ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - The New York Times on the state’s plan to allow four Las Vegas-style casinos in upstate New York.
Jan. 20
Early this summer, New Yorkers can expect to see proposals for four new casinos upstate. Some communities in the Catskills and Western New York are ready to welcome these gambling meccas, especially if they come with good jobs, as promised.
But at least one historic town does not want a mini-Las Vegas nearby. That is Saratoga Springs, home of the famous racetrack, the thermal springs, the Saratoga Performing Arts Center that houses the New York City Ballet in the summer, Skidmore College and other attractions.
The problem is that Saratoga Springs residents can’t say no if the state decides to place a casino in their area. In Massachusetts, for instance, local residents can vote to reject a casino development in their community. New York State law offers no community veto. It will be up to a new gaming commission and its appointees to choose where and what the new casinos will be.
Having no real say in the matter is simply unfair to the communities that are often saddled with the downsides of these gambling operations. The police often have to cope with more traffic, more crime. Local businesses often see fewer customers, not more. These casino resorts draw busloads of people, but they are designed to keep visitors on the grounds with restaurants and shops. Most people have no need to venture into the surrounding area.
Even real estate prices can suffer. Agents are already hearing that some Saratoga Springs residents are looking for “an exit strategy” if a big casino comes to town.
Even though Saratoga Springs already has some gambling connected to its racetracks, many residents say that is enough. Though state voters approved a constitutional amendment allowing casinos in November, more than 57 percent of Saratoga Springs voters said no. And they should have the right to say no to a casino.
___
https://bit.ly/1kU1FEe
The Buffalo News on the proposal for universal prekindergarten in New York state.
Jan. 20
New York City’s new mayor, Bill de Blasio, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo need to get on the same page when it comes to prekindergarten.
If they both believe that it is an important way to jump-start young lives, and they do, then they should work together for the greater good.
So far, that isn’t happening. Instead, as reported in the New York Times, de Blasio and Cuomo seem to be having their own “friendly” political sparring match over how to achieve universal pre-K.
Regents Chancellor Emeritus Robert Bennett has long talked about the clear advantages of an early childhood education. He has said that universal pre-K could offer our greatest return on investment.
The Regents would like to see pre-K mandated statewide, so that it doesn’t get cut at the local level. We agree. And the state should insist that well-qualified teachers are in front of these kids.
President Obama, also pushing universal pre-K, stresses the importance of the early years of a child’s life in building the foundation needed for success later in school and life. Pre-K is ubiquitous in many European countries. Not so here. For us, it’s an option. It shouldn’t be.
Cuomo and de Blasio have a lot in common, including their similar ages. De Blasio worked for Cuomo when the New York governor was Bill Clinton’s HUD secretary. Each man is a star in his own right, Cuomo with his political pedigree and de Blasio after taking the city by storm.
They know each other. They like each other . just ask either man. The repeated assertions of friendship are getting to be a little much, but OK. It would be easier to swallow if the two would sit down and hash out their differences over how to pay for universal pre-K.
Until then, de Blasio is trying to figure out how he is going to persuade his buddy to go along with his plan to fund the expansion of pre-K in the Big Apple by taxing the rich. That populist idea is aimed at city residents earning more than $500,000 a year.
The governor, on the other hand, is interested in cutting taxes. He says, and we agree, that New York must become more business-friendly and raising taxes will not accomplish that.
More recently in his State of the State speech, the governor announced his intention to make prekindergarten available throughout New York State. We’re waiting to hear how he would pay for such an expansion, but it’s a worthy proposal.
The New York City mayor and the governor have the same goal on pre-K. Now they have to get together on how to carry it out.
___
https://bit.ly/1aHT1Pe
The Observer-Dispatch of Utica on Martin Luther King Jr.’s legacy.
Jan. 19
“I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low. The rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight.” — Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963
You need only pick up a newspaper, punch up the Internet or listen to a newscast to know that we’re still searching for the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We’re closer than we were in 1963, but despite strides made, much of the hate that defined our nation during those turbulent times still infects America, often in new ways.
What it means is that our work is not done. If we do not embrace humanity with the passion and vigor of a Martin Luther King, we shall never overcome. Instead, hate will dominate.
-In Wesley Chapel, Fla., last week, a retired police officer allegedly shot two people - one fatally - when a man refused to stop texting during the movie previews.
- On Interstate 81, a man on his way home to Maine from Maryland, where he had been visiting family for the holidays was followed and shot to death Jan. 4 after being run off the highway in Pennsylvania. Police believe the man was a victim of road rage.
