Are there enough NYC poker players who care to...

[BBMW]

TT,

You miss my point. Everything you talk about relates to using the indian gaming "loophole" to the state constitution. That brought the feds into play, but only as regards indian gaming.

I don't know why, but Pataki avoided the direct approach of just changing the constitution. This can be done. If that's done, the indian gaming issue goes away. The state could just authorize private casinos, as is done in Nevada, AC, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc..

Now, I'm not minimizing what it would take to push this through. It's a vote of both houses of the state legislature AND it has to go on a ballot for a statewide election. But casino gaming in general, and poker in particular, has gotten much more popular than it was the last time this was tried (back in the 80's maybe). I think a push now could be successful.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
TT,

You miss my point. Everything you talk about relates to using the indian gaming "loophole" to the state constitution. That brought the feds into play, but only as regards indian gaming.

I don't know why, but Pataki avoided the direct approach of just changing the constitution. This can be done. If that's done, the indian gaming issue goes away. The state could just authorize private casinos, as is done in Nevada, AC, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc..

Now, I'm not minimizing what it would take to push this through. It's a vote of both houses of the state legislature AND it has to go on a ballot for a statewide election. But casino gaming in general, and poker in particular, has gotten much more popular than it was the last time this was tried (back in the 80's maybe). I think a push now could be successful.

[/ QUOTE ]

I got your point all along, but you stand a better chance at repealing UEGIA than you do in changing the NY State constitution. I was showing how Pataki tried a back-door solution but was shot down.

[sirpupnyc]

[ QUOTE ]
Section 1. Any amendment or amendments to this constitution may be proposed in the senate and assembly whereupon such amendment or amendments shall be referred to the attorney-general whose duty it shall be within twenty days thereafter to render an opinion in writing to the senate and assembly as to the effect of such amendment or amendments upon other provisions of the constitution. Upon receiving such opinion, if the amendment or amendments as proposed or as amended shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected to each of the two houses, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be entered on their journals, and the ayes and noes taken thereon, and referred to the next regular legislative session convening after the succeeding general election of members of the assembly, and shall be published for three months previous to the time of making such choice; and if in such legislative session, such proposed amendment or amendments shall be agreed to by a majority of all the members elected to each house, then it shall be the duty of the legislature to submit each proposed amendment or amendments to the people for approval in such manner and at such times as the legislature shall prescribe; and if the people shall approve and ratify such amendment or amendments by a majority of the electors voting thereon, such amendment or amendments shall become a part of the constitution on the first day of January next after such approval. Neither the failure of the attorney-general to render an opinion concerning such a proposed amendment nor his or her failure to do so timely shall affect th* validity of such proposed amendment or legislative action thereon.
*So in original. ("th" should be "the".)

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm reading that right, it says changing the state constitution takes a majority vote in both houses in two legislative sessions followed by a statewide referendum. I'd say that's a pretty tall order...getting Silver's and Bruno's whims to align on simple issues is hard enough.

[BBMW]

I think Bruno and Silver would be the easy part. They're politicians. You just need to show them what's in it form them, like bucket fulls of tax revenue to fund their pet projects without raising taxes, lots of jobs for their constituents, lots of money for contractors (to use for campaign contributions). You get the picture. And since once you've sold them, the rest of the legislature will fall in line, you don't have to do too much with the other legislators.

The election would be tougher. There are still more than a few people around with broomsticks up their rectums that don't like gambling. But between the boom in poker, and the general rise in popularity of casinos, the tide may have turned.

[quote
If I'm reading that right, it says changing the state constitution takes a majority vote in both houses in two legislative sessions followed by a statewide referendum. I'd say that's a pretty tall order...getting Silver's and Bruno's whims to align on simple issues is hard enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mr Rick]

I think this is a great idea. But rather than try a grassroots approach why not get in touch with Al D'Amato who now heads the Poker Players Alliance. As a Republican ex-US Senator from NY he has remarkable clout among Republicans. And he is an avid poker player. Since it was the Republicans who shoved the on-line gambling ban down everyone's throats via a backdoor stealth in the dark manuever it may very well be that Silver will like it too. I believe that Governor Abrams may react positively because he is still seeking the casinos that Pataki wanted - and this may solve his revitalization effort problem without getting those casinos.

Perhaps if the ammendment to the constitution were worded explicity to allow poker only, and then by approval from a given municipality via general ballot referendum, it could give all NY politicians cover. I actually think that NY City would pass on this because they routinely fill their hotels to capacity anyway. But nearby locales, like Yonkers would be ideal sites (did I mention I live iin Yonkers?)

