Editorial: Don't forget to flip the ballot

Vote 'yes' on state Proposal No. 1, casino gambling

Passing this referendum to legalize gambling would lead to better outcomes than defeating it.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo's elaborate chess moves to craft the constitutional amendment and the law that implements it, and to settle what had been intractable disputes with upstate Indian tribes, have been masterful.

A win for the initiative could jump-start the upstate economy, send revenue flowing to education and municipalities, and eventually lead the way to casinos in our region.

If voters approve, this is what would happen: As many as four casinos would be built upstate as part of a resort and economic development push. Revenue would go to state coffers and municipalities. And a seven-year period would be provided to let the upstate casinos build clientele and habits, before casinos can be licensed downstate.

The genius of the setup politically is that a defeat of the amendment would bring just as much new gambling to New York -- only of a tackier variety less likely to draw bettors from other states or long-term development. A clause in the enabling legislation is designed to stop any efforts to defeat the amendment by the current operators of nine "racinos" in the state, such as Resorts World at Aqueduct. The clause says that if the casino proposal isn't approved, six video lottery terminal parlors would open. Three of those would be on Long Island, which would only get two if the referendum passes.

The mere threat of the gambling amendment's passage helped Cuomo come to terms with upstate tribes that had held back on the state's cut of revenue from their own casinos, as well as taxes from cigarette sales. For the hundreds of millions of dollars these payments would bring the state, the tribes got a promise that new casinos would not be built near their existing ones.

Voting down an initiative to legalize gambling in a state that already has five Indian casinos, nine "racinos," a multifaceted lottery, and horse betting in person, by phone and over the Internet -- not to mention illegal wagering -- would be an entirely empty gesture. In fact, for gambling opponents, it would be a worse than empty gesture, bringing with it six new slot parlors.

It's not that there isn't plenty to oppose in both the gambling expansion and the way it's been handled. The casinos may not provide as much upstate revitalization as hoped. They would inevitably increase the number of problem gamblers where they are located. Prevention and treatment programs funded by casinos would help, but wouldn't totally prevent these problems.

And why should downstate residents who enjoy gambling wait seven years for a convenient casino? Major league casinos in and near New York City, which can grab the business of some of the world's richest tourists and business travelers, are a smart bet. And the inclusion in the referendum of rosy language stating approval would be "promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes" is cheating.

But this amendment, along with the streamlining and oversight of all the bets already being placed, and the expansion it would create, is important and overdue.

The gambling issue in New York has been a fractured mess for years, and amending the constitution to fix that has been a political and ugly process. Even so, the fix is now at hand.

Vote yes on State Proposal No. 1.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 1

The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?

Vote 'yes' on state Proposal No. 2, veterans and civil service

This proposal is designed to fix a glitch that prevents some disabled veterans from getting the credit they deserve on civil service exams.

The system works like this: Disabled veterans who apply for a civil service job or a promotion are entitled to more extra points on their exams than other veterans get. A disabled vet gets 10 additional points for an original appointment instead of 5, for example, and gets 5 extra points for a job promotion instead of 2.5.

But here's the catch: All military veterans -- regardless of status -- are eligible for just one grant of additional points. This creates an inequity for veterans who won civil service jobs or promotions before they were certified as disabled. They miss out on their full credits.

This proposal would fix that by granting additional credits to those veterans who were certified as disabled after their appointment or promotion. The credits could be used on a subsequent appointment or promotion exam. This is only fair. Veterans, and especially those who suffer from disabilities as a result of their service, deserve extra recognition. Vote yes on Proposal No. 2.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 2

The proposed amendment to section 6 of article 5 of the Constitution would entitle a veteran who has received civil service credit for a civil service appointment or promotion and subsequently is certified as disabled to additional civil service credit at a subsequent appointment or promotion. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Vote 'yes' on state Proposal No. 3, debt on sewage facilities

Since 1962, New York's counties, cities, towns and villages have been able to borrow money to build sewage facilities without that borrowing counting against their debt limits. All municipalities have debt limits that are calculated as a percentage of the total assessed value of the property within their borders. The limit exists to keep these governments from overborrowing, and it generally makes good sense.