- In Florida’s Polk County, a woman plans to sue her late daughter’s school, which she claims failed to protect the 12-year-old girl from the alleged bullying that drove to her suicide last September.
These three senseless deaths - and so many more - are anchored by hate. Though King’s peaceful struggle for equality had its roots in racial injustice, his voice cried out to a much larger audience. Our nation remains scarred today by ignorance and hate not unlike that King railed against - gay bashing, bullying, ethnic and gender prejudice - despite passionate leaders who promote love, acceptance and tolerance. As for racism, it continues to tarnish our nation.
Our challenge today is not unlike the one King embraced more than a half century ago. Makaziwe Mandela, daughter of another champion of peace and righteousness, Nelson Mandela, said following her father’s death last month: “None of us are born hating another - we are taught to hate, and if you can teach a human being to hate, you can also teach a human being to love, to embrace and to forgive.”
We must become the teachers, and we can start on Monday when our nation observes King’s birthday. Children off from school need to know that this is not just an extra day tacked on to the weekend, but a day to pause and reflect on a man who was a catalyst, a game-changer. This was a man who spent 11 years traveling more than six million miles speaking out against injustice and indignity.
___
https://bit.ly/1aGJRpB
The Leader-Herald of Gloversville on a U.S. Supreme Court case involving presidential appointments.
Jan. 17
U.S. Supreme Court justices often are called upon to interpret difficult, highly technical points of law and the Constitution. At least some of them may be grateful a recent case was a no-brainer.
It is a case involving President Barack Obama’s unconstitutional appointment of members of the National Labor Relations Board.
NLRB members, like many high-level executive branch officials, normally are nominated by the president, then confirmed by the U.S. Senate. But two years ago, when some senators balked at Obama’s NLRB nominees, he installed them himself.
Obama used a “recess appointment” to appoint the NLRB members without Senate approval. Such appointments can be made when the Senate is in recess, unavailable to deal with a president’s nominees.
Previous presidents have abused the power, but not to the extent Obama did. Three federal courts already have ruled against him.
Obama made the appointments during a period in which the Senate was holding “pro forma” sessions once each three days. Such sessions often do not include enough senators to take action. Still, under the Constitution, they are sessions - not recesses.
Justices have several technical issues to address in the case. The bottom line is whether the president acted constitutionally, however.
Clearly, he did not.
___
https://bit.ly/LB2EsJ
The Poughkeepsie Journal on the president’s plans regarding the federal government’s surveillance programs.
Jan. 21.
President Barack Obama has a long way to go after announcing the United States will pull back on its sweeping surveillance programs that are an absolute affront to the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens.
In his speech Friday, the president did his level best to strike a balance between security and privacy concerns.
“.in our rush to respond to very real and novel threats, the risks of government overreach - the possibility that we lose some of our core liberties in pursuit of security - became more pronounced,” Obama conceded Friday.
But the public is bound to be skeptical about the president’s intentions, and with ample reasons. After all, Americans most likely would have been kept in the dark about the extent of these programs were it not for the leaks by former National Security Agency analyst Edward Snowden.
It never should have come to that.
Most people were aghast to learn the government has been using sweeping tactics, accessing U.S. phone records and tapping into the nation’s main Internet companies. Law enforcement and intelligence officials shouldn’t be allowed to take such actions without far more judicial oversight.
The president said he will require intelligence agencies to obtain permission from a review panel before tapping into a vast trove of telephone data - but such a panel still has to be created, and he will leave the data in the hands of the government for now.
Obama has given Attorney General Eric Holder and intelligence agencies a few months to make recommendations about how long the data should be stored and who would have possession of it.
Obama also wants Congress to authorize the panel of privacy advocates to weigh in at times during secret court proceedings, yet key details would emerge before the public can ascertain whether this idea goes far enough. As is, the secret courts hear only the government’s side of the argument when it seeks to go beyond the general scan of information and examine someone’s phone data.
While some in the intelligence community still believe the broad collection of phone and Internet data is essential to U.S. security, several federal judges rightly have questioned the legality of these practices and say there is little evidence the tactics have prevented terror attacks.
Nevertheless, even if he were inclined to, Obama can’t act independently; some of the changes he is suggesting will require legislation from Congress, which has been divided on essentially every important issue, including how far U.S. spy programs should go.
The president had little choice but to give a public address and provide some context for why he believes the spy programs can’t be outright eliminated, but these snooping strategies have to be greatly scaled back - and Obama still has not made it clear exactly how that will happen.
___
https://pojonews.co/1drX561
Please read our comment policy before commenting.