Editorial: After congestion toll win, Gov. Hochul must say ‘No’ to casino-crutch revenue plan

Scare New York electeds off one bad idea and they’ll immediately batten on another: Witness the cadre of state Assembly members demanding a fast track for the state’s new casino licenses to make up for the revenue lost from the now-dead congestion tolls.

Assemblyman Gary Pretlow (D-Mt. Vernon), who co-chairs the Racing and Wagering Committee, is vocal about the need to get the gambling dens up and running as soon as possible.

“We have to bring the casino deals to fruition — the MTA needs the money,” he told The Post; co-chair state Sen. Joe Addabo (D-Queens) is equally eager to start stacking chips.

So they and others want Hochul’s John Hancock on a just-passed Assembly bill to grease the license-awarding path.

The MTA may need cash, but ramming through casino deals to provide it has got to be among the worst ideas yet to come from our legislative overlords — and it has some very stiff competition.

First off, the licensing process stinks to high heaven: The heavy wallets of the bidders — for the licenses in question, the minimum expected bid is $500 million on up to heaven knows how much — draw greedy pols like trash draws flies.

The fat-cat gaming operators and real-estate firms in play for the licenses have a huge incentive to cough up big for the campaign coffers of politicians with influence over the process.

And indeed the list of would-be operators reads like a rolodex of the connected and powerful: Steves Cohenand Wynn, Related Cos., SL Green andCaesars.

Cohen has handed Gov. Hochul megabucks; so has SL Green chief Marc Holliday.

Equally important, casinos in general are major economic busts in the Empire State.

Ex-Gov. Andrew Cuomo tried to sell them as big job-creators, but even a cursory look at the $200 million shortfall that slammed upstate casinos in 2018 proves they’re not all they’re cracked up to be.

Hochul deserves real credit for standing against prog madness on congestion pricing; let’s hope she shows the same spine on this inanity.

___

Jamestown Post-Journal. June 17, 2024.

Editorial: Red Flag Notices To State Agencies Should Be Treated Equally

We can’t disagree with the need for extreme risk protection orders.

Otherwise known as red flag orders, an extreme risk protection order allows a court to seize a person’s firearms if a judge agrees with a request by police or family members that a person is a danger to themselves or others. A temporary extreme risk protection order is issued by a local state Supreme Court justice, and if issued, must be followed until the judge listens to both sides at a hearing to determine whether a final ERPO shall be issued. That hearing usually takes between three and 10 days after an initial application is filed. A final extreme risk protection order can remain in force for up to a year before it is renewed or terminated by a judge. At that point a defendant can apply to have firearms returned.

State lawmakers recently debated whether or not to require courts like state Supreme Court in Mayville to file paperwork so that temporary and final extreme risk protection orders are included in the existing statewide computerized registry of orders of protection and warrants of arrest. Currently, courts submit the information to the State Police, law enforcement agencies with appropriate jurisdiction, applicable licensing officers, and the Division of Criminal Justice Services.

Why does it matter?

Frankly, it’s a matter of fairness.

Issuing the temporary red flag order involves a lower standard of proof than a final red flag order. While the proposal (A.5873/S.3340) would require a prompt notice when the red flag order is given, there is no requirement that the notification is removed if a judge decides after a red flag hearing is held that the order should not be granted – meaning someone can be flagged in state notification systems if they have done nothing wrong. So far this year, there have been 35 temporary red flag orders, with 29 of them being turned into final red flag orders. That means six people were accused by society of being a danger, but the court disagreed. Those six people should not have their rights infringed because state law treats them as if they were guilty before their case was heard. The notification requirements passed by the state Legislature is, in our view, incredibly similar to being found guilty before a trial is held.

That was the argument Assemblyman Andy Goodell, R-Jamestown, made on the Assembly floor before voting against A.5873. Democrats didn’t agree with Goodell’s argument. We hope Gov. Kathy Hochul does, even if she negotiates a chapter amendment protecting the rights of those who, it turns out, are falsely accused in a red flag case.

___

Dunkirk Evening Observer. June 17, 2024.

Editorial: NEW YORK STATE Missing the picture with cameras

Legislation introduced in the state Assembly this spring is the latest step in a troubling trend — law enforcement by camera.

Assemblyman Fred Thiele, D-Sag Harbor, recently introduced the Protect our Pedestrians Act (A.10169) to amend the state Vehicle and Traffic Law to create owner liability for failure of an operator to comply with stop signs in the villages of Upper Brookville and Flower Hill in Nassau County and East Hampton in Suffolk County.

You may ask why a bill affecting three villages on the other end of the state affects us here in Chautauqua County. The answer is simple. It won’t take long for cameras in Nassau and Suffolk counties to spread statewide — especially if the cameras bring in revenue.

Thiele’s bill isn’t necessarily about money on its face. We don’t doubt Thiele has the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists at heart. But inevitably local governments who choose to install cameras on stop signs will hope the cameras bring more money into local government coffers.

The problem is the lack of discretion that camera-driven law enforcement brings. Police officers have the ability to use discretion when they write tickets. Sometimes, a warning is given if there was no threat to public safety even though a law was broken. It’s a way to teach proper road etiquette without penalties for a first offense. As a society, our willingness to cede human intuition to cameras is worth serious discussion. The camera may not lie, but it isn’t always accurate, either. Just look at Buffalo, where school zone safety cameras ended up being pulled because they didn’t work as advertised and people got tickets they shouldn’t have received.

Everyone has to do a better job of keeping intersections safe. Drivers have to be more careful and slow down. Pedestrians and cyclists could help themselves by walking and riding safely. Everyone’s carelessness leads life-changing accidents.

But law enforcement by camera is a troubling way to ensure safety. How far are we from jaywalking tickets by camera? How about littering violations caught on camera?

Any nuisance, no matter how small, can become a cause for camera enforcement in the right, or wrong, hands. We should tread lightly with our reliance on cameras to enforce laws.

END