Sewage facilities have been exempted from this limit for five decades, and the exemptions have worked. Sewage facilities are extremely expensive, but once built they create their own guaranteed sources of revenue, and bonding for sewage projects generally stipulates that the revenue from such projects should go first to paying off the debt.

This amendment is most crucial for fiscally stressed upstate municipalities. Right now, it doesn't have much impact on Long Island; in general, local municipalities aren't close to their debt limits. But strong sewer systems statewide mean strong protections for the environment and a better chance of commercial and residential development statewide.

Vote yes on Proposal No. 3.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 3

The proposed amendment to Article 8, Section 5 of the Constitution would extend for 10 years, until Jan. 1, 2024, the authority of counties, cities, towns and villages to exclude from their constitutional debt limits indebtedness contracted for the construction or reconstruction of sewage facilities. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Vote 'yes' on state Proposal No. 4, Adirondacks land issue

If only all issues were so uncontroversial. Proposal No. 4 seems to have no opposition.

Its goal is to settle once and for all the ownership of some 200 parcels of land spread across a quiet Adirondacks lake community known simply as Township 40.

The plots include homes, businesses, a firehouse, school and marina. Ownership has been the subject of lawsuits between residents and the state for more than a century because of mistakes in the 1800s by surveyors, clerks, assessors and tax collectors.

Tuesday's proposal would amend the constitution and allow residents and the state to clear up ownership disputes. As part of the deal, the state would buy a lake-to-lake "canoe carry" on the Marion River and add it to the "forever wild" forest preserve.

Vote yes on Proposal No. 4.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 4

The proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article 14 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to settle longstanding disputes between the state and private entities over ownership of certain parcels of land in the town of Long Lake, Hamilton County. In exchange for giving up its claim to disputed parcels, the state would get land to be incorporated into the forest preserve that would benefit the forest preserve more than the disputed parcels currently do. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Vote 'no' on state Proposal No. 5, Adirondacks land swap

On Tuesday, a provision in the constitution that protects 2.6 million acres in the Adirondacks as "forever wild" will be seriously tested. We hope the effort fails.

Nearly 120 years ago, in one of its most enlightened actions ever, New York State decided to permanently protect its vast Adirondacks wilderness. The area had been exploited for its plentiful lumber starting in the 1600s. But by the late 1800s, clear-cutting of trees was causing severe erosion and flooding. So in the 1890s, the state designated a 6-million-acre patchwork of public and private lands as Adirondack Park, and defined 2.6 million of those acres as the Adirondack Forest Preserve.The protection was enshrined in the constitution, which says this preserve "shall be forever kept as wild forest lands." The area was put off-limits to "corporations, public or private."

Voters on Tuesday will be asked to consider making an exception. NYCO Minerals Inc. seeks to annex 200 acres of "forever wild" Adirondacks land to expand an existing wollastonite mine, which yields a mineral used in auto parts, paints and plastics. NYCO says its existing pit is nearly exhausted.

NYCO would, in return, give New York about 1,500 acres nearby to place into permanent protection. And when the 200-acre mine is closed, it would be replanted and go back to state ownership.

Some advocacy groups, such as the Adirondack Council environmental organization, want the land swap because it would expand the "forever wild" preserve. Some elected officials and business groups point to NYCO's pledge to preserve 100 much-needed jobs.

On the other side are groups such as the Sierra Club and Adirondack Wild, which oppose the amendment. Their reasons are many, but the loss of "old growth" trees for mining is a major one.

Our concern is that the proposal will open the door to increased commercial exploitation. In the century since adoption of the "forever wild" provision, voters have approved more than 20 constitutional amendments authorizing development in the Adirondacks, but these were mostly for public benefits, such as longer airport runways and the Interstate 87 highway. Tuesday's ballot initiative seems to mostly benefit a private, for-profit company. That precedent would represent a dangerous violation of the state's 1894 pledge to protect the wilderness.