Note that your rosy picture of casino revenue and jobs will be disputed by many (including myself). Promises made for Atlantic City had mixed results at best. There are big financial burdens that fall on municipalities as a result of the combination of poor people and the addictive nature of gambling. And most jobs that are created are of the minimum wage variety.

[TMTTR]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Governor Abrams ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?

Anyway, there are really two exceptions to the gambling ban under NY Law. The first and biggest is the various forms of state sponsored gambling -- lotteries, horse racing, the slots in Yonkers. (The second is charitable gambling and that is only allowed with in a narrow band that does not include poker -- despite all the charitable poker tournaments.) There is very little incentive to begin the political fight to legalize for-profit gambling in any form. There is also a fairly strong and organized lobby against it (the morals/religous police as well as the lobbies paid for by the Indian Casinos and AC).

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Governor Abrams ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who?


[/ QUOTE ]
Got my Elliott's mixed up... Spitzer is who I meant...

[Jeffmet3]

[ QUOTE ]


LOL. Get off your soap box and come back when you have a law degree and 10 years of your time to invest. If you stopped to do your research you would learn its been tried before and failed, that Pataki tried to open 5 casinos upstate NY and that failed too (its not dead yet, but the Feds stopped the plan). A grass roots movement coordinated by a bunch of poker-player degenerates without clout, money, or legal experiance won't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be casinos in upstate new york, catskill mountains.

It might take another 5-10 years, but it's inevitable.

A few tribes have made some very large aquisitions in preparation for this(what used to be the Concord Hotel among other things), as well as the changing of the major highway to increase funding for expansion.

If you'd like me to go more into the dynamics behind why it is needed and will eventually happen, let me know.

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


LOL. Get off your soap box and come back when you have a law degree and 10 years of your time to invest. If you stopped to do your research you would learn its been tried before and failed, that Pataki tried to open 5 casinos upstate NY and that failed too (its not dead yet, but the Feds stopped the plan). A grass roots movement coordinated by a bunch of poker-player degenerates without clout, money, or legal experiance won't do anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will be casinos in upstate new york, catskill mountains.

It might take another 5-10 years, but it's inevitable.

A few tribes have made some very large aquisitions in preparation for this(what used to be the Concord Hotel among other things), as well as the changing of the major highway to increase funding for expansion.

If you'd like me to go more into the dynamics behind why it is needed and will eventually happen, let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know about the Concord purchase, and also Spitzer's subsequent support but the deal is now off the table until they can get around the federal regulations that dictate how Indian tribes can declare sovereign lands. Unless there is new news since February I am not privy to, the deal is nearly dead.

[baiter]

Driving from midtown Manhattan to the Catskills and driving to the Poconos takes roughly the same time. As recent posts in the legislation forum have pointed out, there is a very high chance of table games coming to PA within a couple of years (slots already coming).

For this reason I think NYC players need to be focusing less on Indian laws and regulations and trying to focus on just poker - that is, somehow proving that skill is a MUCH more predominant factor than luck.

Last time I posed this question it was left unanswered: isn't there some sort of legal precedent with backgammon (can't seem to find any info online)? Also, as funny as it sounds, pinball? Here is something I found:

[ QUOTE ]
<Pinball is a game that was banned in New York as it was considered to be a gambling game. In 1976 it was reinstated after it was proved to be a game of skill.

A ban on pinball machines in New York City (established in 1942) is lifted when Mr. Roger Sharpe, a writer for Esquire magazine, demonstrates to the City Council the ability to drop the 80 gram balls down any preselected lane at the top of a pinball machine by adjusting the way he pulls back the plunger. (Source: icwhen.com)
http://www.icwhen.com/book/the_1970s/1976.shtml

Testifying before the New York City Council at a hearing on pinball in April 1976, Sharpe, then a 27-year-old magazine editor in Manhattan, played three balls on a Gottlieb Bankshot, explaining to his audience as he played how pinball was a game of skill, not of chance. Sharpe
tells what happened next: "'Even down to this plunger,' I told them, 'there's skill. If I pull this back the right way, I should be able to send the ball into the middle slot.' I actually specified a lane, which, in retrospect, I probably should not have done. I pulled back the plunger, and wouldn't you know, boom boom, it went straight down where I had said [it would go]. These people kind of threw up their hands and said, 'All right. Enough. Fine, thanks.'"
The council reinstated pinball in New York City that summer. (Source: Cigar Aficiado).
http://www.cigaraficionado.com/Cigar...Show_Article/0,2322,608,00.html>

[/ QUOTE ]

Still, even if a powerful lobby with political backing and good lawyers could get involved here, the chances might be raised from zero to 5%. Sad.