility. The analysis and materials presented instead focus on maintaining existing video gaming revenue and preserving the profitability of the Saratoga Racino. Throughout the licensing process we have been inundated with propaganda on how the market is not saturated and the region can support multiple casinos, yet they constantly argue for their Capital View Casino based on the potential negative impacts to their existing business. Capital View Casino as proposed is simply another Saratoga Racino filled with video gaming machines. It is designed to keep the existing racino gamblers residing in the Albany area from frequenting a more convenient location.

“The Applicant should not be able to use the cannibalization argument as both a shield and a sword. If the market is not saturated, then Saratoga Racino should be able to remain profitable no matter where or to whom a gaming license is ultimately issued. They will have the opportunity to negotiate and structure agreements with any operator to further their own business interests. As they like to say, let the market decide, not the Gaming Commission through approving a local monopoly on gaming facilities.”