Vote no on Proposal No. 5.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 5

The proposed amendment to Section 1 of Article 14 of the Constitution would authorize the Legislature to convey forest preserve land located in the town of Lewis, Essex County, to NYCO Minerals, a private company that plans on expanding an existing mine that adjoins the forest preserve land. In exchange, NYCO Minerals would give the state at least the same amount of land of at least the same value, with a minimum assessed value of $1 million, to be added to the forest preserve. When NYCO Minerals finishes mining, it would restore the condition of the land and return it to the forest preserve. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Vote 'no' on state Proposal No. 6, age limits for judges

Real issues, wrong solutions. That's the story of the referendum asking voters to raise the retirement age to 80 for judges on the state's top court and its major trial courts.

Mandatory retirement is age discrimination. And there may be a genuine need for additional judgeships to keep pace with the court's swollen caseloads. But the constitutional amendment voters are being asked to approve Tuesday isn't the answer to the state's needs.

The New York constitution currently requires judges on our highest court, the Court of Appeals, to retire at age 70. Meanwhile, lower judges on some trial courts, can remain on the bench until age 76, but to continue past 70, their judicial performance and mental and physical fitness must be certified every two years. If voters approve Proposal No. 6, those Supreme Court judges would be allowed to serve up to two additional two-year terms, until age 80. Court of Appeals judges would be allowed to serve out the 14-year term that began before they turned 70, or until the end of the year in which they turn 80.

New York's chief judge, Jonathan Lippman, said the proposal would end "a constitutional presumption of senility at age 70," and allow older judges to stay on the job to help handle the workload. But nothing in the proposal would actually end age discrimination. Raising the bar from to 80 would merely delay the onset of that indefensible prejudice.

Judges shouldn't be forced to retire at any preordained age, although they could be limited to a certain number of terms. New York however, has never had the required public hearing on whether we want judges to serve for life and, if so, how we would measure their effectiveness. These are fundamental questions that bedeviled our Founding Fathers. In this state, we have not yet had that discussion.

When the age limit for New York's judges was imposed 144 years ago, very few people lived to become septuagenarians. The age limit is an anachronism. If it was ever justified, it certainly isn't today. But ending that is not what this proposal would do.

The secondary argument -- that the age change would make about two dozen additional Supreme Court judges available over the next four years to meet an acute need in family courts -- falls flat. There's no certainty that any judges would be reassigned to the lower court.

The State Legislature should document the extent of the court logjam, especially in the family courts, and determine how many additional judgeships are needed to relieve it and approve the slots. The governor should include the necessary funding in his budget. There are more precise and more effective ways to address age discrimination and staffing concerns in the courts than those on the ballot Tuesday.

Vote no on Proposal No. 6.

STATE PROPOSAL NO. 6

The proposed amendment to the Constitution, amending Sections 2 and 25 of Article 6, would increase the maximum age until which certain state judges may serve as follows: (a) a justice of the Supreme Court would be eligible for five additional two-year terms after the present retirement age of 70, instead of the three such terms currently authorized; and (b) a judge of the Court of Appeals who reaches the age of 70 while in office would be permitted to remain in service on the court for up to 10 years beyond the present retirement age of 70 in order to complete the term to which that judge was appointed. Shall the proposed amendment be approved?

Vote 'yes' on the Suffolk development rights proposal

This proposal asks Suffolk voters whether to allow the transfer of unused development rights to fire, ambulance, police and library districts -- an expansion of a program that already allows development rights to be transferred to affordable or workforce housing projects. It deserves to be passed.

The issue has to do with health code limits on sewage produced, limits based on property size and the size and use of the building. Protected land produces no sewage, for which a credit is given. Suffolk's program allows credits earned on county-owned protected land to be transferred to developments that would produce more sewage than allowed based on their size. Hundreds of credits have piled up because no one has requested them for affordable housing.

The proposal recognizes the "vital services" provided by the districts and the need for some to expand -- for example, a firehouse that needs another bay for a truck, or a library that needs more usable space.The county legislature must be careful, however, that these credits are not abused to allow more commercialization of these public facilites, such as for catering halls in firehouses.

Vote yes on this proposal.

SUFFOLK COUNTY PROPOSAL

Shall Resolution No. 812- 2011, as amended by Resolution No. 217-2012, Adopting a Charter Law to Authorize the Use of Development Rights for Municipal Emergency, Fire, and Public Safety Corporations and Library Districts, Be Approved?